Why is gay marriage legal, but not polygamy?

[Pop23]

It could be. We could, state by state, create a patchwork of brand new precedent to answer questions that are unique to polygamy. It would take decades, but its totally possible. However, the incompatibility with our marriage laws would be a logical reason to not recognize plural marriages if we chose to.

Where with same sex marriage, no such imcompatibility exists. Nor has existed since 2 person marriage was recognized as a joining of equals. The moment men and women were recognized as equals in a marriage.....same sex marriage was inevitable. As all the same rules apply.

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one. Or the courts would decide as is done when any divorce is contested.

PA law, as shown, has no provisions for same sex marriage yet here we are.

There is no requirement under PA law that applicants must be one man and one woman, just the sentence that the rules are the same for both male and female applicants.

Of course sometimes things are written when the impossibility of marriage ever being considered anything other then between a man and woman is ever considered. The law doesn't say it is illegal for a shoe to marry a toaster because that is not going to happen. But here we are in a brave new world where traditions mean nothing. Long standing definitions are changed in a blink of an eye.

But the point is, that the law never consider marriage anything but between a man and woman, it didn't need said. You know the "intent" like the SCOTUS quoted for their usurp of power concerning ACA. So now, if all of a sudden were are going to take laws by the letter of the law and say it does not ban gay marriage, although it does say man and woman, then the precise reading indicates that there is no prohibition from anyone getting married or anyone and maybe anything.

You are correct and the reason that the institution was limited to two.

One of each gender. That is the only way to ever create a third (the child)

Now the number means zip

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?
Thoughts?

Look at the supreme court decision in Reynolds VS U.S and you will see that polygamy is going to be legal. as it should be. I don't want two wives, but who cares if someone else does.

The voting public. But now that they're no longer able to regulate the word "marriage" or behaviors for that matter, their votes don't count. Thanks SCOTUS...

Their votes were never supposed to count in the first place. The rights of others aren't up for a vote of the people. We are not a democracy. Learn it and accept it.

People voted for equal rights for EVERYONE in the constitution, including blacks, women AND gays. The court enforced what was already voted on by the people. If the states don't like the constitution, they shouldn't have ratified it long ago.

I dont care about gay marriage to be honest, has no bearing on my life, I am however glad you feel the way you do.
Im pretty sure that when the equal rights amendment was passed, there was no consideration for gay marriage since it was not an issue at the time.
but, since you seem to think (and I agree) that they also voted for gay marriage at the time, We can follow that same logic and see that the 2nd not only covers some weapons, but all, even those that were not considered at the time because they were not invented yet. In light of this, not only must all states recognize the CC laws of other states, but the regulations on what can be owned must also be dropped. If the government owns it, the people have the right to own it also.
Rights are not negotiable

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one. Or the courts would decide as is done when any divorce is contested.

PA law, as shown, has no provisions for same sex marriage yet here we are.

There is no requirement under PA law that applicants must be one man and one woman, just the sentence that the rules are the same for both male and female applicants.

Of course sometimes things are written when the impossibility of marriage ever being considered anything other then between a man and woman is ever considered. The law doesn't say it is illegal for a shoe to marry a toaster because that is not going to happen. But here we are in a brave new world where traditions mean nothing. Long standing definitions are changed in a blink of an eye.

But the point is, that the law never consider marriage anything but between a man and woman, it didn't need said. You know the "intent" like the SCOTUS quoted for their usurp of power concerning ACA. So now, if all of a sudden were are going to take laws by the letter of the law and say it does not ban gay marriage, although it does say man and woman, then the precise reading indicates that there is no prohibition from anyone getting married or anyone and maybe anything.

You are correct and the reason that the institution was limited to two.

One of each gender. That is the only way to ever create a third (the child)

Now the number means zip

what is it about a man with 4 or 5 wives that makes it impossible to create children, other than exhaustion

 

[Freewill]

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one. Or the courts would decide as is done when any divorce is contested.

PA law, as shown, has no provisions for same sex marriage yet here we are.

