• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Polygamous Montana Trio Applies For Wedding License

More support for polygamy than monogamy in the human species in general, not to mention every other species on Earth, so yeah, one could say that a monogamous relationship, evolutionarily speaking is a relatively new concept.

Tim-

Men do tend to have polygamous tendencies for sure. Women, not so much.
 
The best answer that I have found, after some in depth research into recent court cases, for the answer to your question is, "the state." Specifically as it relates to the tax incentives and inheritance laws of marriage. If a polygamist relationship is allowed, then the probability of fraud goes up quite a bit and thus, the State could be forced to pay out the benefits of a polygamous relationship with very little control over the supposed societal benefits associated with a family structure that is anchored by marriage.

Not going to fly, economics has nothing to do with it, nor does the threat of fraud. As far as inheritance laws, same thing, inheritance laws would remain what they are now, with some minor tweaking.

Tim-
 
Men do tend to have polygamous tendencies for sure. Women, not so much.

Have you met the modern American women? :) Women are now beating men in infidelity, in the west. I attribute most of that to once they get old enough, and see no inherent danger in infidelity due to no fault, and the win-fall from changing partners, what's to stop them?

Tim-
 
The Slaughter-House Cases had nothing to do with stare decisis. It was the Supreme Court's first interpretation of three clauses in the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment... "This Court is thus called upon for the first time to give construction to these articles [the Privileges or Immunities, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses]."

And as such created the policy on how to use the clauses in future, i.e. "stare decisis."

The Slaughterhouse ruling prevents SCOTUS from using the 14th Amendment's Privileges and Immunities Clause because it clearly held that rights granted by individual states to their citizens are not protected by this clause. SCOTUS courts have rarely directly overturned prior SCOTUS rulings because of stare decisis. The most prominent case was Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Fergusson through an unassailable 9 - 0 unanimous decision.

Now while Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, it was a 6 - 0 decision under 14th Amendment Due Process (5 justices) and a concurring opinion from Sandra Day O'Connor who used Equal Protection rather than Due Process. Since the decisions in both Lawrence and Obergefel did not have an unassailable majority, IMO each Majority was compelled to use Due Process because they could not establish application of the 14th Amendment Privileges and Immunities Clause without it.


In McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, Justice Thomas provided a long, detailed analysis of the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment Pr&I Clause. He argued for reviving it and using it, instead of the Due Process Clause, to gauge which rights are truly fundamental, and therefore deserving of greater protection, and which are not.

Granted, and one of the few times I've found myself in agreement with his reasoning...

He was especially concerned with the fact "substantive" due process is a legal theory which lacks any guiding principle and therefore invites the arbitrary invention of new fundamental constitutional rights.

...but here we diverge because IMO such a guiding principal is needed for just such cases as Roe, Lawrence, and Obergefel to protect an individuals inherent (or "natural") rights from the tyranny of the majority. Whether or not you and I personally agree that Due Process is the best vehicle for use, it will continue in this manner until clarified by an unassailable SCOTUS majority decision.

If you want to believe equal protection played any part in Obergefell except as window dressing Kennedy threw in to try to shore up an indefensible, lawless decision, knock yourself out.

I believe it because the decision clearly asserts is, as I pointed out via direct quote from the decision itself.

The majority does not seriously engage with this claim... The central point seems to be that there is a “synergy between” the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause, and that some precedents relying on one Clause have also relied on the other. Absent from this portion of the opinion, however, is anything resembling our usual framework for deciding equal protection cases...

[T]he majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. [“t is a well-established principle governing the prudent exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction that normally the Court will not decide a constitutional question if there is some other ground upon which to dispose of the case.”] In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.” Lawrence, 539 U. S., at 585 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)


As you must know, citing O'Connor's concurring opinion which merely added a sixth vote based on a different legal point to a decision already having 5 votes using Due Process has only persuasive value. It does not bind anyone to the rationale you've have presented in the above analysis. Review of the actual decision shows that although Due Process AND Equal Protection was used in the Obergefel decision, the argument for Due Process fundamental rights was supported by privileges and immunities.

In any case, despite both your (and Clarence Thomas') concern over the validity of the decision, just as in both Roe and Lawrence, it is now established case law. Just because you don't agree with it does not make it any less the law of the land.
 
Not going to fly, economics has nothing to do with it, nor does the threat of fraud. As far as inheritance laws, same thing, inheritance laws would remain what they are now, with some minor tweaking.

Tim-

So, is the community property in a three way marriage 1/2 husband and 1/2 wives, or is it 1/3 each? There is no precedent for that issue.
 
Not going to fly, economics has nothing to do with it, nor does the threat of fraud. As far as inheritance laws, same thing, inheritance laws would remain what they are now, with some minor tweaking.

