That’s your ethnocentric viewpoint. And one that’s echoed by conservative right wing homophobes who fear gay marriage.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Of course the word was invented, every word is invented.
You asserted that the word ‘polyamorist’ was invented because we “can’t be polygamists”.
Again, I can be a polygamist in the United States. Without a marriage license. And I’m still a polygamist. It’s just not legal.
May as well tell me that gangs don’t exist because their activities are illegal.
There is no ‘compelling interest’ to ban it that I see.
In Loving, SCOTUS said that the states cannot interfere with marriage without good cause. Fast forward: the state does not have a job to ‘protect the sanctity of marriage’ or its traditions (that’s what I gathered from Lawrence).
If two or more consenting adults want to enter into such an agreement, why ban it?
As I have pointed out, polygamy in its broad definition - the federal one - is practiced all the time, everywhere, in every state, across every religion. The narrower definition - systematic plural marriage arrangements - is a bit more rare, but you’re still talking about tens of thousands of U.S. citizens.
Still, the purpose of this thread was Bricker challenging Dio’s assertion that ‘polygamists were not a class’. They are a class. Bricker never said that they were a protected class (in fact, he specifically said that they were not in two threads), but they are a class for the purpose of this discussion. So I don’t understand why you keep trying to argue with me, or even assert that it is an inconsequential, unimportant, or otherwise inane classification.
Did you read this part of Lawrence?
(emphasis added)
I suppose I did NOT take:
*Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations—the asserted state interest in this case— other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group *
to mean, “the state has the duty to protect the **holiness **of marriage.”
Did that conflict what I just said? The moral disapproval and motive (aka upholding the ‘sanctity’ of marriage) wasn’t enough to enact law against same-sex relations.
edit: I said:
I have listed the legal problems that polygamy raises already. Others here who like the idea of polygamy agree there are difficult legal problems surrounding it. I would call that a state interest. I am also not sure that the state has to try and solve those problems.
With SSM there are no such problems. They can plug into the existing framework of laws surrounding marriage with no (or very little) change to the laws.
I agree the “sanctity of marriage” is not a state interest with marriage law. This is not about the sanctity of marriage.
Drug use is practiced all the time in all 50 states by millions of people. That by itself is not a good enough reason for legalizing drugs (it might be part of a lot of reasons but that is another discussion).
Further, polygamists are not a suspect/protected class. The government is not discriminating against them any more than the government is discriminating against the group of people who want to drive 50 mph in a 35 zone. I made the case earlier that polygamists are not “born that way” whereas homosexuals may well be. We all possess the capacity to love more than one person. As such the potential group of polygamists is everyone. How do you discriminate against everyone?
Homosexuals also possess the capacity to have sex with opposite sex partners. They may even love them. Some people in SSM are bisexual, even.
The thread is about discussing polygamists as a class. The history of polygamy laws in this country is a clue as to why they are discriminated against. Finally, I’ve yet to see “it would be a bitch to change the law” as a compelling state interest. Cite for me a SCOTUS decisions that disagrees.
SSM and gay couples adopting have already been ‘a bitch’ to figure out in the courts, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen.
We are still sorting out the legal problems of Brown. (Took a few cases to get the ball rolling, actually.)
Even today, segregation exists in American schools and organizations are fighting against it.
It doesn’t mean schools should be segregated.
Renyolds. Racist much?
Not that Cali courts bind SCOTUS, but they said individuals do have a fundamental right to form a family relationship.
I honestly can’t imagine an argument the court could come up with in banning poly marriages…but the likelihood is that they just won’t hear a case.
jerks.
You said, “…the state does not have a job to ‘protect the sanctity of marriage’ or its traditions.” (emphasis added)
The Lawrence opinion says, “Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage.” (emphasis added)
Lawrence says that an example of a legitimate state interest would be preserving the traditional institution of marriage. (We may disagree with the truth of that claim, but not that the Lawrence court said it.)
I can. They can say it’s foreign to our traditions, per Reynolds, that to implement it would mean a complete redefinition of marriage, divorce, and custody laws to a much greater extent than something like gay marriage (for one thing, are all the people in a polygamous marriage married to each other or just to the guy with the 5 wives?) They can say that polygamy as usually practiced is sexist and that it’s destabilizing
Find some examples where polygamy means 1 woman and multiple men. Find examples where these women aren’t already part of a cult or was recruited into a cult. Polygamy is inherently sexist. It serves only to enslave women to these freakish men who want to be able to have sex with many different women but who usually treat their wives like servants.
