Does Marriage Equality mean Polygamy?

[bluethread]

I know that it is uncivil to equate homosexuality and polygamy on this site. However, a man in Montana believes that he can remarry his ex-wife without divorcing his current one, based on the "marriage equality" decision of the SCOTUS. So, as best you can given that constraint, do you think that "marriage equality" includes polygamy, why or why not, and what do you think are his chances in court.

[bluethread]

Don't care much about his court chances to be honest.
Does it include polygamy? Not that I can tell because polygamy isn't the same as marriage equality as it stands currently. Thinking so seems rather silly to me - or hopeful depending on whom you're referring to I guess.

I find it slightly funny how people think that because gay marriage is now legal in the USA ('bout time) that this automatically means EVERYTHING is good to go:
bestiality
polygamy
under age marriage
The whole slippery slope argument is so trite it's almost campy anymore.
People are funny that's for sure

Sorry, I took so long to reply, but I just noticed this post. Let me make it abundantly clear that I said no such thing. That kind of argument has been deemed uncivil on this site. Therefore, let me state that this thread has absolutely nothing to do with that argument. It is only about this man's claim regarding his right to polygamy under the "marriage equality" decision of the SCOTUS.

[Jolly_Penguin]

Polygamy is anti love - you can't honestly say you love someone when having sex with someone else.

Sure you can. In fact, you can experience a great deal of connection with your partner while looking into their eyes as you both have sex with other people. Swingers do this and they bond doing it. It may not be suitable for you and your partner, and it may tear you two apart, but that isn't so for everyone.

[Ancient of Years]

I know that it is uncivil to equate homosexuality and polygamy on this site. However, a man in Montana believes that he can remarry his ex-wife without divorcing his current one, based on the "marriage equality" decision of the SCOTUS. So, as best you can given that constraint, do you think that "marriage equality" includes polygamy, why or why not, and what do you think are his chances in court.

SCOTUS ruled that one group of adults being forbidden access to a large number of rights and benefits that were legally available to another group of adults violated the equal rights under the law provision of the 14th Amendment. Polygamy is not legally available to anyone so there is no inequality under the law to redress.

[JehovahsWitness]

I know that it is uncivil to equate homosexuality and polygamy on this site. However, a man in Montana believes that he can remarry his ex-wife without divorcing his current one, based on the "marriage equality" decision of the SCOTUS. So, as best you can given that constraint, do you think that "marriage equality" includes polygamy, why or why not, and what do you think are his chances in court.

Monogamy is arguably a christian concept, since historically there have been very, very few societies that have been traditionally monogamist before Christianity arrived.

It will be hard for any socieity that accepts homosexuality (based on the reasoning that marriage should be determined by mutual concent alone) to argue WHY that mutual consent must be between two concenting adults (and not three or five or seven) without resorting the the same arguments the anti-gay marriage movement proposed ie

poligamy is

- harmful for society
- harmful for children
- not "natural"

Since these arguments have been squashed for homosexual marriage, I can't imagine they will hold out for polygamy.

[bluethread]

I know that it is uncivil to equate homosexuality and polygamy on this site. However, a man in Montana believes that he can remarry his ex-wife without divorcing his current one, based on the "marriage equality" decision of the SCOTUS. So, as best you can given that constraint, do you think that "marriage equality" includes polygamy, why or why not, and what do you think are his chances in court.

SCOTUS ruled that one group of adults being forbidden access to a large number of rights and benefits that were legally available to another group of adults violated the equal rights under the law provision of the 14th Amendment. Polygamy is not legally available to anyone so there is no inequality under the law to redress.

Until those laws are overturned by the SCOTUS. That is the point of the man's legal challenge. What is to stop the SCOTUS from overturning those anti-polygamy laws, based on "marriage equality"? One group of people, unmarried, have a right that is not available to another group of people, married, i.e. the right to contract.

[Ancient of Years]

I know that it is uncivil to equate homosexuality and polygamy on this site. However, a man in Montana believes that he can remarry his ex-wife without divorcing his current one, based on the "marriage equality" decision of the SCOTUS. So, as best you can given that constraint, do you think that "marriage equality" includes polygamy, why or why not, and what do you think are his chances in court.

SCOTUS ruled that one group of adults being forbidden access to a large number of rights and benefits that were legally available to another group of adults violated the equal rights under the law provision of the 14th Amendment. Polygamy is not legally available to anyone so there is no inequality under the law to redress.

Until those laws are overturned by the SCOTUS. That is the point of the man's legal challenge. What is to stop the SCOTUS from overturning those anti-polygamy laws, based on "marriage equality"? One group of people, unmarried, have a right that is not available to another group of people, married, i.e. the right to contract.

SCOTUS ruled that rights and benefits currently available to one group of people were being denied to another group of people. These rights and benefits and all laws, rules and legal precedents were based on the idea of two person marriage. Extending legal protection to another group of people did not require changing any of the relevant laws, rules or legal precedents. They were all immediately applicable. Polygamy would require new laws, rules and precedents to be established to account for the additional spouses. For example, many complications would arise concerning the rights of multiple spouses to make decisions for another spouse unable to make decisions. What if they do not agree? In the event of divorce, who gets what and who is responsible for coughing it up? These and everything else that would arise would involve entirely new rights and benefits, not address the inequitable availabilty of existing rights and benefits as SCOTUS did.