Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The court's reasons for ruling in favor of gay marriage were that bans on gay marriage violated individual's rights to liberty and equal protection as stated in the 14th amendment. Couldn't the same argument be made against bans on polygamous marriage?
Recognizing that 'legal' doesn't always equate to 'right' -- certainly.
We've effectively changed the criteria of marriage from a societal role of procreation to 'love' - and love certainly isn't a zero sum game - nor limited to two.
Also, based on this 'new' criteria, I could see relatives marrying -- becoming legal. I have often thought, as all of this came about, evolved, that should my sister and I end up widows at some point - marrying one another could have some added benefit and comfort ('love'), in our old age.
Or, a daughter/son marrying a widowed parent - to help with benefits. Isn't it about 'love' and equal benefits, now?
1. Being gay is not a choice. This is argument number one. Since gays and lesbians cannot choose otherwise/to be straight then they must be allowed to be afforded the protections that us straight folk have. That's the point; this is why it is such a huge deal. Its not just about marriage, but about person-hood.
2. There's polyamory (multiple partnered relationship) then polygamy (marriage of said partners)
3. The tenor of the nation I think influences the spirit of the law. Meaning that since, a great number of people support gay marriage today, then it is more easily accepted today.
4. Most other forms of "love" in terms of polygamy, incest and marrying your pet are choices and more unequal unions. They are generally not as accepted. One of the issues is with consent.
---
Polyamory (IMO) is fine if the people want to deal with the consequences of a complex and complicated affair under our current guidelines of jealousy and equality. I think it is very difficult to maintain relationships like these because of the patriarchal or matriarchal nature, however if all parties consent, I really don't care. Again it is a choice.
Polygamy, in most instances is religious and patriarchal in practice. Often times, ironically religious, it upholds a strange notion of a certain conservatism that IMO is unequal in it's power distribution towards women. This, much like the "head scarf" wearing of Muslim women is a complicated issue of freedom of religion, but also absolute freedom. I tend to err on morals with a secular view rather than a relativistic notion that all religions are right. So in this case it is, what is equality without religion. You are born free and choose to be religious. If it isn't a choice, then that's indoctrination.
In any case you can argue that there are inequalities with traditional marriages, however I just think they are magnified in most other non-traditional forms of marriage. As of right now, gay marriage is the least problematic in terms of alternative marriage as there isn't any naturally inherent bias of power.
All of that being said, I think if more people are open minded enough I do think polygamy might be legal, however I just don't see it happening even if it became legal tomorrow. I mean, there might be abuses and people signing up to game the system somehow, but I think without a religious mandate, most people have enough issues with just one partner. One may also be able to argue that we are born polygamous, but this would be a fundamental shift in how we live our lives, and again, I don't see this happening.
At the very least, we are headed for the further legally-sanctioned dissolution of social norms. That's the spirit of the times, in the name of "rights" and suchlike. It is telling that the court extrapolated those windy Enlightenment generalities from the 14th Amendment and then recast them into something unrelated in order to get what they wanted. That abstract, egotistical "rights-talk" cast about recklessly is the language of Voltaire. Is there a French Revolution in our future?
Polygamous marriage doesn't currently exist in the United States, therefore one can't make the claim that an individual's right to equal protection of the law is being denied.
Polygamous marriage (at least the "traditional" form) is one man and two or more wives. All of the case law surrounding marriage goes out the window with regards to a polygamous marriage. When the husband is in the hospital and unable to make his own decisions, which wife is empowered to speak for him? Or do they take a vote? What happens if there's a tie? When one of the wives, or the husband, wants a divorce, how are the assets split? what are the custody arrangements for the children of a polygamous divorce? There currently are no answers for these questions.
Same-sex marriage is simply marriage. There are still two partners involved in the arrangement, and as such all case law dealing with marriage still holds together. Legal ownership of property remains the same, spousal consent with regards to medical decisions is still the same, spousal sharing of employee benefits, adoption and parental rights regarding the children of a married couple, etc., all still the same. Even divorce will be the same.