There is no requirement under PA law that applicants must be one man and one woman, just the sentence that the rules are the same for both male and female applicants.

Of course sometimes things are written when the impossibility of marriage ever being considered anything other then between a man and woman is ever considered. The law doesn't say it is illegal for a shoe to marry a toaster because that is not going to happen. But here we are in a brave new world where traditions mean nothing. Long standing definitions are changed in a blink of an eye.

But the point is, that the law never consider marriage anything but between a man and woman, it didn't need said. You know the "intent" like the SCOTUS quoted for their usurp of power concerning ACA. So now, if all of a sudden were are going to take laws by the letter of the law and say it does not ban gay marriage, although it does say man and woman, then the precise reading indicates that there is no prohibition from anyone getting married or anyone and maybe anything.

You are correct and the reason that the institution was limited to two.

One of each gender. That is the only way to ever create a third (the child)

Now the number means zip

My own feeling, it was made that way to reduce competition for women.

 

[Freewill]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?
Thoughts?

Look at the supreme court decision in Reynolds VS U.S and you will see that polygamy is going to be legal. as it should be. I don't want two wives, but who cares if someone else does.

The voting public. But now that they're no longer able to regulate the word "marriage" or behaviors for that matter, their votes don't count. Thanks SCOTUS...

Their votes were never supposed to count in the first place. The rights of others aren't up for a vote of the people. We are not a democracy. Learn it and accept it.

People voted for equal rights for EVERYONE in the constitution, including blacks, women AND gays. The court enforced what was already voted on by the people. If the states don't like the constitution, they shouldn't have ratified it long ago.

I dont care about gay marriage to be honest, has no bearing on my life, I am however glad you feel the way you do.
Im pretty sure that when the equal rights amendment was passed, there was no consideration for gay marriage since it was not an issue at the time.
but, since you seem to think (and I agree) that they also voted for gay marriage at the time, We can follow that same logic and see that the 2nd not only covers some weapons, but all, even those that were not considered at the time because they were not invented yet. In light of this, not only must all states recognize the CC laws of other states, but the regulations on what can be owned must also be dropped. If the government owns it, the people have the right to own it also.
Rights are not negotiable

Although your arguments are solid and based on what we have seen at least in the last couple of weeks, they won't care. Just like Roberts legislated from the bench on Thursday and then said they were not the legislature on Friday. They don't care what you or I think or even what the COTUS says. Certainly they have proved they don't care about definitions, traditions or meaning of words. So you can never say they can't or won't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

One of each gender. That is the only way to ever create a third (the child)

That's the only way to make gays as well.

And soon, if you want a girl that is, all you will need is two women...

 

[Silhouette]

That's the only way to make gays as well.

And soon, if you want a girl that is, all you will need is two women...

In your unpondered utopian brave new world, will that blow to the nuclear family also not be allowed to the people to decide upon? What measures of frankensteinian mutilation of natural law will be out of bounds? Can you define that Paint? In the name of "personal freedoms"? I become especially concerned about your flippant disregard for what type of experience that child would be put through (or denied) as if it was not even worthy of being an afterthought. Have we just shitcanned child psychology on the altar of the LGBT downhill freight train without brakes?

 

[Pop23]

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one. Or the courts would decide as is done when any divorce is contested.

PA law, as shown, has no provisions for same sex marriage yet here we are.

There is no requirement under PA law that applicants must be one man and one woman, just the sentence that the rules are the same for both male and female applicants.

Of course sometimes things are written when the impossibility of marriage ever being considered anything other then between a man and woman is ever considered. The law doesn't say it is illegal for a shoe to marry a toaster because that is not going to happen. But here we are in a brave new world where traditions mean nothing. Long standing definitions are changed in a blink of an eye.

But the point is, that the law never consider marriage anything but between a man and woman, it didn't need said. You know the "intent" like the SCOTUS quoted for their usurp of power concerning ACA. So now, if all of a sudden were are going to take laws by the letter of the law and say it does not ban gay marriage, although it does say man and woman, then the precise reading indicates that there is no prohibition from anyone getting married or anyone and maybe anything.

