Could Polygamists Sue To Marry In California Right Now?

[Silhouette]

Here, let's try this again...

Wednesday's landmark Supreme Court decisions on gay marriage have ushered in optimism for more than just the gay and lesbian community: Polygamists are also reading hope into the fine print.
In his majority opinion for U.S. v. Windsor, Justice Kennedy argued that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as strictly between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional because it pegs homosexuals as second class citizens. Minutes later, Chief Justice Roberts struck down Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment that outlawed same-sex marriage in California.
While these rulings only directly affect states that have legalized same-sex marriage, those in support of plural unions view the repeals as progress for their cause because it broadens the definition of marriage. Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions

With the CURRENT push for the SCOTUS to hear 32 state's cases 32 states Ask scotus to settle Gay marriage Page 33 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum to uphold or deny gay marriage as a federally-protected right, how does this affect polygamy in California?

This poll is going to really be fun. Vote if you dare!
Your comments ON TOPIC are welcome.
This is about consenting adults humans and consenting adult humans ONLY.

Since the big claim is that "Prop 8 was struck down", and the wording of prop 8 is very simple: "marriage is between a man and a woman", does that mean that not only is a loophole open for woman/woman man/man marriage but also "more than a/a" marriage too?

Legally, why could they be denied in this new SCOTUS consideration? Could a polygamy group suing in California win at this crucial time of questioning the definitions and allowances of "consenting adults in love"?

If Prop 8 is dead, then there is no limitation on consenting adults in California and technically, polygamists could start getting legal marriage licenses there today.. couldn't they?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Could Polygamists Sue To Marry In California Right Now?"

No.


California marriage law – as is the case in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia – are written to accommodate couples with two consenting adult partners only, same- or opposite-sex.


This is why laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying are un-Constitutional, because they deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

 

[WinterBorn]

I see no reason why polygamy is illegal. If the adults involved are all aware of the situation and consent, why would the gov't withhold the marriage benefits?

For the record, I am still in favor of there being no gov't licence for marriages.

 

[Silhouette]

California marriage law – as is the case in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia – are written to accommodate couples with two consenting adult partners only, same- or opposite-sex.


This is why laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying are un-Constitutional, because they deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

Isn't than an arbitrary conclusion based on your prejudice towards polygamists?

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the interesting question that occured to me while writing this thread: Is there any validity at all to Prop 8 and if there isn't, how can it legally exclude polygamy? Or any other marriage arrangement? Is California without marriage laws at this point?

 

[Silhouette]

Is this guy a bigot in disguise? Watch as he tiptoes along the tightrope of legal logic..

Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional

Adam Winkler
Professor of Law, UCLA

Gay rights however do not inexorably lead to the legalization of polygamy. While the ability to choose one's sexual partners is an important element of constitutionally protected privacy, the government may have stronger reasons to ban polygamy than gay sexual or marital relationships. Polygamy has long been associated with unique harms: the repression of women; underage girls too young to consent forced into marriage; the severe displacement of young men in geographically concentrated communities. Gay rights don't pose any of these problems. Rather, they are about the very opposite: reducing the oppression of minorities, allowing adults to engage in consensual sexual activity, and minimizing the social and psychological displacement caused by anti-gay discrimination. Are Polygamy Bans Unconstitutional Adam Winkler

So to be clear, the Brown family of Utah/Las Vegas NV pose a threat to children, while these folks don't?

 

[September]

I don't see any children in those pictures. Why would anyone take their children to one of those events? Children are not the target audience.

​

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can sue for anything. Your fast food coffee too hot it scalded ya? Sue. Whether polyganists could WIN is an interesting question.

I'd think not. Not so much because of the differences between gay marriage and plural wives as marriage-in-law has economic implications, and allowing plural wives would in effect present an unreasonable or even unfair economic burden on society in general. It'd in effect encourage plural marriages since tey have a superior leg-up economincally over tradition spouse-spouse marriage models.

