It's Time to Talk About Polygamy, the Woman's Vote & Political Strategy

[Silhouette]

Is there a mass movement for Polygamy? Is anyone calling for it?

Here's the problem with Polygamy overall. Human beings are really much too jealous to make it work.

I mean, yeah, it can work in Mormon splinter groups where women are beaten into submission all their lives.

Here's the real problem with Polygamy, from no less than Brigham Young. "When I bought one wife a ribbon, I had to buy a ribbon for the other 50."

There are secular polygmists.

And as you know already, once if gays set a precedent, you don't need a movement at all. Just one set of litigants and then it's the law of the land. And there are already litigants waiting to appeal for polygamy if gay marraige gets to use the 14th. I think constitutional-attorney Jonathan Turley is representing them....waiting.... Probably has all the papers ready to file and court brief drafts already drawn up on his PC.

He is or was at least representing the Brown family. One man and four wives formerly from Utah. Here's what he had to say about his challenge on polygamy there:

“We believe that this case represents the strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy ever filed in the federal courts. We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs. This action seeks to protect one of the defining principles of this country, what Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the right to be left alone.’ In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values – even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state. http://jonathanturley.org/2011/07/13/brown-family-challenges-utahs-polygamy-law/

Of course Mr. Turley was smart enough not to "push it" at the outset in Utah. But the foreshadowing of what their eventual plans are for court is underlined. Once the cult of LGBT unravels traditional marriage, if that indeed happens at all at the federal level, polygamy cannot be denied. Brown v Utah is Turley's "Lawrence v Texas". And we see where that has taken us to today. The denial would be arbitrary, unfair and unequal. "LGBT" is incomplete. And the Supreme Court Justices know it is...

 

[Montrovant]

Who's the 'we' that knows polygamy will be legal in 2-5 years? Because it doesn't seem to be anyone in this thread but you.

"We" is the 99% of people who know there is no way to exclude others than 'LGBT' if they set the precedent. You are vastly outnumbered in your outlook.

Ah, 99% of people, is it? I'm sure you know what you're talking about, after all, you've so accurately predicted the opinions of posters here in this thread.....

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, and while polygamy may end up legal based on precedent set by same sex marriage, that's not a given. It's dependent upon the reasoning involved; if banning same sex marriage were found to be illegal based on gender discrimination, for example, how would that set a precedent for polygamous marriage?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, and while polygamy may end up legal based on precedent set by same sex marriage, that's not a given. It's dependent upon the reasoning involved; if banning same sex marriage were found to be illegal based on gender discrimination, for example, how would that set a precedent for polygamous marriage?

No, because both men and women may marry. Just not the same gender in 47 states.

And yes, "same or similar" covers the use of the precedent by polygamists assuming gays clear the hurdle of the 14th with their just-some-minority-behaviors-as-protected-class high hopes... In fact I've argued that other minority behaviors will also follow. Because once you remove the ability of the majority to object to minority behaviors, you remove democracy itself.

With Loving v Virginia, it wasn't the behavior of a white marrying a black that mattered. It was the race issue as well. It was the behavior of a black marrying a white. So it was about race. If the LGBT cult tries the same angle, it is trying the behavior to marry a behavior [for example a woman who has sex with women wanting to marry other woman who has sex with women]. It is pure behavior. Because females and males can already legally marry.

A woman can never be a father. A man can never be a mother. And the whole issue of how children's rights fit into this debate gets another sweep under the rug.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

King Solomon had 700 wives and over 300 concubines which makes him KING of everything in my opinion but I digress. LOL-- So what's the deal?

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, and while polygamy may end up legal based on precedent set by same sex marriage, that's not a given. It's dependent upon the reasoning involved; if banning same sex marriage were found to be illegal based on gender discrimination, for example, how would that set a precedent for polygamous marriage?

No, because both men and women may marry. Just not the same gender in 47 states.

And yes, "same or similar" covers the use of the precedent by polygamists assuming gays clear the hurdle of the 14th with their just-some-minority-behaviors-as-protected-class high hopes... In fact I've argued that other minority behaviors will also follow. Because once you remove the ability of the majority to object to minority behaviors, you remove democracy itself.

