We’re obviously referencing two different things. Per your note that “the legal definition of marriage changes routinely” I was under the impression you were referring to (per my OP) who is allowed to marry and how, not all the various internal changes in property rights etc. within a standard heterosexual marriage.
You are entirely correct that “the legal definition of marriage changes routinely” in terms of issues internal to the male-female marriage contract. I think for the “definition” of marriage to include the sanctioning of homosexual marriage is a point somewhat apart from that, and is a far more fundamental change in terms of the “legal definition of marriage”.
You may think that, but a lot of people thought that all these of these changes fundamentally altered the nature of marriage, and some of these changes were actually major changes from a legal perspective. All you are stating here is that you have arbitrarily decided some changes are more fundamental than others.
Yes, it’s entirely wrong by definition. There are only two possibilities: you can present arguments against going from allowing same-sex marriage to allowing polygamous marriage, or you can’t.
If you can, you’ve just established that same-sex marriage won’t open the door to polygamous marriage, because you think there are legitimate barriers to that next step.
If you can’t, you’ve just established that we shouldn’t care if same-sex marriage opens the door to polygamous marriage, because you can’t think of a single reason not to.
But we’ve now just turned a blind eye. Also, polyamory has existed in same sex couples for reproductive purposes. (For those who weren’t using a clinic.)
That’s not a good argument. If I want to start a corporation, I can start one with 102 shareholders. It’s just not an S-Corp.
Polygamists can only live outside the law and possibly be persecuted.
Heck, the children issue (heh) needs some work. Does the group marriage collectively have custody? What happens in a group marriage if the biological parents of a particular child or children die in an accident?
What about marital privilege in court proceedings? Can one spouse invoke, preventing all other spouses from revealing certain information?
They question to be asked is: Are states that have legalized gay marriage any closer to legalizing polygamous marriages?
I think the answer is no. I don’t think the precedent of gay marriage empowers the legalization any further. Those wishing to argue for polygamous marriages may end up going back to the same precedents gay rights activists used but that’s not the same thing.
Gay marriage and polygamous marriage may be similar in some peoples minds in terms of injustice but they are not the same thing and are not intertwined.
It’s a similar comparison between the ban on interracial marriage and the ban on gay marriage, both injustices, both similar, but clearly not intertwined as one was overturned by the supreme court and one has yet to be.
Polygamous marriage activates need to start their own band wagon if they wish to get anywhere. Those afraid of polygamous marriages if they were actually genuine in their concerns should be preparing to stop that one, but most aren’t genuine in that concern, shouting legalizing one will lead to the other is just a bigoted way to try and inspire fear of both.
Except spousal inheritance works differently than child inheritance. I’m not saying it couldn’t be done. It just would require making some choices and rewriting the law.
In California and Iowa, the court cases revolved around suspect classification analysis. Basically, in CA, the court’s reasoning went like this (I’m simplifying):
(1) Sexual orientation is something you are born with, like race; (2) therefore, sexual orientation is a suspect class, subject to strict scrutiny analysis; (3) which means the state has to provide an extremely compelling reason to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; (4) and the state is unable to provide a compelling reason; (5) therefore, the state cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for marriage.
Now, to use the same argument of polygyny, you would have to argue that polygyny is a suspect class. Is it? Here’s the wiki on suspect classification. I don’t see how being a polygamist meets the test. And I don’t see how you would be able to draw a legal line from SSM to polygamy.
Of course, from a political standpoint, you can go and argue anything you want to the legislature, and the legislature may decide to legalize polygamy one day. But it’s certainly not a necessary or even logical outcome of the legalization of SSM.
For one thing, how many people are demanding the right to practice polygamy? The near-total lack of political support has got to be a factor. And anyone who wants multiple spouses can be told to make do with just one like everybody else. No one is being discriminated against.
But what if polygamy–that is, polygyny–did become popular? What if wealthy and powerful men were encouraged to marry up all the women? That would deprive all the other men of female companionship. The fact that a man can only have one wife is a great leveler of society.
The equality issues for women have already been brought up, but notice how young the girls who enter into these relationships tend to be. That can’t be good.
I don’t think gay marriages changes the definition of marriage at all. It’s still a commitment between 2 adults who are romantically in love with each other and share a sexual relationship. It just takes sexual orientation into account, which has previously been ignored. No one is advocating marriage between 2 straight men or a gay man and a straight woman.
Wow, I can already imagine the oral arguments at the Supreme Court: “Justice Scalia, the court should allow polygamy because it’s not much of a legal stretch!” Why, the briefs practically write themselves.
If it’s such a short legal stretch, how come you are unable to provide even a hint of legal reasoning as to how polygamists qualify as a suspect class? How come nobody in this thread can provide any legal argument as to how SSM and polygamy are legally related? All you’ve done is engaged in hand-waving.
This is an important difference between SSM and polygamy; the anti-polygamy side has plausible arguments for its position. One can certainly argue against them, yes - but their position isn’t the baseless joke that passes for the anti-SSM side. They aren’t reduced to endless variations on “God says so!” and “it’s icky!”
No, you’re missing the point. Polygamy in its legal form (according to US Moral Penal Code and several state laws) is practiced all over the US. Have a wife and a mistress? Polygamist. And guess what? Only the Mormons are getting prosecuted for it.
The de-criminalizatin of homosexuality happened decades ago…Lawrence showed us how so-called ‘unused’ laws are harmful.
I wouldn’t be opposed to a limit to the number of people on a poly marriage. Two, however, is rather unfortunate.
And goes against human instinct.
anyway, Scalia went overboard in his dissent, but some of it is worth noting.