- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 66,358
- Reaction score
- 29,642
- Location
- Rolesville, NC
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Gender-based discrimination arguments have not prevailed (and for the most part have not even been argued). It's all been on the basis of discriminating against homosexuality.
What state interest is protected by denying marriages of more than one?
The larger point, of course, is the general argument that it's nobody's business who people choose to marry. If those of the same sex wish to marry, who's to say they shouldn't be able to? Likewise, if more than two people wish to marry, what business is it of anyone else?
"Polygamy" is marriage. If there are those who call themselves "polygamists" but reject marriage, then it's they who are using the wrong term. If there's confusion, then it's their fault.
But that's neither here nor there; this is obviously about marriage, not some other arrangement.
Just because it hasn't been fought the way it should be doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. The gender argument is absolutely valid. A person is not allowed to marry another person based on their genders, not sexualities.
A homosexual person can marry either a homosexual or a heterosexual of the opposite sex. A heterosexual person can marry either a homosexual or a heterosexual of the opposite sex. Both of these are completely legal marriages. However, neither a homosexual nor a heterosexual person can marry anyone of the same sex as themselves. Civil marriage is not about love or attraction. It is about setting up certain legal rights and responsibilities to a person, and legally bringing a non-blood relative into your family and you becoming a legal member of theirs. The personal marriage is about love and/or attraction (most of the time).