With Loving v Virginia, it wasn't the behavior of a white marrying a black that mattered. It was the race issue as well. It was the behavior of a black marrying a white. So it was about race. If the LGBT cult tries the same angle, it is trying the behavior to marry a behavior [for example a woman who has sex with women wanting to marry other woman who has sex with women]. It is pure behavior. Because females and males can already legally marry.

A woman can never be a father. A man can never be a mother. And the whole issue of how children's rights fit into this debate gets another sweep under the rug.

I think an argument could be made that since a woman can marry a man, not allowing a man to marry a man is gender discrimination. The only reason the man isn't allowed to do the same thing a woman is is his gender, and vice versa.

Regardless, it is your surety that not only will polygamous marriage quickly become legal should same sex marriage become the law nationally, and your surety that the vast, vast majority of people feel the same way that is at issue here. Why you are so sure of this timeline and why you think nearly every other person agrees with you are questions yet to be answered well.

 

[itfitzme]

If gay marriage succeeds in setting the new precedent for interpretation of the 14th Amendment to incude minor groupings of behaviors objectionable to the majority as having "special protection" [and the complete eventual destruction of American democratic rule], polygamy will be the very next victory at the Supreme Court level.

Once they allow one set of incomplete behavioral groupings a certain "right", that right cannot be arbitrarily denied other incomplete behavioral groupings...and so on... Think of lady justice with the blindfold on.

So, with all the grappling going on for the women's vote it seems all one would have to do is introduce the fact that polygamy is right around the corner. I wonder what regular old gals will be thinking when that fact is made implicitly clear to them? Most women I know would probably not welcome a younger, prettier wife in their home legally by their husband. But some have accused me of being behind the times. So maybe I'm wrong about that?

Assuming I'm not though, democrats have essentially become siamese twins with the LGBT cult movement. I wonder....hmmm.... [if I need to fill in the blanks for you, you shouldn't be involved in political strategy and should get a job flipping hamburgers or something..]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

Supposition

 

[Silhouette]

I think an argument could be made that since a woman can marry a man, not allowing a man to marry a man is gender discrimination. The only reason the man isn't allowed to do the same thing a woman is is his gender, and vice versa.

Regardless, it is your surety that not only will polygamous marriage quickly become legal should same sex marriage become the law nationally, and your surety that the vast, vast majority of people feel the same way that is at issue here. Why you are so sure of this timeline and why you think nearly every other person agrees with you are questions yet to be answered well.

You can make your arguments all you like. Both genders can marry. They just can't defile the term "marriage" [for the sake of states wanting children in their borders to have an icon of mother/father guardians] at its base = man-woman. That act of defilement of the base structure of marriage is a behavior that will have to be pitched state by state.

If the fed allows this practice an umbrella under the 14th [and ushers in other behaviors that want to marry outside tradition too], I'll eat my hat. But you can keep on wishing.

And that's the logical argument. That polygamy won't be denied upon any gay marriage federal stamp of approval is a nail you can hang that hat on. The "gut instinct" part of this thread is if middle bloc women voters upon learning that fact will support the democratic party. And....if you think the GOP is going to cooperate with democrats in keeping the polygamy-elephant in the living room out of sight and out of mind as pivotal elections close in..

 

[Montrovant]

I think an argument could be made that since a woman can marry a man, not allowing a man to marry a man is gender discrimination. The only reason the man isn't allowed to do the same thing a woman is is his gender, and vice versa.

Regardless, it is your surety that not only will polygamous marriage quickly become legal should same sex marriage become the law nationally, and your surety that the vast, vast majority of people feel the same way that is at issue here. Why you are so sure of this timeline and why you think nearly every other person agrees with you are questions yet to be answered well.

You can make your arguments all you like. Both genders can marry. They just can't defile the term "marriage" [for the sake of states wanting children in their borders to have an icon of mother/father guardians] at its base = man-woman. That act of defilement of the base structure of marriage is a behavior that will have to be pitched state by state.

If the fed allows this practice an umbrella under the 14th [and ushers in other behaviors that want to marry outside tradition too], I'll eat my hat. But you can keep on wishing.

And that's the logical argument. That polygamy won't be denied upon any gay marriage federal stamp of approval is a nail you can hang that hat on. The "gut instinct" part of this thread is if middle bloc women voters upon learning that fact will support the democratic party. And....if you think the GOP is going to cooperate with democrats in keeping the polygamy-elephant in the living room out of sight and out of mind as pivotal elections close in..

