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.

[Haven]

No, because the SCOTUS ruling specifically mentioned marriages between two people. There's also no question of equal protection here, because polygamist isn't a sexual orientation.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

I didn't know that was uncivil. To me marriage equality means any union goes. What it should mean is government getting out of marriage but people all of a sudden seem to be for the joining of church (ideology) and state.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

I didn't know that was uncivil. To me marriage equality means any union goes. What it should mean is government getting out of marriage but people all of a sudden seem to be for the joining of church (ideology) and state.

Do you mean any union of consenting adults? If so, I think there would be nothing necessarily wrong with a marriage of more than two people* as long as there was no coercion involved (which would rule out religious polygyny like what was practiced in the LDS church) and adjustments were made to the financial benefits of marriage (which are based on two people).

*I certainly don't think it's ideal, but I don't think there's anything criminal about it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Haven]

The problem is that consent is impossible to prove. For instance a prostitute consents to sex but you would never have me believe that the decision was rational or moral.

Where we probably agree is wanting to live our lives the way we think honors our beliefs or gods.

[Bust Nak]

For the record, I have zero moral objection against polygamy itself. It's just that in practice they typically end up being exploitative.

Do you think that "marriage equality" includes polygamy, why or why not?

No, because the law says no. Did you meant to ask us should "marriage equality" includes polygamy?

What do you think are his chances in court.

Nil.

[Divine Insight]

I completely agree with Haven

There is absolutely nothing immoral about consensual polygamy. What was immoral was arranged or forced polygamy that was actually practiced by many Abrahamic religions.

Why should there be anything immoral about consenting adults choosing to be polygamous? Especially if they are choosing to do this in marriage. In other words, they are even going to only be polygamous with very precisely and arranged partners.

I personally have no desire for a polygamous marriage. I would have been quite happy being completely monogamous with a single mate. As it turned out I ended up not even having one mate because I couldn't even find one woman that I was interested in making a lifetime commitment with.

People who are interested in polygamous relationships have a totally different mindset from me to be sure. But I can't say that this makes them "immoral".

If everyone involved is happy with the situation why should it be immoral?

What harm is it doing to anyone?

Assuming no "arranged marriages" or coercion is involved of course. But if that type of thing was involved that would be the source of the immorality, not the polygamy itself.

[bluethread]

No, because the SCOTUS ruling specifically mentioned marriages between two people. There's also no question of equal protection here, because polygamist isn't a sexual orientation.

The question is where did they get that? The constitution does not mention it. Also, where did they get the principle of "sexual orientation". Was that mentioned in the law being adjudicated? What is the constitutional principle that limits this to two people?

[Papa Zoom]

[Replying to post 2 by Haven]

Greetings group. I think the door is now open to any consenting adult marriage configuration:

"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew the same conclusion previously when discussing Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. She questioned attorney Theodore B. Olson's argument for gay marriage, saying it included no restrictions.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist," Sotomayor asked."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/polyg ... amy-98954/

There are probably differences of opinion on the matter but it seems clear to me that polygamy is not officially on the table and will be legal shortly.

[Haven]

Thank you for posting this in a civil way.

[Replying to post 2 by Haven]

Greetings group. I think the door is now open to any consenting adult marriage configuration:

"Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor drew the same conclusion previously when discussing Proposition 8 in Hollingsworth v. Perry. She questioned attorney Theodore B. Olson's argument for gay marriage, saying it included no restrictions.

"If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist," Sotomayor asked."

http://www.christianpost.com/news/polyg ... amy-98954/

There are probably differences of opinion on the matter but it seems clear to me that polygamy is not officially on the table and will be legal shortly.

What is the problem with any marriage of consenting adults? Honestly I don't care one way or another if polygamy between consenting adults is legalized; I know some polyamorous people who would be happy with that.