I think though they could partially win in getting the law forbidding at least a religious recognition of such plural marriages. Wouldn't get multiple tax breaks like, but in other areas like hospital visitations, letting churches perform such ceremonies, etc. you could probably get that.

 

[G.T.]

Polygamy is fine with me aside from the implication of govt tax benefits of said marriages.

 

[bripat9643]

"Could Polygamists Sue To Marry In California Right Now?"

No.


California marriage law – as is the case in the other 49 states and the District of Columbia – are written to accommodate couples with two consenting adult partners only, same- or opposite-sex.


This is why laws that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying are un-Constitutional, because they deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in.

California marriage laws are written to accommodate couples of two people of opposite sex. They even passed an amendment to the state constitution to make sure that is how the arrangement is defined.

 

[Silhouette]

Can sue for anything. Your fast food coffee too hot it scalded ya? Sue. Whether polyganists could WIN is an interesting question.

I'd think not. Not so much because of the differences between gay marriage and plural wives as marriage-in-law has economic implications, and allowing plural wives would in effect present an unreasonable or even unfair economic burden on society in general. It'd in effect encourage plural marriages since tey have a superior leg-up economincally over tradition spouse-spouse marriage models.

I think though they could partially win in getting the law forbidding at least a religious recognition of such plural marriages. Wouldn't get multiple tax breaks like, but in other areas like hospital visitations, letting churches perform such ceremonies, etc. you could probably get that.

"Present an unfair economic burden on society"? Since when did society dictate the "civil rights" of individuals in love?

Sounds bigoted to me. And a legally arbitrary argument when it comes to marrying someone you love. And who said just plural wives? Couldn't a woman have multiple husbands?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Can sue for anything. Your fast food coffee too hot it scalded ya? Sue. Whether polyganists could WIN is an interesting question.

I'd think not. Not so much because of the differences between gay marriage and plural wives as marriage-in-law has economic implications, and allowing plural wives would in effect present an unreasonable or even unfair economic burden on society in general. It'd in effect encourage plural marriages since tey have a superior leg-up economincally over tradition spouse-spouse marriage models.

I think though they could partially win in getting the law forbidding at least a religious recognition of such plural marriages. Wouldn't get multiple tax breaks like, but in other areas like hospital visitations, letting churches perform such ceremonies, etc. you could probably get that.

"Present an unfair economic burden on society"? Since when did society dictate the "civil rights" of individuals in love?

Sounds bigoted to me. And a legally arbitrary argument when it comes to marrying someone you love. And who said just plural wives? Couldn't a woman have multiple husbands?

Polygamy is either spouse may have plural spouses. Polygany (note the 'n') is a husband may have plural wives. And afaik that's the only version under debate. I think some of the pagan faiths are ok with actual polygamy, but the Abrahamic faiths only allow polygany.

Forbidding plural marriage IS bigoted. But because of how the law regards marriage extending legal right adjustments, giving economics benefits, etc. the case against it on that aspect makes some amount of sense. Thus, I could envision a limited legal recognition of plural marriage, but only the first spouse (traditional marriage) would have benefits, additional spouses wouldn't each get extra tax breaks and the like, but would get non-economic rights like visitation in hospital and whatnot.

 

[Silhouette]

Polygamy is either spouse may have plural spouses. Polygany (note the 'n') is a husband may have plural wives. And afaik that's the only version under debate. I think some of the pagan faiths are ok with actual polygamy, but the Abrahamic faiths only allow polygany.

Forbidding plural marriage IS bigoted. But because of how the law regards marriage extending legal right adjustments, giving economics benefits, etc. the case against it on that aspect makes some amount of sense. Thus, I could envision a limited legal recognition of plural marriage, but only the first spouse (traditional marriage) would have benefits, additional spouses wouldn't each get extra tax breaks and the like, but would get non-economic rights like visitation in hospital and whatnot.

OK, you're going to be nitpicky. So then we'll shroud this conversation like LGBTs do calling what they're up to "same sex marriage". We'll shroud what we're really talking about and call it "multiple marriage". OK?