As I'm pretty sure neither one of us will be making any judgements about the legality of same sex marriage on a federal level, your declaration about what arguments are valid is pretty pointless. And apparently there are quite a few states that can and have 'defiled' the term marriage.

If you are certain same sex marriage will not gain legality at a federal level under the auspices of the 14th amendment, what is the point of this thread? Why are you asking about the voting repercussions of an event you are sure will not occur?

 

[Silhouette]

As I'm pretty sure neither one of us will be making any judgements about the legality of same sex marriage on a federal level, your declaration about what arguments are valid is pretty pointless. And apparently there are quite a few states that can and have 'defiled' the term marriage.

If you are certain same sex marriage will not gain legality at a federal level under the auspices of the 14th amendment, what is the point of this thread? Why are you asking about the voting repercussions of an event you are sure will not occur?

1. You're right. My judgment doesn't count. There has already been a judgment made. It's called June 2013 Windsor Opinion. Unless the Court intends on reversing their own Opinion in less than 2 years.

2. According to the Windsor Opinion and emphasis on state's broadest consensus to weigh in on gay marriage, and the preference the Court gave that process over judicial activism, only 3 states have abided by that intent and constitutional-upholding to allow gay marriage.

So "not quite a few states". 47 states' consensus have said "NO" to gay marriage.

And if the Senate gets stuffed with just enough republicans, they have already made statements in the House that they intend to impeach those judicial-activists for wilfully-ignoring Windsor's intent and language and trying to overrule it from underneath.

 

[Montrovant]

As I'm pretty sure neither one of us will be making any judgements about the legality of same sex marriage on a federal level, your declaration about what arguments are valid is pretty pointless. And apparently there are quite a few states that can and have 'defiled' the term marriage.

If you are certain same sex marriage will not gain legality at a federal level under the auspices of the 14th amendment, what is the point of this thread? Why are you asking about the voting repercussions of an event you are sure will not occur?

1. You're right. My judgment doesn't count. There has already been a judgment made. It's called June 2013 Windsor Opinion. Unless the Court intends on reversing their own Opinion in less than 2 years.

2. According to the Windsor Opinion and emphasis on state's broadest consensus to weigh in on gay marriage, and the preference the Court gave that process over judicial activism, only 3 states have abided by that intent and constitutional-upholding to allow gay marriage.

So "not quite a few states". 47 states' consensus have said "NO" to gay marriage.

And if the Senate gets stuffed with just enough republicans, they have already made statements in the House that they intend to impeach those judicial-activists for wilfully-ignoring Windsor's intent and language and trying to overrule it from underneath.

Didn't Windsor find part of DOMA unconstitutional? How does that have anything to do with whether a state legalizes same sex marriage through ballot or court case? And how does how a state legalizes SSM change whether or not, in your opinion, that state has 'defiled' marriage?

You also completely skipped my second question. Why, if you are certain that same sex marriage will not be legalized under the 14th amendment, are you asking for opinions about what women voters will do if it is legalized under the 14th amendment?

 

[JoeB131]

As I'm pretty sure neither one of us will be making any judgements about the legality of same sex marriage on a federal level, your declaration about what arguments are valid is pretty pointless. And apparently there are quite a few states that can and have 'defiled' the term marriage.

If you are certain same sex marriage will not gain legality at a federal level under the auspices of the 14th amendment, what is the point of this thread? Why are you asking about the voting repercussions of an event you are sure will not occur?

1. You're right. My judgment doesn't count. There has already been a judgment made. It's called June 2013 Windsor Opinion. Unless the Court intends on reversing their own Opinion in less than 2 years.

2. According to the Windsor Opinion and emphasis on state's broadest consensus to weigh in on gay marriage, and the preference the Court gave that process over judicial activism, only 3 states have abided by that intent and constitutional-upholding to allow gay marriage.

So "not quite a few states". 47 states' consensus have said "NO" to gay marriage.

And if the Senate gets stuffed with just enough republicans, they have already made statements in the House that they intend to impeach those judicial-activists for wilfully-ignoring Windsor's intent and language and trying to overrule it from underneath.

You are kind of delusional. The GOP wants this issue to go away more than the Democrats do.

