• 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!

What about the polygamists!?! [W:693]

What say you?


  • Total voters
    87
  • Poll closed .
Thank you! Finally an explanation that makes sense to me. I can understand how multiple spouses in relation to things like wills and medical issues, etc., might impact the state. Maybe they would have to choose one spouse as a decision-maker in such instances. I'm sure a lot of those issues could have some simple solutions, but of course I'm not a lawmaker or a lawyer, so I'm not sure.

I agree. It could most likely be taken care of with a lawyer. And there are a few other issues that could potentially cause a problem, but I honestly don't know how well that could be argued (these mainly relate to the federal ban on such marriages, which would have to almost certainly have to be struck down prior to any state ban being legitimately struck down concerning polygamy).

The case that comes to mind when discussing polygamy is always the Terry Schiavo case because I think that had she had more than one husband or spouse, they both would have had equal say in whether to pull the plug (unlike her parents), and that could have truly been a legal nightmare if they had differing opinions on whether or not to remove her feeding tubes.
 
And just what are the "original intentions?" Making babies? I don't think we have to worry about that kind of thing anymore, so maybe the concept of marriage between one man and one woman is a little bit outdated.

Family. Is that ever outdated?
 
No, the entire point of the 14th was to ensure slavery was destroyed. You seem to miss that point as do many others. The last time I checked the 10th hadn't been overturned by some other amendment to the Constitution. The courts should be deferring to the States in most instances...

No, it wasn't. It had very little to do with slavery, and a lot to do with limiting state powers.
 
Two legally married spouses, of any gender combination, are legally a family. In fact, they become legal family to members of their spouse's family as well.

Only in some minds...
 
Please review historical context before posting...

I did. Although freeing the slaves was part of it, it was not its entire point because there would have been no need for the rest of the Amendment, including the Equal Protection Clause or the Full Faith & Credit Clause if that were the case.
 
I did. Although freeing the slaves was part of it, it was not its entire point because there would have been no need for the rest of the Amendment, including the Equal Protection Clause or the Full Faith & Credit Clause if that were the case.

The remainder had to do with the war...
 
They are legally family. That is part of law. You don't have to believe they are family, but the law recognizes them as such.

They are not legally family in over 30 states unless the court declares them such...
 
The remainder had to do with the war...

It had to do with limiting states rights, war or not. It still did that and that is how it has been used since that time. Now, there are certainly many times when laws have been challenged on the basis of a 14th Amendment (normally EPC) violation and the laws have stood. When the laws are affirmed as constitutional it generally has been found that the state can show a legitimate state interest furthered in the restrictions/laws.
 
They are not legally family in over 30 states unless the court declares them such...

Two people of the opposite sex who are childless are legally family. And this fact goes into why those restrictions on marriage are unconstitutional.
 
It had to do with limiting states rights, war or not. It still did that and that is how it has been used since that time. Now, there are certainly many times when laws have been challenged on the basis of a 14th Amendment (normally EPC) violation and the laws have stood. When the laws are affirmed as constitutional it generally has been found that the state can show a legitimate state interest furthered in the restrictions/laws.

Yes, how it has been "used" is the operative word...
 
Yes, how it has been "used" is the operative word...

And since there has been no legitimate push to change how it is being used, that means that most people agree with that usage, even if you don't.
 
Two people of the opposite sex who are childless are legally family. And this fact goes into why those restrictions on marriage are unconstitutional.

The courts had not declared such as of yet...
 
And since there has been no legitimate push to change how it is being used, that means that most people agree with that usage, even if you don't.

Who the **** can push the court? They're not elected and do not represent the citizens...
 
The courts had not declared such as of yet...

It's only a matter of time. All it will take is a challenge to one of those states' bans. (Which will likely take a few years to reach the SCOTUS.) When that happens, it is highly likely that those laws will be struck down in a Loving or Lawrence like decision.
 
Who the **** can push the court? They're not elected and do not represent the citizens...

All it would take would be another Constitutional Amendment. That is all it takes to overcome the SCOTUS. If there is enough support for a more restrictive interpretation of the 14th Amendment, then it shouldn't be that hard to enact an Amendment to reflect that.
 
It's only a matter of time. All it will take is a challenge to one of those states' bans. (Which will likely take a few years to reach the SCOTUS.) When that happens, it is highly likely that those laws will be struck down in a Loving or Lawrence like decision.

I'm glad that you're content to be ruled by courts, but I'm not. If you want legitimacy, take the proper route and enact an amendment...
 
I'm glad that you're content to be ruled by courts, but I'm not. If you want legitimacy, take the proper route and enact an amendment...
The Judicial branch is part of the Constitution whether you like it or not. If a law is unconstitutional, the proper route is to strike down that law via the courts.
 
I'm glad that you're content to be ruled by courts, but I'm not. If you want legitimacy, take the proper route and enact an amendment...

It's not about legitimacy, it's about equal rights.
 
I'm glad that you're content to be ruled by courts, but I'm not. If you want legitimacy, take the proper route and enact an amendment...

I'm content to be "ruled" by a government that works on a system of checks and balances and does a pretty good job of it (despite the corruption). I would prefer those judges to a simple majority of the state voters deciding who gets to do what in a state. I prefer not to have my rights decided on by a whim of 51% of those who come out to vote on an issue and who are very easily manipulated.
 
It's only a matter of time. All it will take is a challenge to one of those states' bans. (Which will likely take a few years to reach the SCOTUS.) When that happens, it is highly likely that those laws will be struck down in a Loving or Lawrence like decision.

And if they aren't struck down, then you need to be just as satisfied that justice was served.
 
Back
Top Bottom