Now that that strawman has been shredded.... isn't it bigoted of you to deny consenting adults in love the chance to marry? Either you're for "marriage equality" or you're not.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Polygamy is either spouse may have plural spouses. Polygany (note the 'n') is a husband may have plural wives. And afaik that's the only version under debate. I think some of the pagan faiths are ok with actual polygamy, but the Abrahamic faiths only allow polygany.

Forbidding plural marriage IS bigoted. But because of how the law regards marriage extending legal right adjustments, giving economics benefits, etc. the case against it on that aspect makes some amount of sense. Thus, I could envision a limited legal recognition of plural marriage, but only the first spouse (traditional marriage) would have benefits, additional spouses wouldn't each get extra tax breaks and the like, but would get non-economic rights like visitation in hospital and whatnot.

OK, you're going to be nitpicky. So then we'll shroud this conversation like LGBTs do calling what they're up to "same sex marriage". We'll shroud what we're really talking about and call it "multiple marriage". OK?

Now that that strawman has been shredded.... isn't it bigoted of you to deny consenting adults in love the chance to marry? Either you're for "marriage equality" or you're not.

I notice a fool who seems to belive that law isn't the ultimate expression of 'nitpicky' being unable to debate on the same level as myself thus has to switch the discussion to one about gays.

 

[Silhouette]

I notice a fool who seems to belive that law isn't the ultimate expression of 'nitpicky' being unable to debate on the same level as myself thus has to switch the discussion to one about gays.

This discussion is about gay marriage. Are you that daft? Of course it is. You know it is. I know it is. Play along.

Why can't polygamists "multiple-marriages" happen legally? Do you want to deny consenting adults in love their "civil rights" to marry? Answer the question.

 

[Silhouette]

California marriage laws are written to accommodate couples of two people of opposite sex. They even passed an amendment to the state constitution to make sure that is how the arrangement is defined.

Yes, but California officials, who do not have the legal power to amend the constitution or change intiative law without the consent of the voters, have simply ordered county clerks to issue illegal marriage licenses.

And since that effectively guts law and is sedition, who there could in all seriousness deny polygamists the right to marry? If man/woman no longer stands in the constitutional provision, why should it be assumed that a/a stands either? In the interest of "marriage equality" a/a/a/a/a could also apply. Why just two people now? The law has been seditiously-killed, right?

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I don't see a problem, as long as all consenting partners are adults and aware that it will be a polygamist relationship. Having multiple wives or husbands is acceptable as long as they are aware of the situation. Having secret wives/husbands is a different matter.
Personally, I would find more than one wife to be a headache.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't see a problem, as long as all consenting partners are adults and aware that it will be a polygamist relationship. Having multiple wives or husbands is acceptable as long as they are aware of the situation. Having secret wives/husbands is a different matter.
Personally, I would find more than one wife to be a headache.

Do you mean you don't see a problem personally, or legally as per the topic of the thread?

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

I don't see a problem, as long as all consenting partners are adults and aware that it will be a polygamist relationship. Having multiple wives or husbands is acceptable as long as they are aware of the situation. Having secret wives/husbands is a different matter.
Personally, I would find more than one wife to be a headache.

Do you mean you don't see a problem personally, or legally as per the topic of the thread?

I don't see a problem with polygamy, legally. However, I do emphasize that all parties MUST be consenting adults. No youths having parents agreeing to the arrangement. As for myself, I'm widowed and one wife over the years was more than enough for me.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't see a problem with polygamy, legally. However, I do emphasize that all parties MUST be consenting adults. No youths having parents agreeing to the arrangement. As for myself, I'm widowed and one wife over the years was more than enough for me.

Obviously it would be consenting. We have laws against slavery. I'll be nice here and assume you already knew that.

So your feeling is that if a polygamy group were to sue California today for the right to marry, they could not be denied that right in the interest of "marriage equality", yes?