Multiple Spouses

[Dead Man Flying]

Gender is considered a somewhat "protected" status under the Equal Protection Clause.  As such, except in some very specific cases, laws must apply equally to both men and women.  Gay marriage proponents argue that laws attempting to define marriage through gender do not apply equally to same-sex couples.  Hence, such laws are unconstitutional.

The last time I checked, the Equal Protection Clause does not cover the number of potential marriage partners since "number" is not a protected status.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Yeager]

Good call DMF.  I had not considered that angle but it makes sense.  Will it be enough to use equal rights as the boundry with which not to cross or will fringe groups co-opt the redifinition of mariage movement for their own designs?  To me its more than just about equal rights, its about plain simple engineering.

dowling your on permanent ingore fella but I can safely say stfu already!

[FUNKED1]

The government should not regulate marriage, end of story.

[Dowding]

Eat my SHORTS, dude.

[Nakhui]

Originally posted by Yeager
Early Mormons practiced polygamy but were denied that freedom by a repressive government.  I am surprised that Mormons have not taken advantage of the current climate to bring back the practice.  I know I would enjoy many wives.

Early Christians and especially Jews practiced polygamy.
both testiments are filled with examples of this - and with God's blessings.

Several religions continue this practice today - specifically Muslims.

There's absolutely nothing immoral about multiple wives and husbands.

[miko2d]

Yeager: Miko is talking things I have never heard of.

 I was pretty surprised myself when I learned about that stuff few years ago. Back in Ukraine we had no idea of the enourmous divercity of the american society.

Polygamy is legal in Utah simply because it is not legal?

 I am not saying that. All I am saying it is legal to live in polygamous marriage as a way of life. What is not legal is registering such marriage with the state.
 Having multiple spouses is legal. Applying for multiple marriage licences is not.

There are thirty thousand active palygamists in Utah?  huh?

 There are also some outside Utah - I believe Colorado is one of the populat states with them and even Canada.

 On the matter of marriage difinition, I basically agree with you. It is historically (western society) an arrangement of a man and one or more women.
 As Funked, I believe that the State should have no involvement with marriage whatsoever. No marriage licenses, no special privileges or penalties for being married. From legal point, marriage is just a contract. A person does not even have to be legally married in order to have one's rights protected incase of divorce.
 When state interferes with marriage, bad things happen. Sooner or later the people will come to power who have opposite views of those that originated the state involvement - and they will inherit the power.


thrila: I can just about cope with 1 girlfriend, 2 would drive me nuts. It's prob illegal just to keep men sane.

 That is not true. It is easier to deal with two girlfriends than with one - as long as they are aware of each other.
 First, women often find a man desirable when other women desire him too. Once she has a man to himself, she may lose some of her interest or stop valuing him as she did before. Same applies to men, obviously.
 Besides, competition is always good for the customer. It keeps the suppliers alert and attentive to his wishes.

 Also, when a woman has a claim on your time, she attempts to claim all of you time. But if she does not have you exclusively, she is content with some of your time. Two women actually leave you more private time than one!
 A woman will be jelous of the time you spend with another one but not the time you spend alone or with your friends. In fact she will be very carefull pressing for more of your time since it will threaten to upset the balance or make her appear needy and thus make the other girlfriend more attractive.
 If you care for that, note that it works only if the girlfriends are not too close - at least not closer with each other than they are with you. So dating sisters or especially twins is out if that is your concern.

Dowding: Miko refuted the 'facts' supporting your position.

 I didn't refute his facts as much as clarified the use of terms. He was talking about legal definitions but in some places confused them with actually practiced customs.
 There is a state-legal concept of marriage and there is a practical one that is not against the law.
 A man and a woman living together and having sex, children and common household without a state license are maried for all practical and religious purposes.
 A man and a woman who obtained a legal marriage sertificate but have never consummated their marriage, live separately, do not have sex or common household are not practically married but are legally married where the state is concerned. That's all.

 miko

[Steve]

First, the polyginy practice among mormons is quite widespread

BULL

Even if your numbers about polygamy were correct in Utah, which I doubt by the way as you haven't supported your claim w/ ANY evidence, thirty thousand people doing something is hardly widespread.  Do you have any conception as to how many people there are in the world?

US government is subcidising mormons' polyginy practice, not deterring it.

BULL

[Pongo]

I aggree with Yeagers original contention. Once you throw open the door on what marriage means to accomodate a few. The door is open.

[Sabre]

I believe the point Yeager was making is that if the equal rights provision in the Consitution can be used to strike down "defense of marriage laws" as it was in Mass., then those who want to make other types of definitions of marriage legal, such as polygamists, could do the same.  After all, since the term "marriage" is not currently defined in the Constitution, any attempt to limit it would constitute a violation of the equal protection clause.  That doesn't even get into the arena of freedom of religion, since the idea of polygamy is not the sole territory of religious sects.  Same goes for those who wish to practice incest.  After all, we don't allow a father to marry his daughter, or a sister to marry her brother.  The legal arguments are the same.  What about that lady in France who was granted the right to marry her deceased fiancee?