Meanwhile, bans on gay marriage have been struck down in 12 states. No one has taken your view of Windsor that it allows states to ban gay marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sounds like the drums are already beating for an inquisition before the ink is even dried on the IRS tax-exempt status for the church of LGBT...

"it's good" as the queen said to the evil witch, "when you are beaten"

the hetero-fascists have dealt themselves a very poor hand

So would you support me in saying "its good when gays are beaten"?

But it won't happen.

21 straight court decisions, which reject your interp of Windsor, make that quite clear.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Who's the 'we' that knows polygamy will be legal in 2-5 years? Because it doesn't seem to be anyone in this thread but you.

"We" is the 99% of people who know there is no way to exclude others than 'LGBT' if they set the precedent. You are vastly outnumbered in your outlook.

Link? Analysis? Other evidence?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Is there a mass movement for Polygamy? Is anyone calling for it?

Here's the problem with Polygamy overall. Human beings are really much too jealous to make it work.

I mean, yeah, it can work in Mormon splinter groups where women are beaten into submission all their lives.

Here's the real problem with Polygamy, from no less than Brigham Young. "When I bought one wife a ribbon, I had to buy a ribbon for the other 50."

There are secular polygmists.

And as you know already, once if gays set a precedent, you don't need a movement at all. Just one set of litigants and then it's the law of the land. And there are already litigants waiting to appeal for polygamy if gay marraige gets to use the 14th. I think constitutional-attorney Jonathan Turley is representing them....waiting.... Probably has all the papers ready to file and court brief drafts already drawn up on his PC.

He is or was at least representing the Brown family. One man and four wives formerly from Utah. Here's what he had to say about his challenge on polygamy there:

“We believe that this case represents the strongest factual and legal basis for a challenge to the criminalization of polygamy ever filed in the federal courts. We are not demanding the recognition of polygamous marriage. We are only challenging the right of the state to prosecute people for their private relations and demanding equal treatment with other citizens in living their lives according to their own beliefs. This action seeks to protect one of the defining principles of this country, what Justice Louis Brandeis called ‘the right to be left alone.’ In that sense, it is a challenge designed to benefit not just polygamists but all citizens who wish to live their lives according to their own values – even if those values run counter to those of the majority in the state. Brown Family Challenges Utah?s Polygamy Law | JONATHAN TURLEY

Of course Mr. Turley was smart enough not to "push it" at the outset in Utah. But the foreshadowing of what their eventual plans are for court is underlined. Once the cult of LGBT unravels traditional marriage, if that indeed happens at all at the federal level, polygamy cannot be denied. Brown v Utah is Turley's "Lawrence v Texas". And we see where that has taken us to today. The denial would be arbitrary, unfair and unequal. "LGBT" is incomplete. And the Supreme Court Justices know it is...

No cult of LGBT exists, Sil. It never has. You have created a Confirmation Bias from an unsustainable thesis. That is exactly what Bachmann did in the House that day when she got up to talk about non-existent "death panels." They did not exist then, they don't now. And neither does your suppoosed cult.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Both genders can marry. They just can't defile the term "marriage" [for the sake of states wanting children in their borders to have an icon of mother/father guardians] at its base = man-woman"

No one is defiling anything. All people can marry, period. Windsor overturned DOMA, and enshrined the right under the 14th to protect civil liberties.

 

[Inevitable]

Just as I thought. The 10th is not allowing gay marriages.

You friend should have been a little more careful. I don'tknow why this makes you think about gay people, unless you are obsessed with it.

As for polygamy, I don't give a shit.

 

[Inevitable]

"Both genders can marry. They just can't defile the term "marriage" [for the sake of states wanting children in their borders to have an icon of mother/father guardians] at its base = man-woman"

No one is defiling anything. All people can marry, period. Windsor overturned DOMA, and enshrined the right under the 14th to protect civil liberties.

It only overturned section 3 of DOMA. All that needs to occur for equality is to overturn section 2 of DOMA.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One step at a time.

Sotomayor has carefully been building a wave of lower court support, and how she has at least 6, possibly 7, votes if push comes to shove.

Polygamy is only a minor, minor distraction.

 

[Inevitable]

One step at a time.

Sotomayor has carefully been building a wave of lower court support, and how she has at least 6, possibly 7, votes if push comes to shove.

Polygamy is only a minor, minor distraction.

Polygamy isn't even part of the equation.