The argument is that with, for instance, same sex marriage, gay people are the class being burdened, and they exist whether or not they’re allowed to be married. But since polygamists are defined by multiple marriages*, and there are no people in multiple marriages, there’s no group called “polygamists” to be burdened.
It isn’t clear that we aren’t dealing with a class of one in terms of who is advancing this argument, though.
Because it’s the marriage that makes a polygamist, they claim. Marriage doesn’t make gay people gay.
It’s a stupid semantic debate, but unfortunately, we don’t have a widespread word that means “people who are wired to be romantically and sexually involved with more than one person at a time without deceit or drama.” “Polyamorists” means that, but it’s not a widely known word.
So the better statement to debate, and the one I’ve been pretending is what was said all along is, “Polyamorists are not a “class”…”
Good point.
Does anyone other than Diogenes beieve that polygamists are defined by multiple marriages, and there are no people in multiple marriages, QED there’s no group called “polygamists” to be burdened?
Yes, I actually agree with him on that point. It’s why the term “polyamorists” was invented, because we can’t be polygamists.
Logically, one would assume that polygamy is the parallel term to monogamy, and plural marriage the parallel to, uh, marriage, but in actual usage, polyamory is the parallel term to monogamy, and polygamy the parallel term to marriage, which assumes two and only two partners in our culture.
Religious freedom doesn’t mean that they get to disobey any law they don’t agree with. In fact, many religious rights are already restricted. JW’s have been jailed for not getting their kids properly treated for their medical conditions. So don’t pretend like Mormons are the only ones
It does seem like silly semantics. Clearly there are a class of people who wish to marry multiple people just as there are a class of people who wish to marry members of their own gender.
Put whatever labels you want on these two classes. They both exist.
I do not think being gay has yet passed the Supreme Court as demanding heightened scrutiny (I think it is headed that way but not there yet…I have seen it suggested that Romer introduces an idea of Rational Basis with Teeth [between Rational Basis and Intermediate Scrutiny] but even that is wibbly-wobbly currently).
As to whether polyamorists are in the same boat as homosexuals I would say sexual attraction is innate. Marriage is a social construct. You can be born wired to be sexually attracted to men or women but you cannot be born to want to be married to numerous people.
I agree it is possible and even common to love more than one person at a time. There is nothing, biologically speaking, that has one group turn off the ability to love once they love one person where another group maintains the ability to love a second person even after they love the first. In this respect the group “polyamorists” is basically every human on the planet (which is not to say everyone wants to marry a second person but that every human has the capacity to love more than one person).
So wouldn’t it follow that since marriage is a social construct, you could say that you can be born to be attracted to members of your own gender, but not born to want to marry one. Therefore, while homosexuality and sodomy might be protected, the ability to marry in furtherance of that innate characteristic is not protected?
No.
Discrimination is saying, “Group-X can do a thing, Group-Y cannot do that same thing”. The issue is why the law distinguishes between the two. If the distinction is drawn for arbitrary reasons then it is unfairly discriminatory.
With homosexuals, if you work through the reasoning, preventing them from marrying is arbitrary (we have done this debate on the SDMB). Basically it comes down to animus towards homosexuals and that is not a good reason to discriminate.
It is quite possible to discriminate with good reason. The law does it all over the place. The law just needs to produce that good reason and there is none in denying SSM.
Right. No sense re-hashing Gay Marriage, Thread 9 Million. So, let’s just stick with the line of thought here.
In this case, Group-X (people who desire to marry one person or no people) is treated differently than Group-Y (people who desire to marry multiple people) in that Group Y is denied the right to do the same thing. That same thing is: marry in the way that an individual chooses.
I guess that this is my problem with most all of these equal protection arguments? If you define the right broadly enough, then you can pigeonhole pretty much everything into a EP violation..
Not “at the same time”, they don’t. At least, that’s what monogamists tell me, and I see no reason to disbelieve them.
Then the monogamists you are talking to are full of shit (or disingenuous).
Falling in love with other people is hugely common. Happens all the time. Literature going back through the ages is replete with such stories.
The difference, I think and maybe the distinction in their heads, is they feel an obligation to their spouse/SO and choose to distance themselves if they start falling for another.
I think their way and your way both have merit and problems. There is probably a great thread waiting to happen exploring that.
Nevertheless the capacity to fall in love with more than one person is universal. It has happened to me (I did not cheat on my SO but it came damn close).
Actually, Utah has a law against living a “polygamist lifestyle”, regardless of whether you try to declare the extra marriages legal. Not sure if that law is ever enforced, or if it would stand up to a court challenge, but it is on the books.
Interesting.
My guess is it is not enforced and if was enforced it would fail in court. Just my opinion and I am no legal scholar.
polyamywannabe?
First, wanting to marry numerous people (rather than just one) is not an innate characteristic. The courts find things that you cannot change (e.g. the color of your skin) to be worthy of special protection.
Second, it is still possible to legally discriminate. Happens all the time. The issue is if you can come up with a good reason for the discrimination. In the case of polygamy there are good reasons (as have been stated earlier). With SSM there are no good reasons to ban it.
The people here who favor polygamy admit the problems are there and currently there are no mechanisms to address them. They also say they feel those issues can be solved. If they can solve them I say more power to them. I am in no way opposed to polygamy as a lifestyle choice. If adults choose that of their own will then great. They need to solve the issues that make it problematic though. That would remove the state’s “compelling interest” in banning it.
It was upheld in State v Green, 99 P.3d 820 (2004).
Wanting to marry ONE person is not an innate characteristic. You said so upthread: marriage is a social construct.
Just because you don’t personally believe that there are any “good” reasons to ban SSM, the people by and through their elected representatives in 39 states have done so. Are there angels in the form of judges who should tell them otherwise?
And, if so, keeping with the spirit of this thread, why shouldn’t those same judges give the same protection to people who want to marry multiple people? So far, the only “good” reason I have heard is that the legislation would be too complex. WTF? Most legislation is complex.
How hard was it to desegregate schools in the south? Fucking real difficult. They did it. This “difficulty” seems like a distinction only so that your side can try to make SSM a 14th amendment issue while not allowing the obvious follow up to that which is polygamy..
Uh - no. The word was not ‘invented’. :dubious:
You keep forgetting that polygamy does not require legal sanction. Why is that so hard for you to concede?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not pretending like Mormons are the only ones.
But there’s no good reason to restrict poly marriages in the first place.
Let’s break it down.
Person X: Man marries woman. Man has affair. Man has children with another woman. Man supports woman and child. Man continues to sleep with other woman.
That is polygamy. But it’s allowed. In fact, the man has a legal obligation to support all of his children.
Person Z: Man marries woman. Man co-habitates with second, third, and fourth woman with first woman’s consent. Man has children by all women and supports them.
That is polygamy. But it’s not allowed. Or rather, it is allowed in some places but prosecuted in others.
The distinction (rather ironically) is that men doing this outside religious realms are considered to be philandering jerks, while men doing this in the context of religion are considered to be misogynist fuckheads who should be punished.
Polygamy is alive and well in the U.S. It has always been practiced and always will be practiced. Hell, if you look at the Moral Penal Code, Thomas Jefferson was a polygamist.
Its quite harmful for the women. You can’t find one person who would be harmed by gay marriage