Tim-

These are the arguments advanced, and affirmed, as recently as 2013. Brown v. Buhman, Utah District Court
 
So, is the community property in a three way marriage 1/2 husband and 1/2 wives, or is it 1/3 each? There is no precedent for that issue.

Not sure, but something like that would be the territory of the states to regulate.

Tim-
 
The problem is that if polygamy becomes common then there will suddenly be an ever growing group of people for whom even one marriage partner is unavailable.
That's an interesting point.

From a man's perspective, I suppose I would be concerned that Bill Gates & his buddies then get a gazillion wives, while the guy on disability gets none?

Then again, Carly Fiorina & Martha Stewart might make-out alright.

Or, did I just reduce humankind to money grabbing marital leaches?
 
Not sure, but something like that would be the territory of the states to regulate.

Tim-

Yes, it would. It's also an example of many issues that would arise from polygamy.
 
So, is the community property in a three way marriage 1/2 husband and 1/2 wives, or is it 1/3 each? There is no precedent for that issue.

:lol: Might make some men question the wisdom of polygamy. My wives are divorcing me... they're taking 2/3. :(
 
These are the arguments advanced, and affirmed, as recently as 2013. Brown v. Buhman, Utah District Court

That's a district court, and although I have not read that decision, I would argue that, especially with this most recent decision, the two would not confer the same meaning.


Tim-
 
I find it quite amusing that homophobes seem to think the polygamy and SSM are related. The truth is that polgamy is only legal in muslim countries that deny gays even basic rights. So the truth is the legalization of SSM makes polygamy even less likely to accepted. None of the 21 countries that have endorsed SSM have allowed polygamy too. The idea that we will be the 1st is laughable.
 
:lol: Might make some men question the wisdom of polygamy. My wives are divorcing me... they're taking 2/3. :(

Any man who thinks he can keep two women happy, when the rest of us have to struggle to keep even one happy, is not grounded in the real world anyway.
 
I guess that explains the absence of crosses on government buildings and mangers on the court house lawn. The government doesn't allow that kind of religious expression on government property. But of course, people are free to practice their belief everywhere else...as long it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.
No - you see, buildings don't have constitutional rights, people do - which explains the presence of crosses and stars dangling from chains around the necks of government employees inside government buildings and on the court house lawn.

The government doesn't endorse religious belief either. So if a government employee's personal religious beliefs interferes with their job serving the public, then they should be fired.
Thankfully we have rule of law that protects our rights from the "FIRE THEM!" mobs wielding torches and pitchforks that would see those rights stripped away...
 
That's a district court, and although I have not read that decision, I would argue that, especially with this most recent decision, the two would not confer the same meaning.


Tim-

What language from the new holding would you point to as your reason?
 
Those are not fundamental rights, so the standard necessary for a State to prove is lower. Again, in order to uphold a law which infringes upon a fundamental right (marriage), the State has to prove that is has a compelling interest and that its law is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. In the scenario of polygamous marriage, the State has managed, in every case thus far, to meet that burden.
The fundamental right is the right to marry. These are benefits of marriage.
 
What language from the new holding would you point to as your reason?

Mainly that of substantive due process and an individuals right to dignity, liberty free of government interference, and the pursuit of happiness, absent a compelling state interest.

Tim-
 
Sad to say that the economics of various forms of marriage really doesn't even touch the rational basis test under the 14th. Economics of and by the people wishing to enter into new forms of marriages is not a material disqualifier, Taylor.

Tim-
Oh, if the potential economic toll is substantial enough, I'm fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS will pull an "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" decision out of its ass. In declaring this a fundamental right, they basically had to change the definition of a fundamental right, perhaps they'll just refine it in such a way that excludes polygamy.
 
I love it when CONs try and call Liberals bigots when it comes to marriage.

Not that CONs are any more would be onboard for multiple than they are for SSM, they just think they have a gotcha moment.

Now about polygamy- the horse is behind the cart on this one. A few 'religious' types recognize the multiple partner marriage- it is majority convention that keeps it illegal in courts (the same thing CONs claim they have on their side when it comes to SSM). SSM now has social convention and the law on it's side- it is a few 'religious' types who refuse to accept SSM.

Now I'm all for legal, out in the open polygamy... as it stands now the 'sister' wives draw welfare as single moms- they call it feeding on the beast. Let's get them out in the open and the husband having to support his harem rather than taxpayers.

Justa thought.... :peace
 
Oh, if the potential economic toll is substantial enough, I'm fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS will pull an "all pigs are equal, but some pigs are more equal than others" decision out of its ass. In declaring this a fundamental right, they basically had to change the definition of a fundamental right, perhaps they'll just refine it in such a way that excludes polygamy.

