Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeWhat right am I trying to deny to who, Bubba? You wouldn't be suggesting that people have the right to marry children, now would you?Notice how PP is trying to deny this “right” to others by using fear and misstatements?
Remind you of anything else?
Marriage is a contract, the law prohibits children into entering into a contract of that sort.
You are trying to deny people who want to Marry more than one person at a time, or those that want multiple licence from doing so, using the same methods and reasoning that you claimed to detest in the pre legalized same sex marriage debates.
Where does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeWhat right am I trying to deny to who, Bubba? You wouldn't be suggesting that people have the right to marry children, now would you?
Marriage is a contract, the law prohibits children into entering into a contract of that sort.
You are trying to deny people who want to Marry more than one person at a time, or those that want multiple licence from doing so, using the same methods and reasoning that you claimed to detest in the pre legalized same sex marriage debates.
Where does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
The entire population can get married accept for kids now. Just have to be a male and a female on the contract.The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeWhat right am I trying to deny to who, Bubba? You wouldn't be suggesting that people have the right to marry children, now would you?
Marriage is a contract, the law prohibits children into entering into a contract of that sort.
You are trying to deny people who want to Marry more than one person at a time, or those that want multiple licence from doing so, using the same methods and reasoning that you claimed to detest in the pre legalized same sex marriage debates.
Where does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
An argument for abortion.She was arrested, she is a product of our state welfare system. She's the child of some nut, has been in state custody forever, spent her formative years in state approved foster homes...a complete dingbat, as most of the kids raised by the state are. The state encourages and rewards stupidity and insanity, and this is true among the children they breed and rear as well.
DittoAnd they breed.
And you think it's funny. I think that should be sufficient evidence that you are mentally ill, and a danger to society..and thus should be locked up alongside those mutants you're responsible for breeding.
Now KG thinks that if you find what she posts funny- you should be locked up.
More and more fascist with every post.
The entire population can get married accept for kids now. Just have to be a male and a female on the contract.The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeMarriage is a contract, the law prohibits children into entering into a contract of that sort.
You are trying to deny people who want to Marry more than one person at a time, or those that want multiple licence from doing so, using the same methods and reasoning that you claimed to detest in the pre legalized same sex marriage debates.
Where does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
An argument for abortion.She was arrested, she is a product of our state welfare system. She's the child of some nut, has been in state custody forever, spent her formative years in state approved foster homes...a complete dingbat, as most of the kids raised by the state are. The state encourages and rewards stupidity and insanity, and this is true among the children they breed and rear as well.
DittoAnd they breed.
And you think it's funny. I think that should be sufficient evidence that you are mentally ill, and a danger to society..and thus should be locked up alongside those mutants you're responsible for breeding.
Now KG thinks that if you find what she posts funny- you should be locked up.
More and more fascist with every post.
No I think it's a sign of sociopathy to think it's funny that mentally ill people are breeding..and that the reason you find it so hilarious is that it provides a market for baby killing.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeMarriage is a contract, the law prohibits children into entering into a contract of that sort.
You are trying to deny people who want to Marry more than one person at a time, or those that want multiple licence from doing so, using the same methods and reasoning that you claimed to detest in the pre legalized same sex marriage debates.
Where does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
The entire population can get married accept for kids now. Just have to be a male and a female on the contract.The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeMarriage is a contract, the law prohibits children into entering into a contract of that sort.
You are trying to deny people who want to Marry more than one person at a time, or those that want multiple licence from doing so, using the same methods and reasoning that you claimed to detest in the pre legalized same sex marriage debates.
Where does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
The entire population can get married accept for kids now. Just have to be a male and a female on the contract.The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeWhere does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
Well not exactly.
Kids for instance still can marry in special instances
And you don't have to have a male and a female on the contract- just two people- regardless of gender.
But there are other restrictions- neither of those people can be married to someone else- and neither of them can be related to a degree that varies from state to state.
So other than that.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeWhere does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
Nope, do you?
Obergfell removed the requirement that one man can marry one women. There was a reason for that limit, to give a home for offspring that is balanced. If you now have a home in which a child cannot be created, the number is no longer applicable and would not withstand legal challenge.ll
An argument for abortion.She was arrested, she is a product of our state welfare system. She's the child of some nut, has been in state custody forever, spent her formative years in state approved foster homes...a complete dingbat, as most of the kids raised by the state are. The state encourages and rewards stupidity and insanity, and this is true among the children they breed and rear as well.
DittoAnd they breed.
And you think it's funny. I think that should be sufficient evidence that you are mentally ill, and a danger to society..and thus should be locked up alongside those mutants you're responsible for breeding.
Now KG thinks that if you find what she posts funny- you should be locked up.
More and more fascist with every post.
No I think it's a sign of sociopathy to think it's funny that mentally ill people are breeding..and that the reason you find it so hilarious is that it provides a market for baby killing.