You are correct and the reason that the institution was limited to two.

One of each gender. That is the only way to ever create a third (the child)

Now the number means zip

what is it about a man with 4 or 5 wives that makes it impossible to create children, other than exhaustion

Why must it be multiple men with a woman?

Most likely will be multiple same sex individuals.

 

[Roadrunner]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

Polygamy will be the next freedom the SCOTUS discovers.

Five years max.

 

[pillars]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

1) The Mormon Church opposes polygamy. So no.
2) If you want to pursue a polygamous marriage, you can go to court- I think you will fail- but you have the legal right to claim that your Constitutional right to marry your sister wives is being violated- go for it- let us know how it goes.

Warren Jeffs is a Mormon preacher, got ten years in Texas.

Warren Jeffs is not mormon. He is the former president of a separate organization called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They aren't mormon.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?

Thoughts?

1) The Mormon Church opposes polygamy. So no.
2) If you want to pursue a polygamous marriage, you can go to court- I think you will fail- but you have the legal right to claim that your Constitutional right to marry your sister wives is being violated- go for it- let us know how it goes.

Warren Jeffs is a Mormon preacher, got ten years in Texas.

Warren Jeffs is not mormon. He is the former president of a separate organization called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They aren't mormon.

He's a criminal pedophile. Nuff said.

 

[Silhouette]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

Milk is nothing to me and Friday was about two, not three or more.

 

[Pop23]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

Milk is nothing to me and Friday was about two, not three or more.

Friday was about the qualifications for who is eligible to marry.

Love seemed to be the only requirement and as sure as one man can love another, one man can love two others.

There is no legal basis now for denial of that "civil right"

 

[Skylar]

Is the Mormon church going to be the next decision for the SC?
Thoughts?

Look at the supreme court decision in Reynolds VS U.S and you will see that polygamy is going to be legal. as it should be. I don't want two wives, but who cares if someone else does.

The voting public. But now that they're no longer able to regulate the word "marriage" or behaviors for that matter, their votes don't count. Thanks SCOTUS...

The public has the same authority to regulate marriage that they did before. Read the Windsor decision:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Windsor v. US

And that's just as true today. The States simply can't violate constitutional guarantees with their marriage laws. But then, they never could.

Sil.....this has already been explained to you for months. Yet even after the Obergefell decision, you make the same silly mistake now that you have for the last several months with your inept interpretations of the WIndsor decision:

You keep ignoring constitutional guarantees.

The courts didn't. And we told you they wouldn't. You just thought you knew better.

 

[Skylar]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

Milk is nothing to me and Friday was about two, not three or more.

Friday was about the qualifications for who is eligible to marry.

Love seemed to be the only requirement and as sure as one man can love another, one man can love two others.

If you'd like to quote the Obergefell decision saying that love is the only requirement for marriage, feel free. You'll have to look for a very long time though.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

Milk is nothing to me and Friday was about two, not three or more.

Friday was about the qualifications for who is eligible to marry.

Love seemed to be the only requirement and as sure as one man can love another, one man can love two others.

There is no legal basis now for denial of that "civil right"

Friday was about equality for two unrelated adults regardless of sexual orientation, period. That is how SC cases occur, they are specific...

 

[Skylar]

It can be made compatible. Why do you hate polygamy ?

It could be. We could, state by state, create a patchwork of brand new precedent to answer questions that are unique to polygamy. It would take decades, but its totally possible. However, the incompatibility with our marriage laws would be a logical reason to not recognize plural marriages if we chose to.

Where with same sex marriage, no such imcompatibility exists. Nor has existed since 2 person marriage was recognized as a joining of equals. The moment men and women were recognized as equals in a marriage.....same sex marriage was inevitable. As all the same rules apply.

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

You assume a single license. There may be multiple.

