Discussion for article #238115
Comprehension is lacking with this guy.
12 Likes
From what I understand, since there is no place in this country that allows a three person marriage, there is no discrimination. Gay couples had a case to back them up because heterosexual couples could get married but gay couples were not allowed. The âEqual protection under the lawâ wonât apply here
23 Likes
This guy obviously isnât much of a Constitutional scholar. The ruling wasnât a green light for polygamy, the SCOTUS ruling simply said that all conservative Christians must get gay married or face an IRS investigation and gun confiscation. Sheesh.
54 Likes
âMy second wife Christine, who Iâm not legally married to, sheâs put up with my crap for a lot of years. She deserves legitimacy,â
He should probably try a different tack, like, âWeâve been in a loving and dedicated relationship for decades, but the state denies our legally recognizing this out of hatred, persecution, and bigotry.â The whole door prize for her sticking with a dick all these years just doesnât sell the idea.
13 Likes
My dog, Sandy, and I await the outcome with interest.
10 Likes
I could not care less if they legalized polygamy, but under one condition onlyâŚyou only get one bite of the apple at a time. You can claim one and only one spouse at a time to be designated eligible for any tax purposes and/or local, State or Federal benefits. This, to avoid fraud and gaming the system for personal profit. Beyond that, why should I care how many folks someone marries. Go for it, under these conditions.
12 Likes
Obviously the gay marriage ruling has no bearing on this, butâŚ
It might be worth considering on its own merits. These people are already in polygamous relationships, but only one wife is legally married. The other women become single mothers with no income, which makes them eligible for financial help from the government, regardless of household income. There is good reason for why:
âNinety percent or more of the fundamentalist Mormons donât want it legalized, they want it decriminalized,â
They like the status quoâprovided they donât have to risk jail.
1 Like
Guess he never studied math. The decision did not change that marriage is between two people, nor is there ANY such push from liberals. In fact, if there was to be a push for it, it would be from conservative Mormons.
4 Likes
Ah, this will thrill the âI TOLD YOU THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!!â right-wingers.
Despite all the âallowing gay marriage will lead to polygamyâ hysterics, they are not and never have been comparable. Polygamy is inherently unequal and exploitative, assigning one group of participants to secondary status (and also, in broader social terms, allowing the wealthy and powerful to drain the marriageable pool).
7 Likes
Based simply on the information in the news story, thereâs no obvious reason for disparaging this guy - unless one has religious objections of some sort to polyamorous relationships. If itâs OK with the people involved, that should be the end of the story.
The SCOTUS decision, however, doesnât directly apply either. In fact, there are all sorts of legal difficulties in dealing with any sort of âmarriageâ involving more than 2 people. E. g. property rights, inheritance, divorce, tax consequences, etc. We simply donât live in a society that has seriously faced the issues. Perhaps just allowing people in such relationships to incorporate as a group would deal with most of the issues. The traditional concept of âmarriageâ is just a bad model and needs to be retired or rethought.
But at the very least, there should be no legal/criminal prohibitions of consensual multi-party relationships. I donât see this actually discussed much in the news, so this may not currently be a serious problem.
6 Likes
Those FLDS compounds with a patriarch and a dozen âwivesâ would be poorer by tens of thousands of dollars a year each.
Although itâs theoretically possible to do polygamy in an equitable way, I find it hard to imagine courts in such areas applying family law in ways that the rest of the country would countenance.
2 Likes
On a campaign stop in 2012 in Concord, NH, the subject of polygamy came up as Rick Santorum compared it to same-sex marriageâŚand he got nowhere with his false equivalency attempt and didnât get the response he expected in his âdebateâ with a gathering sponsored by New England College:
[Santorum: âSo anybody can marry multiple people?â
Crowd members grumbled and shouted over each other. Santorum called
for order again - âOK, maybe we canât do this,â he said. âWeâre going to
have a civil discussion or move on to another question.â
The crowd quieted and one woman spoke for the pro-gay marriage faction by saying that married couples donât harm anybody.
Replied Santorum: âWhat about three men?â He was being provocative and might not have expected the answer he got.
âGo for it,â she quickly replied. Once he realized that she was condoning
polygamy among same-sex couples, Santorum sarcastically framed the
pro-gay marriage argument: Anybody, he said, can marry as many people as
they want. The gay rights supporters stood and applauded Santorum,
mocking him.]
1 Like
BTW: This topic does get the attention of many of the Tea Party and Conservatives most fervent supporters:
3 Likes
Stupid stunt. Ending gender discrimination in marriage law on an equal Pritection and due process basis does not open up or even logically follow that it means multi-partner marriage can or must also be sanctioned.
5 Likes
Well, I am somewhat concerned about an imbalance of power. Two spouses might overwhelm a third, on all manner of marriage negotiation (jobs, money, kids, even whether to divorce). In fact, who would you divorce? Just the opposite gender spouse? Everyone else involved?
2 Likes
Frothy is farrrrrrrr too dense to realize that itâs already permissible to marry as many people as you wantâŚas long as you divorce each one before marrying the next, like Newtie Baby (chemo-bedside divorce papers delivery non-withstanding)
1 Like
If society determines at some future point that marriages among more than two people is acceptable, then who am I to argue? The problem as I see it, however, is that most of the evidence concludes that itâs harmful to at least one of the parties.
1 Like
Heâs also looking forward to being married to Fido, a prophecy foretold by Santorum.
Unlike same-gender marriage, there actually are valid reasons for the state to restrict legal marriage to couples only. From the inherent issue of structural coercion within said relationships, to lack of clarity in emergency medical decision making, to joint-property and child custody issues, etc. etc.
Ending gender-discrimination in marriage law (which violated the 14th Amendment) simply does not logically or rationally follow that multi-party marriages can or must follow.
And I say that as someone who is 100% ok with polyamorous relationships for people if it is among consensual adults.
15 Likes