First I think you'd need to actually be able to SHOW some sort of discrimination being done. For example, blacks were able to clearly show discrimination because they were clearly able to show that different classes of people were denied the ability to marry classes of people other classes of people were able to marry. IE, they were able to show that white people could marry white people, but black people couldn't marry white people, thus showing inequality in the fact that blacks could not do the same thing whites could do (marry white people).
This is the same argument I use with gender. I can show that men can marry women, but can show that women can't marry women. Therefore I can show a clear example of discrimination where the law allows one group of people to do something that is explicitely unable to be done by the other.
You, or whoever wishes to argue the polygamist argument, must show a clear example of discrimination and exactly how they're being discriminated against. Simply saying "polygamists are discriminated against because they can't marry who they want" is not an argument nor showing clear examples, because the law does not allow ANYONe to "marry who they want". You need to articulate clearly the discrimination first and foremost. Until you, or others, are able to do that, its irrelevant in continuing to argue this because you're not providing any kind of actual argument.
Now, second, is the notion of burden or state interest. Mind you, you seperated these two things but they are one in the same. The states INTEREST in not allowing polygamy is the undue burden it would put on the state.
Its very simple, so walk with me on this.
Marriage bestows a number of benefits to the spouses that, for the sake of not personally knowing a good word for it, I'll call "Joint Power". These benefits I speak of are things like the power to make medical decisions if the spouse cannot, benefits regarding shared financial situations, regarding estate, regarding rights with regards to divorce, and other such things where essentially the legal power over certain things joins between the two spouses.
Is it rational to suggest that adding multiple individuals to such a contract would have the relatively likely potential cause complications with regards to who exactly has the final say or who exactly has the control in those various situations between the multitude of spouses? This is especially true in situations where for example a man marrys one woman, and that woman marrys another man, who is married to another woman, and yet there is no connection between either of the two men nor between the second woman and the first two individuals.
Now, is it rational to suggest that if such situations occur they will most likely require court action to make a judgement call on the situation?
Now, after that, is it rational to suggest that such a thing will increase the amount of court action that is required in general across America?
Is it rational to suggest it is in the governments interest, of any degree, to keep the amount of action filling its courts lowered due to the cost, increase amount of time needed, and the slow down it causes on each case the more cases that are added?
Is it rational then to suggest that performing the action of discriminating against multiple person marriages will result in something that is in the interest of the government to have occur?
The argument above is based on only one singular potential issue with polygamy, which is questionable whether or not it'd even rise to the level of the lowest tier of the EPC and of which no legitimate argument of any kind of factual basis has been presented it would reach a higher tier.
That is fine if you find it whimsical. The law however does not. The law finds that rights can be restricted or even disallowed to people upon certain conditions. This happens every day in our society.All whimsical, IMO, if marriage is a fundamental right of the people.
And here you're equivocating, you're complaining about the way things are, forming your own fantasy world in regards to how it should be, and then telling people they should make judgements on the law of today not actually based on law but based on your fantasy world.I understand fundamental rights can be infringed upon, and restricted to special classes, but if this is the case, just how fundamental are they to begin with? That's the point.
Whether or not you believe rights can be infringed upon, or whether or not a right that is infringed upon is fundamental or not, is irrelevant to the fact that under the law as it is now rights CAN be infringed upon if certian requirement are met and that such a thing does not negate them as rights. Until such a notion is overturned that is the law as we have to work with. You are arguing against one particular piece of legal action by suggesting that its invalid due to something that would need legal action in and of itself to be even made true.
Heh, should've read all the way down instead of replying as I wentPresently, right now, and for this issue, and the understanding of the 14th Amendment, you are entirely correct. I hope I'm not coming across like I think you're wrong, only that I highlight that there is a kink in the armor with regard to marriage rights, and whether it applies to the 14th, or should even apply at all.
Yes, it does seem like you're saying that I'm incorrect...because we're discussing a news story, not having a philisophical discussing concerning what should happen with one hypothetical situation when its placed in an entirely different hypothetical situation that is significantly different then the real world we live in today.
You see a chink in the armor, but I disagree. Said chink in the armor is not an issue until there until what you suggest action comes to pass, a notion that at present seems highly unlikely. IF it ever comes to pass, then there is a legitimate argument to be made whether or not the 14th amendment applies to marriage. However, until such point, you are simply arguing a hypothetical with an argument that requires a completely seperate hypothetical to even be not just valid, but able to be reasonable debated. As even if we indulge in your hypothetical and assume that such things are no longer constitutional rights, it still is not unquestionably clear whether or not the 14th amendment would govern it since there are rights not granted by the constitution or constitutional rulings that one could still suggest the states are not allowed to do under the 14th amendment.
So I guess what I'm saying is you're making an argument that has no legs, and needs reality and law to completely shift just to allow said argument to walk let alone to run away like Usain Bolt as unquestionable truth.
I'm not saying its not an interesting hypothetical and one perhaps meriting discussion, but it is something that is far more into the hypothetical realm then the pracitcal realm at this time in regards to the current court cases at work.