If polyamory is next, then polygamy isn't far behind

[Skylar]

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

So if there is a "right" to marry, how can the government deny plural marriage?

For the same reason that bigamy laws have never been successfully challenged.

Bigamy usually involves unknowing parties, and is a crime.

Polygamy is also a crime. And Bigamy doesn't require deception upon any party within either marriage to be illegal.

 

[martybegan]

Open relationships probably sound awesome, but all the added jealousies, the shared loyalties, and the opportunity for heart break leads me to think its not something for everyone.

I know there are swinger communities out there, but those are groups of people who commit to a lifestyle, not two people deciding to bang other people, or bring another person into their bedroom from time to time.

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

The law is the law until there is a new law. The trend is to legalize all relationships. Someone cannot tell you who to love. You can't tell anyone they can't love more than one person. Why should a bisexual be forced into making a commitment to one sex alone when they clearly love and desire both?

The same arguments used to push forced legalization of gay marriage can be used to push forced legalization of plural marriage.

 

[martybegan]

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

So if there is a "right" to marry, how can the government deny plural marriage?

For the same reason that bigamy laws have never been successfully challenged.

Bigamy usually involves unknowing parties, and is a crime.

Polygamy is also a crime. And Bigamy doesn't require deception upon any party within either marriage to be illegal.

it's not a crime, the State just won't issue a license if you ask for it.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

It absolutely can. There's just utterly insufficient interest in the public or the legislators to create such a law. Or the caselaw necessary to implement the unique situations that arise under plural marriages that never arise under our current arrangement.

Making poly marriage unlikely.

But if interest changes, the law may change accordingly.

So if there was all of this interest in making it the law, why run to the courts, and more importantly, why force it on States that don't want it, instead of just forcing them to accept all issued marriage licenses, with full faith and credit?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

 

[Skylar]

You can't pass judgment based on what you think is going to happen. If polyamorists want to marry, then they may already legally marry in states where it has been decriminalized. So says the reasoning of Obergefell. Remember, if one sexual orientation gets special unwritten 'rights" from the Constitution, they all do. That's how the 14th works..

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

The law is the law until there is a new law. The trend is to legalize all relationships. Someone cannot tell you who to love. You can't tell anyone they can't love more than one person. Why should a bisexual be forced into making a commitment to one sex alone when they clearly love and desire both?

The same arguments used to push forced legalization of gay marriage can be used to push forced legalization of plural marriage.

If such were the case, bigamy would already be legal.

It isn't.

 

[martybegan]

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

It absolutely can. There's just utterly insufficient interest in the public or the legislators to create such a law. Or the caselaw necessary to implement the unique situations that arise under plural marriages that never arise under our current arrangement.

Making poly marriage unlikely.

But if interest changes, the law may change accordingly.

So if there was all of this interest in making it the law, why run to the courts, and more importantly, why force it on States that don't want it, instead of just forcing them to accept all issued marriage licenses, with full faith and credit?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

 

[Skylar]

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

So if there is a "right" to marry, how can the government deny plural marriage?

For the same reason that bigamy laws have never been successfully challenged.

Bigamy usually involves unknowing parties, and is a crime.

Polygamy is also a crime. And Bigamy doesn't require deception upon any party within either marriage to be illegal.

it's not a crime, the State just won't issue a license if you ask for it.

Its a crime if marriage is involved. As its recognized as bigamy in most states.

 

[martybegan]

Nope. The Obergefell decision never so much as mentions polygamy. Let alone recognizes it as legally valid or protected.

The Obergefell ruling merely found that State marriage law can't discriminate based on gender. There's no requirement that same sex couples be of any particular sexual orientation.

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

The law is the law until there is a new law. The trend is to legalize all relationships. Someone cannot tell you who to love. You can't tell anyone they can't love more than one person. Why should a bisexual be forced into making a commitment to one sex alone when they clearly love and desire both?

The same arguments used to push forced legalization of gay marriage can be used to push forced legalization of plural marriage.

If such were the case, bigamy would already be legal.

It isn't.

Again, most prosecutions for bigamy involve fraud, someone marrying multiple partners without the knowledge of certain parties. If there is no harmed party, i.e. no one complains if it is discovered, then all that happens is that the marriage license is voided.

 

[Skylar]

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

It absolutely can. There's just utterly insufficient interest in the public or the legislators to create such a law. Or the caselaw necessary to implement the unique situations that arise under plural marriages that never arise under our current arrangement.

Making poly marriage unlikely.

But if interest changes, the law may change accordingly.

So if there was all of this interest in making it the law, why run to the courts, and more importantly, why force it on States that don't want it, instead of just forcing them to accept all issued marriage licenses, with full faith and credit?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

 

[Skylar]

To be accurate, the Loving decision never mentioned same sex marriage either. Let alone recognize it as legally valid or protected.

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

The law is the law until there is a new law. The trend is to legalize all relationships. Someone cannot tell you who to love. You can't tell anyone they can't love more than one person. Why should a bisexual be forced into making a commitment to one sex alone when they clearly love and desire both?

The same arguments used to push forced legalization of gay marriage can be used to push forced legalization of plural marriage.

If such were the case, bigamy would already be legal.

It isn't.

Again, most prosecutions for bigamy involve fraud, someone marrying multiple partners without the knowledge of certain parties. If there is no harmed party, i.e. no one complains if it is discovered, then all that happens is that the marriage license is voided.

Show me a bigamy law that requires deception perpetrated on any party involved in the marriage by any party of in the marriage.