To answer this I'll post what I posted in the US Constitution forum earlier in the week. To wit:

To me, when it all breaks down to its constituent parts, fundamentally marriage is a contract. For some, that contract extends first to God, and then to the person with whom one enters freely, and willingly, uncoerced into said contract. We have always had the right to enter into binding agreements in this country, and absent any manifestly unfair provision, or unfair condition precedent, the contract will stand and be enforced by the power of the court. However, marriage is a bit different than any other contract in the US, it carries with it certain burdens that, regardless of wants and needs, the government has provided must be present, even if not explicitly stated or mentioned in the marriage certificate. Mostly, these government addendums apply when the contract is broken, namely equitable distribution, child support, and various other probative necessities. Interestingly, marriage promises (Nuptials/Vows) made by the parties to the marriage contract have no legal weight, except separate pre-nuptial agreements that inandofthemselves are shaky or breakable, according to government enforcement, so one has to ask themselves, just what is a marriage, legally? The answer is, that legally a marriage is a contract unlike any other contract we have, and follows no legal condition for resolving conflict - not to mention performance like any other contract we have, so is it a contract at all?

If not a real contract, or for sake of argument, not an completely enforceable contract (Vows etc..).. Then exactly how is this marriage a recognizable, and more importantly, fundamental right, if, as we can examine objectively, the government has placed restrictions and provisions condition precedent in order for this fundamental right to be freely entered into? I see no other fundamental right that requires the degree of governmental interference required with marriage. So one has to ask, just who has jurisdiction over the conditions of marriage? I say that, if one acknowledges that the state or government has necessary involvement in marriage for the purpose of deciding fairness and equity, then where does, or why does the federal government have power over the states to solve legal disagreements?

The answer when closely examining marriage in practice, is that, marriage isn't a fundamental right, or at least it isn't acting like one. It's a civil matter, like all other civil matters, and has long been established that civil matters are the property of the several states, even civil domestic matters. Justice Ginsberg herself made this claim nary a few short years ago, but ignored it, several days ago when joining the majority.


Tim-
 
Family. They're a family. And yes they do look happy. I'm all for what they're doing since it seems to work for them. It isn't for me, but I'm all for it if it works for them.

Exactly....

But there are those among us who believe that everyone must be like them... must worship like them..... must have the exact same moral code as them..... must have the exact same sexual orientation as them..... etc.
 
In an ideal world, that's how it should be.

However, there is the issue of Social Security spousal benefits, of sharing medical insurance, of inheritance, of community property, filing taxes jointly, and a whole lot more that is in the state or federal government's purview.

Better to issue a civil union agreement to anyone who wants to share in the above benefits, and leave the term "marriage" up to the individuals and/or their religious institution. Render unto Caesar and all that.

So we are back to crying over the "term" marriage.

Well my religion allows for same sex marriage, polygamy, and monogamous heterosexual marriage as well.

So therefore.... People may refer to their marriages as such.
 
Marriage is not a "contract" to a man and woman who are truly married.

But, in the eyes of the law it is.

And that is what the constitution considers.....
 
Not sure what you mean....are you saying it's the employees that are being discriminated against....or the Gays.

Since the government isn't a house of worship or endorses any religious belief.....how about firing those government employees that refuse to do their jobs and replace them with ones who will? Unless you're trying to suggest that your entire state is bigoted, that is.
The gays will be the ones to be discriminated against....... as this legislation is clearly a result of the gay marriage debate, and the striking down of our state's laws refusing legal marriage recognition to same sex couples.

You clearly didn't understand my comments, as I was saying that the amount of gay people in the state is not a reason to allow discrimination just because they may be few in number.

The few in number magistrates, however, will create a situation in which, under this "religious freedom" bull**** law, allows for a greater number of same sex couples to be discriminated against because if the one magistrate available claims this "deeply held religious belief", same sex couples are now denied access to marriage.
 
I think you are missing my point. Please see below.


No, society is worse off when there's less personal restraint.
Only when that lowered personal restraint violates ANOTHER person's rights. If it does not violate another person's rights, then society is not "worse off".
No, not state imposed, personally or society imposed. The expectation of self-imposed restraint.
It's pretty clear that we, as a society, are losing that, if we haven't lost it already.
And that is the result of freedom. I enjoy freedom... do you? Is freedom okay as long as it follows along with only YOUR traditions?


Think back to the Roman empire and their excessive hedonism that was partially responsible for their downfall. The parallel is pretty clear. Unfettered, unrestrained hedonistic societies don't last long.
As I recall history, the Roman Empire fell around the same time Roman Catholicism came around.....
 
Back
Top Bottom