Our law assumes a single license. As there's no instance in 2 person marriage where there are 'multiple marriage licenses'. You just identified yet another fundamental incompatibility, yet another question that arises under polygamy where our marriage laws have no answer.

You're demonstrating my point.

Easy cheesy

Then show me using Pennsylvania marriage laws. If what you claim is true, it should be remarkably easy. If polygamy is fundamentally incompatible with our marriage laws, then you'll give me more excuses why marriage laws can't answer these questions.

 

[Skylar]

It can be made compatible. Why do you hate polygamy ?

It could be. We could, state by state, create a patchwork of brand new precedent to answer questions that are unique to polygamy. It would take decades, but its totally possible. However, the incompatibility with our marriage laws would be a logical reason to not recognize plural marriages if we chose to.

Where with same sex marriage, no such imcompatibility exists. Nor has existed since 2 person marriage was recognized as a joining of equals. The moment men and women were recognized as equals in a marriage.....same sex marriage was inevitable. As all the same rules apply.

Here is from PA just to pick a state that is kinda red/and blue

Marriage License in Pennsylvania
The Marriage License Bureau is part of the Clerk of the Orhpans' Court and Register of Wills. The following are the legal requirements for obtaining a marriage license in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

When to apply:

• Minimum of three business days and/or up to a maximum of60 days prior to the marriage ceremony.
• There is a three (business) day waiting period for issuance of the actual license.

Where to apply:

• Office of the Clerk of Orphans' Court of any County of Pennsylvania.

What is required:

• Both applicants must be present to apply.
  
• Applicants must be 18 years of age in order to apply for a marriage license. This rule applies to both male and female applicants. Applicants between 16-18 years of age must be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian to provide written consent to the marriage. Applicants under 16 years of age must have both the written approval of a judge of theOrphans' Court Division of the Common Pleas AND a parent or legal guardian given written consent.
  
• Social Security Numbers are REQUIRED at the time of application.
  
• Drivers license or Photo ID for applicants
  
• Visas are required for citizens of another country

it would seem that there is no direct prohibition against polygamy except where it says "both." Interestingly enough if that were to be the argument then where it says the rule applies to male and female applicant that would seem to indicate a ban on gay marriage. So no there is no ban that would stand the SCOTUS standard concerning polygamy.

Pennsylvania it is. So riddle me this: there's a 3 person marriage. One person wants out. Does that mean that the marriage of all 3 is dissolved? Or just the party leaving?

Using Pennsylvania marriage law, answer that question.

You'll find you can't. As Pennsylvania marriage law has no instance in their marriage law where one member of a marriage is divorced while the other is still married. And thus no answers to questions that arise under such a situation

Simple, same as is done today, all parties agree, which in this case would be 2 as one against one.

There is no instance of 3 person marriage today under our law, nor is it possible in 2 person marriage for 1 person to leave the union and the other still be married.

The situation is physically impossible in 2 person marriage. Consequently, our laws have no answers for questions that arise under situations impossible under our law. How then could they do the 'same as is done today' for something that isn't done today?

Are you starting to see why you're only proving my point?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Finally you admitted the truth about your messiah Harvey Milk. About time.

What was your reasoning again how the SCOTUS can turn down polygamists after Friday's ruling?

Milk is nothing to me and Friday was about two, not three or more.

Friday was about the qualifications for who is eligible to marry.

Love seemed to be the only requirement and as sure as one man can love another, one man can love two others.

There is no legal basis now for denial of that "civil right"

Wrong.

The issue concerned whether or not same-sex couples could be denied access to marriage law they're eligible to participate for no other reason than being gay; it had nothing to do with qualifications for who is eligible to marry. Indeed, if same-sex couples weren't already eligible to enter into marriage contacts, they'd have no grounds for their suit: being denied equal protection of (equal access to) marriage law.

Three or more persons aren't eligible to marry, no law exists to accommodate such a configuration, consequently three or more persons have no grounds to file suit; one can't 'seek relief' from a non-existent measure denying them access to a law that likewise doesn't exist.