The bottom line is that we have activist judges and rogue public servents either making their own laws or breaking the ones they don't agree with, all in defiance of the will of the people.  Because of that, I am firmly in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage.  The definition itself should be decided in the course of that debate.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Sabre
I believe the point Yeager was making is that if the equal rights provision in the Consitution can be used to strike down "defense of marriage laws" as it was in Mass., then those who want to make other types of definitions of marriage legal, such as polygamists, could do the same.

Except that they could not since banning polygamy does not violate any form of equal protection.  Polygamy simply refers to the number of spouses and not the gender, so any law regulating the number of spouses regardless of their gender does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Polygamists would not enjoy the same equal protection rights as same-sex couples, and I can't think of any compelling argument they could make to prove otherwise.

The bottom line is that we have activist judges and rogue public servents either making their own laws or breaking the ones they don't agree with, all in defiance of the will of the people. Because of that, I am firmly in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage. The definition itself should be decided in the course of that debate.

[/b]

If "activist judges" and "rogue public servants" wish to flaunt the law, I don't see how a constitutional amendment would change matters.  They would simply continue to ignore the amendment as they have supposedly ignored the laws.

In reality, the political actors in question hope to force a constitutional showdown about same-sex marriages.  By violating the current marriage laws -- in the same way Rosa Parks violated bus seating rules -- they hope to provoke legal confrontation and force a judicial decision concerning the constitutionality of same-sex marriages.  Their argument centers around equal protection violations and, at least in the minds of Republican strategists, appears to present quite a strong legal challenge.  Thus we see the introduction of a constitutional amendment that would, in essence, override the Equal Protection Clause for gender as it specifically relates to marriage.  This would remove any constitutional doubt about the legality of same-sex marriages.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[miko2d]

Steve: Even if your numbers about polygamy were correct in Utah, which I doubt by the way as you haven't supported your claim w/ ANY evidence

 You can doubt all you want - and the more ignorant you are, the more you can doubt, so feel free to preserve your ignorance. If you are too stupid to realise that it would have taken you less time to do a google search than to type that sentense, I am not going to waste my time educating you here.

BULL

 For someone who fails in basic reading comprehension, you should not throw that word around.

, thirty thousand people doing something is hardly widespread.  Do you have any conception as to how many people there are in the world?

 What does "the world" have to do with it? Can't you read? I said clearly " the polyginy practice among mormons is quite widespread". Even 30,000 - and possibly several times more, nobody is interested in disclosing the real numbers, not the government, not the mainstream mormons, not the polyginists themselves - it is quite a lot to deserve a label "widespread" among mormons. Also, that number refers only to Utah while polyginous mormons also live in other states - Idaho, Montana and Arizona, Colorado, etc.

 Even if you care to refer to "the world", the 30,000 alleged Utah mormon polyginists would not be the only ones practicing that custom. You have over a billion muslims who consider polyginy legitimate, you have other cultures that practice other polygamous marriage.

US government is subcidising mormons' polyginy practice, not deterring it. -- BULL

 You would have to explain yourself here - that is if you are capable of multi-syllable words.
 I claim that when a woman is married to a man but legally she is a single mother receiving welfare, the polyginous family receives subcidy from the state that it would not receive if the woman was officially listed as the man's dependant. This allows a man to marry more women since he does not have to provide for them financially.

 miko

[Sabre]

Except that they could not since banning polygamy does not violate any form of equal protection. Polygamy simply refers to the number of spouses and not the gender, so any law regulating the number of spouses regardless of their gender does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Polygamists would not enjoy the same equal protection rights as same-sex couples, and I can't think of any compelling argument they could make to prove otherwise.

I disagree.  Amendment XIV, Section 1 says nothing about gender.  Gender is irrelevant in the arguments being used to justify this violation of state and federal laws.  

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There is no constitutional definition of marriage.  Therefore, either the state and federal laws defining it are not in violation of the Constitution, or all laws limiting it are in violation of it.

Another way to look at it is that no gay person is being denied the right to get married; only the form of the union is being regulated.  Just like the assault weapons ban upheld the right to bear arms, but allowed laws to regulate the type of guns deemed legal.  Therefore, gay persons are not being denied anything, since a straight person is also not allowed to marry someone of the same sex.  Equal treatment under the law.  And what about incest couples (and yes, there are practitioners of this form of union)?  Under the gay community’s definition of equal protection, are not any laws banning marriage of incestuous couples also in violation?  The Supreme Court justice who wrote the dissenting view in that Texas Sodomy case was prophetic indeed when he warned that we were going down a dangerous path by overturning Texas state law.

[Sabre]

Miko, the pratice of polygamy amoung members of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints" (referred to as "mormons" by some) is not widespread, nor is it excepted by the LDS church leadership.  It is grounds for excommunications, in fact.  Isolated pockets of break-away members of the LDS church have set up a small number of enclaves, all of which are condemmed by the LDS church.  While they may refer to themselves as mormons, they are not.

[Frogm4n]

If dowding wasnt right you wouldnt hate him so much yeager.

[Fuzzy]

I would shoot for 3-4 hot wives with bisexual tendencies, but hey, thats just me.