Before they get done redefining marriage, it will be legal between a brother and a sister, father and daughter, a mother and son, gay men/women, straight men/women will be allowed multiple spouses and the consent laws will get lowered. And who knows maybe a man who loves his sheep or the woman who loves her cat. You keep hearing more and more people willing their money to their animals.
Now there's a non-sequitor red herring. Leaving their money to their animals for the care of said animal is a whole other creature (no pun intended) from wanting to marry said animal.
What part don't you get, it doesn't have to be legal for someone to practice polygamy. In Utah for practicing playing house with multiple wives came with jail time if caught. The judge changed that.
First off you can't complain about polygamy being allowed and then warn next they will allow women to have multiple husbands. It's one in the same. Up till now most of what you've posted, intended or not, put forth the concept of polygamy and the rest of your slippery slope being legal. Which is why everyone's been arguing against you that it's not. And before you tell me that's not what you been putting out, why are we all telling you the same thing? Like I said, you may not have intended to express your view in that manner but you did.
Living with multiple partners is not polygamy. It's polyamory. Marrying multiple partners is polygamy.
Actually, polyamory is holding multiple intimate relationships at the same time. It does not necessarily require co-habitation or marriage. Secondly, there are at least 2 if not 3 aspects to marriage; legal, social and religious (the last two possibly being considered as one). One can get married without going through the state. In such a case the marriage is not legally recognized and thus no laws dealing with marriage and bigamy and such can be applied. But to claim that those people who are living in polygamy are not simply because there is no paperwork is disingenuous.
The pro-gay movment had to first tackle sodomy laws before moving on anything else. Likewise the pro-polygamy movement has to move on cohabitation before anything else. Next will be insurance, adoption, housing and job discrimination, just like SSM went. When there is sound legal foundations for those agenda items then the fight for polygamy will begin at the federal level, just as with SSM.
The pro-gays tackled it because they were the only ones targeted by it. Sodomy by legal definition was any act other than straight vaginal intercourse. This included both oral and anal regardless of gender combination. However, those enforcing the law were only targeting gays with the law. It was a blatant abuse of the law for discrimination. Had they enforced it across the board those laws would have fallen a lot sooner.
All arguments in support for SSM also support polygamy. There is no argument unique to SSM, or polygamy, for that matter. To allow one is to allow them all.
You could include incest in that as well, especially in dealing with those only legally related.
I was simply eluding to the "slippery slope" that many believe SSM creates for cases such as this. The slippery slope being that once we start altering what we believe to be marriage with the repeal of DOMA, other forms of marriage would follow behind.
Actually it would be a return to these states of marriage (with the exception of human/animal if someone wants to try to make that argument) as poly and same sex and incest marriages have all existed in the past and with government approval.
What next? You going to post a story about the price of tea in China so you can stir the debate about gun control?
If multiple people were taking that position earlier then it would be a logical move.
I'm pretty sure absolutely no American court has said that.
Where the hell have you been? For a long time the courts were telling people they couldn't marry outside their own race. People even got arrested for it as in Loving v. Virginia. It was also illegal to marry your own gender. It's also illegal to marry someone related to you by blood or legality (within a certain distance). So yeah the courts have been telling people that they can't by the very act of upholding the law.
I believe you thought the article was evidence that DOMA somehow influenced a judge to rule in favor of polygamy. I believe that once it became clear that the judge's 1st amendment ruling had nothing to do with DOMA you tried to save face by concocting this ruse that the story had nothing to do with the thread even though the title of the thread is "Polygamy Advocate Groups Hail Judge Ruling in Utah." I believe that the best argument YOU can come up with against polygamy is "well the gays are not allowed to marry." I believe in the future you should read things before you post them and make sure they actually say what you think they say before you try to "stir debate."
That is just what I believe. Good night.
Um...doesn't the thread title HAVE to be that because it's the article's title....by DP rules?