When will plural marriage be acceptable in the United States?

Having read the Windsor opinion, I believe it is a required legal outgrowth based on that precedent.

The scale is already tipping that direction. It will follow gay marriage.

quote:

---

Having read the Windsor opinion, I believe it is a required legal outgrowth based on that precedent.

---

People are WAY over thinking and analyzing the Windsor decision.

For one, I can guarantee you that the 4 liberal justices wanted no part of that decision. They simply voted because it gave them the "right" (no pun intended) political result.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg would NEVER agree with the proposition that defining marriage is within the "unquestioned authority" of the states. Every opinion leading up to Windsor did the "three levels of scrutiny" test. Windsor almost completely abandoned that test, and it was one of the worst examples of politically motivated/result-oriented opinion ever written (nothing will ever top Roe v. Wade).

The basic premise of Windsor (and one that has never been applied before) is that the ONLY reason anyone (including Bill Clinton and the vast majority of Democratic Congressmen at the time) could have voted for DOMA is due to "hated". Of course, this is COMPLETELY absurd and would lead to all courts having to analyze the "motives" of every bill ever passed in Congress or any state legislature. And, once again, I can guarantee you that the liberal justices voted with Kennedy just to get teh political result they desired.

quote:

---

The basic premise of Windsor (and one that has never been applied before) is that the ONLY reason anyone (including Bill Clinton and the vast majority of Democratic Congressmen at the time) could have voted for DOMA is due to "hated". Of course, this is COMPLETELY absurd and would lead to all courts having to analyze the "motives" of every bill ever passed in Congress or any state legislature. And, once again, I can guarantee you that the liberal justices voted with Kennedy just to get teh political result they desired.

---

You cannot be serious. Are you actually saying that DOMA wasn't passed because of animus toward gays? Even the HOuse minutes during the DOMA vote state this bill was enacted because of aversion to homosexuals.

quote:

---

marriage equality for everyone. father marries daughter, mother marries son, head of religious sect marrying girls under 18?

---

This kind of post is about as stupid as the come on PT and that's saying alot.

quote:

---

This kind of post is about as stupid as the come on PT and that's saying alot

---

I don't think it's stupid at all. When you expand the definition of a Thing,it loses meaning. A marriage between a Father and daughter for instance might be a perfectly acceptable legal entity, once we accept the premise that marriage is no longer the basic building block of the family unit, or that it exists for procreative reasons. Maybe they want to be married to share their lives and have specific legal benefits, who is to say? Certainly not me. The gay marriage debate taught me not to opine about the Inevitable Drift of American Society. If any two people can marry, any two people can marry. If any two people marry, any three people can marry, and so forth...you cannot put the genie back in the bottle now.

Polygamy should not be illegal. People should be able to live as they choose.

Whenever enough people decide they want it. Then, if will be considered a natural right and the idea that we didn't have it before will be a sign of hate-filled bigotry.

The only actual truth is whatever is socially constructed, which is what makes the Media the most dangerous institution in America. As soon as something is affirmed in the Newsrooms and Hollywood, then it is sold to America. Once 50.1% of Americans agree, then politicians fall all over themselves to change the law and the Supreme Court suddenly finds the protection in the Constitution. Then, 5 minutes later anyone left who disagrees (like the 49%) is called a menace to society and their rights to disagree are run over because of equal access laws, etc. It is an interesting playbook.

It will be a few years, though, only because the elites don't care yet.

We are over a barrel on whatever they want.

quote:

---

I don't think it's stupid at all. When you expand the definition of a Thing,it loses meaning. A marriage between a Father and daughter for instance might be a perfectly acceptable legal entity, once we accept the premise that marriage is no longer the basic building block of the family unit,

---

Whatever. I was more responding to the point about parents deciding they could marry their under 18 year old kids. We are a VERY long way from that kind of shite no matter how you spin it.

In general we are still doing the right stuff. I am not about to get pissed off if two adults are granted the right to marry and have the rights and benefits they deserve. I just hope my church doesn't get involved.

My biggest wish is that the dumbasses in this country would put forth 50% of the anti gay energy towards doing something to stop the divorce rate among our straight people. What are we running at now? 45% or so for the divorce rate. We are a selfish and fcked in the head society and I feel the gays are the least of our problems.