 

[martybegan]

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

It absolutely can. There's just utterly insufficient interest in the public or the legislators to create such a law. Or the caselaw necessary to implement the unique situations that arise under plural marriages that never arise under our current arrangement.

Making poly marriage unlikely.

But if interest changes, the law may change accordingly.

So if there was all of this interest in making it the law, why run to the courts, and more importantly, why force it on States that don't want it, instead of just forcing them to accept all issued marriage licenses, with full faith and credit?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

 

[martybegan]

The Loving decision did cite the right to marry, however. Which is exactly what it was cited as doing in the Obergefell decision.

Obegefell removed gender discrimination just as Loving removed racial discrimination.

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

The law is the law until there is a new law. The trend is to legalize all relationships. Someone cannot tell you who to love. You can't tell anyone they can't love more than one person. Why should a bisexual be forced into making a commitment to one sex alone when they clearly love and desire both?

The same arguments used to push forced legalization of gay marriage can be used to push forced legalization of plural marriage.

If such were the case, bigamy would already be legal.

It isn't.

Again, most prosecutions for bigamy involve fraud, someone marrying multiple partners without the knowledge of certain parties. If there is no harmed party, i.e. no one complains if it is discovered, then all that happens is that the marriage license is voided.

Show me a bigamy law that requires deception perpetrated on any party involved in the marriage by any party of in the marriage.

Most broken laws required an aggrieved party to press charges on someone. If the person in the first marriage is agreed to an in on the 2nd marriage, Why would any prosecutor go after them for nothing more than nulling the 2nd marriage contract?

 

[Skylar]

It absolutely can. There's just utterly insufficient interest in the public or the legislators to create such a law. Or the caselaw necessary to implement the unique situations that arise under plural marriages that never arise under our current arrangement.

Making poly marriage unlikely.

But if interest changes, the law may change accordingly.

So if there was all of this interest in making it the law, why run to the courts, and more importantly, why force it on States that don't want it, instead of just forcing them to accept all issued marriage licenses, with full faith and credit?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

 

[Skylar]

And a new law can remove numerical discrimination.

The law is the law until there is a new law. The trend is to legalize all relationships. Someone cannot tell you who to love. You can't tell anyone they can't love more than one person. Why should a bisexual be forced into making a commitment to one sex alone when they clearly love and desire both?

The same arguments used to push forced legalization of gay marriage can be used to push forced legalization of plural marriage.

If such were the case, bigamy would already be legal.

It isn't.

Again, most prosecutions for bigamy involve fraud, someone marrying multiple partners without the knowledge of certain parties. If there is no harmed party, i.e. no one complains if it is discovered, then all that happens is that the marriage license is voided.

Show me a bigamy law that requires deception perpetrated on any party involved in the marriage by any party of in the marriage.

Most broken laws required an aggrieved party to press charges on someone. If the person in the first marriage is agreed to an in on the 2nd marriage, Why would any prosecutor go after them for nothing more than nulling the 2nd marriage contract?

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me a bigamy statute that requires deception by a party of the marriage upon a party to the marriage.

Please do so.

 

[martybegan]

So if there was all of this interest in making it the law, why run to the courts, and more importantly, why force it on States that don't want it, instead of just forcing them to accept all issued marriage licenses, with full faith and credit?

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Because gays clearly have a right to marry. And no state has the authority to create laws that abrogate those rights.

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

 

[Katzndogz]

The likely result is that people just won't bother with marriage. After all what woman wants to pay spousal support to her husband's other wife.

I am personally ambivalent. Marriage is okay for other people.

 

[martybegan]

The same arguments used to push forced legalization of gay marriage can be used to push forced legalization of plural marriage.

If such were the case, bigamy would already be legal.

It isn't.

Again, most prosecutions for bigamy involve fraud, someone marrying multiple partners without the knowledge of certain parties. If there is no harmed party, i.e. no one complains if it is discovered, then all that happens is that the marriage license is voided.

Show me a bigamy law that requires deception perpetrated on any party involved in the marriage by any party of in the marriage.

Most broken laws required an aggrieved party to press charges on someone. If the person in the first marriage is agreed to an in on the 2nd marriage, Why would any prosecutor go after them for nothing more than nulling the 2nd marriage contract?

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to show me a bigamy statute that requires deception by a party of the marriage upon a party to the marriage.

Please do so.

Considering you can only get the 2nd license via deception, its pretty much part of the act. The issue isn't deceiving the State, its deceiving one of the people involved in the marriages.

 

[Skylar]

The likely result is that people just won't bother with marriage. After all what woman wants to pay spousal support to her husband's other wife.

I am personally ambivalent. Marriage is okay for other people.

As long as marriage is socially and economically advantageous there will be folks that choose it. And its still both.

 

[Katzndogz]

So why don't people who want a plural marriage have a "right to marry"?

They do. They don't have the right to commit bigamy, however.

That's double talk. Answer the question, is there a "right" to plural marriage or not, and if not, why not?

There is no recognized right to enter into two marriages at the same time. That's not 'double talk'. That's bigamy....which is a crime.

If you believe otherwise, show us a single court case taht recognizes the right of an individual to enter into two marriages at the same time.

After all Loving said marriage is a right, and oberkfell extended it to same sex marriages, where is the moral and legal rationale for stopping there?

Marriage is a right. Bigamy is not.

Plural marriage is not "two marriages", it is people wanting to enter into one marriage.

Under the law it is bigamy.

So change the law. Sodomy used to be illegal too.