QUOTE]
I don't find any of your posts funny- no way I could find any of your vile attacks on humans 'funny'
Just in this thread you have announced how you believe large portions of America deserve death- and now that those who find your posts funny should be locked up.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeI have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
Nope, do you?
Obergfell removed the requirement that one man can marry one women. There was a reason for that limit, to give a home for offspring that is balanced. If you now have a home in which a child cannot be created, the number is no longer applicable and would not withstand legal challenge.ll
LOL- where exactly did you come up with that 'reason'?
In homes where children couldn't be created before- should they not have been able to be married?
There is nothing in Obergefell that changes the Constitutionality of bans on multiple marriages.
Either multiple marriages are Constitutional- or they aren't.
Obergefell no more affects multiple marriages than Loving did.
But ONLY because that condition is likely to cause injury to a child.Being crazy isn't a choice.
That doesn't mean that pedophilia is a sexual orientation. It's a sexual PERVERSION. It's a psychiatric disorder.
It's an indication that there is something terribly wrong with a person's ability to function safely as an adult in society, and is sufficient cause to lock someone away forever.
Does Obergefell say that a father can marry hid adult daughter. Show us where.The entire population can get married accept for kids now. Just have to be a male and a female on the contract.The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeMarriage is a contract, the law prohibits children into entering into a contract of that sort.
You are trying to deny people who want to Marry more than one person at a time, or those that want multiple licence from doing so, using the same methods and reasoning that you claimed to detest in the pre legalized same sex marriage debates.
Where does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
The entire population can get married accept for kids now. Just have to be a male and a female on the contract.The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeI have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
Well not exactly.
Kids for instance still can marry in special instances
And you don't have to have a male and a female on the contract- just two people- regardless of gender.
But there are other restrictions- neither of those people can be married to someone else- and neither of them can be related to a degree that varies from state to state.
So other than that.
"neither of those people can be married to someone else"
and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?
"and neither of them can be related to a degree"
and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeWhere does he say that?
Actually marriage law is wierd in that it does allow children into entering into that contract under specific circumstances and in some states- as young as 12 in some states with judges approval.
You think that marriage should include more than 2 people- then you have the same right to pursue your dream as the gay couples who sued to pursue what they considered to be their rights- you can work to change it legislatively or you can go to court arguing you should be able to marry your sister wives.
go for it.
I have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
The only argument is that, because a new unit with one man, and several women can produce offspring, so that sanction can't exist would preclude a unit with multiple male only, or female only from marriage. Yet, you can't exclude one group because the other group might procreate.
That argument was tried and failed..........
In Obergfell
The entire population can get married accept for kids now. Just have to be a male and a female on the contract.The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emerge
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
Well not exactly.
Kids for instance still can marry in special instances
And you don't have to have a male and a female on the contract- just two people- regardless of gender.
But there are other restrictions- neither of those people can be married to someone else- and neither of them can be related to a degree that varies from state to state.
So other than that.
"neither of those people can be married to someone else"
and the States compelling interest in denying this is........?
"and neither of them can be related to a degree"
and the States compelling interest in denying this..........?
You ask the state- don't ask me.
The State could not come up with a compelling reason why the state prohibited two men from marrying- if the State cannot come up with a compelling reason why Donald Trump should be able to be married to 10 wives at once- then the state shouldn't have that law on the books.
Do you think it polygamous marriage is Constitutional?
And more than 2 people can be parties to a contract.it is a contract. as such is binding.
Do you have a reading comprehension problem?The legal ban on plural marriage has not been tested in court as far as I know, so neither you nor I can say if advocates for it would prevail. But as I said, there are different issues.....different social and legal implications since the whole marriage concept and legal structure is predicated on a union of two people. It is more of a leap away from "traditional" marriage. It is idiotic to claim that there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny. If you read the Obergefell decision, you would know that same sex couples were granted the same rights as heterosexual couples-nothing more or less. Since hetero couples cannot legally marry a third person, it is clear that there does indeed remain some legal obstacles. In addition, same sex couples were able to claim discrimination because they were being treated differently from others who were essentially the same as them. It might be more difficult for those seeking plural marriage to claim discrimination, since no one is able to marry more than one person at a time. But, hey. who knows? A creative legal argument may emergeI have never advocated for plural marriage. However, since Obergfell, it appears there is no longer a sound legal reason to deny this, or several other types of marriage that are not desirable.
There is no legal reason to limit marriage to anything less than the entire population (minus minors and those incapable of entering contract), now that the law excludes "one man to one women" which makes both the number and the following "not closely related" irrelevant.
That happened with the Obergfell case.
The only argument is that, because a new unit with one man, and several women can produce offspring, so that sanction can't exist would preclude a unit with multiple male only, or female only from marriage. Yet, you can't exclude one group because the other group might procreate.
That argument was tried and failed..........
In Obergfell
Except of course- that wasn't part of Obergefell at all.
And more than 2 people can be parties to a contract.it is a contract. as such is binding.