That guy from the Sister Wives TV show was interviewed by Oprah. He was asked if one of his wives wanted to get another husband, would it bother him. He replied that it would be devastating and he would hate it. That type of attitude is pretty much what you will find among polygamy and the men who participate in it.
Someday it may be perfectly harmless. Until that day, the government has a need to prevent such harm
Bricker, that was the Texas defense and one that SCOTUS didn’t buy. Scalia wrote a scathing opinion on the matter, of course, and only one judge said it violated EPA, which was O’Connor, and that’s who I was writing of. So perhaps I should’ve phrased my wording better, eg, the state cannot claim to preserve the traditional institution of marriage based on perceived moral or religious notions? (Because ‘sanctity’ was the kicker for me.)
I should be more clear.
[QUOTE]
Kennedy already pointed out that homosexuality was not an ‘abomination to Western culture’ in Lawrence, and I have a feeling that argument won’t hold up again.
Like SSM?
A little complication doesn’t mean it’s OK to discriminate. See: desegregation of schools or women in the military.
That’s not a qualifier for discrimination. We don’t outlaw porn and smutty novels and we don’t have a litmus test for equal relationships in marriage, and we don’t ban misogynistic traditions in marriage, and we don’t say that gays can’t get married because they’re less likely to be monogamous and more likely to have AIDS.
I see potential state arguments, but I don’t see them winning. I just see SCOTUS refusing to hear the case for eternity.
Find proof that men and women equally share housework, or that men equally stay at home as much as women do. Find me examples where men get just as much maternity leave. Find examples that show me men and women must pass an equality test before marriage. Who fucking cares?
Muslims, non-Mormon Christians, some Mormons…are we only restricted to the US here? There are also secular polygamists.
TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE is inherently sexist. POLYGAMY in the US could actually give women more bargaining power at home.
That’s your ethnocentric bigoted viewpoint. Sounds like Renoylds, where the Court said that polygamy was a blight on civilized nations and is something that white people don’t do.
That is because they practice polygny as part of their religion and the wives enter into that contract knowing they cannot marry other men and that they will be ‘sister wives’. Do you know the difference? Also, those wives seem just as happy as two-partner wives.
Sounds like the anti gay marriage movement to me.
The bigotry and ethno-centric viewpoints are incredible. I’m surprised at SD, really.
Yes, it was “tradition” that got you in trouble; had you stuck with sanctity, you would have been on solid ground.
The problem with those examples is they implicate heightened scrutiny: strict scruntiny for desegregation and intermediate scrutiny for women in the military.
When we analyze a law under stroct scrutiny, we ask if the government has a compelling interest and if the law in question is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
In the case of polygamists, since we have all (with the exception of the now marginalized Diogenes argument) agreed that the class of polygamists does not currently merit heightened scrutiny, that’s not the question. Instead we simply ask, does the government have a legitimate interest, and is the law rationally related to that interest? “Rationally related” does NOT mean, “Is this the best way to achieve the result?” It doesn’t even mean, “Is this a good way to achieve the result?” It simply means, “Is there a reasoned connection between this law and the result?”
So while it’s true for desegregation of schools or women in the military that a little complication doesn’t justify discrimination, it’s NOT true for polygamists. With polygamists, a little complication does, in fact, justify discrimination.
Yes, Bricker, I admitted my error with words. :*( My post is not my cite.
I’ve gotten so used to right wing conservatives saying ‘traditional marriage’ and ‘sanctity’ that my eyes glossed over when reading and made the two synonymous.
Why do you keep calling it ethno-centrism, CP? There’s not a lot of ethnicities where polygamy is the norm. In fact, for every tribal, wood-dwelling culture you can probably find who practice polygamy, there are a bunch of white people in Utah who wants to do the same. Its not ethno-centrism, it’s simply harmful
I’m confused. Wasn’t it you in the parent thread who said that polygamists did have the right to get married–just not the right for the state recognize it? If so, doesn’t that completely contradict your statements in this thread?
Could someone check that thread? For some reason I’m having trouble finding it, and I don’t remember the title.