Someone else (maybe even on this forum) put it quite simply: Same-sex marriage is simply allowing the pronouns to be interchangeable. Before the Supreme Court ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, it was always he and she, but now it can be he and he or she and she.
Polygamous marriage doesn't currently exist in the United States, therefore one can't make the claim that an individual's right to equal protection of the law is being denied.
Polygamous marriage (at least the "traditional" form) is one man and two or more wives. All of the case law surrounding marriage goes out the window with regards to a polygamous marriage. When the husband is in the hospital and unable to make his own decisions, which wife is empowered to speak for him? Or do they take a vote? What happens if there's a tie? When one of the wives, or the husband, wants a divorce, how are the assets split? what are the custody arrangements for the children of a polygamous divorce? There currently are no answers for these questions.
Same-sex marriage is simply marriage. There are still two partners involved in the arrangement, and as such all case law dealing with marriage still holds together. Legal ownership of property remains the same, spousal consent with regards to medical decisions is still the same, spousal sharing of employee benefits, adoption and parental rights regarding the children of a married couple, etc., all still the same. Even divorce will be the same.
Someone else (maybe even on this forum) put it quite simply: Same-sex marriage is simply allowing the pronouns to be interchangeable. Before the Supreme Court ruling on Obergefell v. Hodges, it was always he and she, but now it can be he and he or she and she.
So if one state legalizes it, then we could make the claim that people's equal rights are being denied in the other 49 states? As for the case law issues, couldn't one would just split everything 3+ ways in the case of divorce or death in polygamous marriage? The challenge of creating case laws shouldn't exclude polyamorous people the (according to the supreme court) constitutionally protected right to marry.
On a side note, what about incestuous marriage (between consenting adults) -- i.e. marriage between siblings, parent and adult child, etc? You wouldn't even have to change the pronouns for that, and if marriage isn't about reproduction, but love and dignity, then aren't these people being denied their equal rights?
So if one state legalizes it, then we could make the claim that people's equal rights are being denied in the other 49 states?
But there is no state that recognizes polygamy, so until one does (or, more likely, a significant majority of states do) the 14th Amendment question doesn't apply. Anything else is speculation...but then again, this is the Philosophy forum.
Quote:
As for the case law issues, couldn't one would just split everything 3+ ways in the case of divorce or death in polygamous marriage? The challenge of creating case laws shouldn't exclude polyamorous people the (according to the supreme court) constitutionally protected right to marry.
The Supreme Court didn't rule on the constitutional right to marry, but the denial of due process and of equal protection under law, as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. It recognized that marriage is a fundamental liberty of an individual and that same-sex couples were being denied that right. What the Supreme Court didn't do is redefine marriage as a social compact between three or more people, or repeal laws against bigamy.
I'd also point out that in the case of a theoretical polygamous divorce, simply splitting everything three ways is an over-simplification. What if there are more than three people in the social compact? What happens with regards to child custody and visitation rights? Think divorces can be messy now, it would be freakishly complex when there are three or four or more parties involved.
Also, I noted that you switched from polygamy to polyamory there. I'm curious - have you read Robert Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"?
Quote:
On a side note, what about incestuous marriage (between consenting adults) -- i.e. marriage between siblings, parent and adult child, etc? You wouldn't even have to change the pronouns for that, and if marriage isn't about reproduction, but love and dignity, then aren't these people being denied their equal rights?
Marriage is a social compact, and as such, society decides what the definition of that compact is. Society hasn't extended that definition to incest.
Personally, while I would find a marriage between two closely related individuals personally repugnant, I don't really have a right to any objection, except for the possibility of two-headed offspring.
Although, if you really want to marry your mother, then perhaps the two of you should move to Hawaii. It's my understanding that the people who live there are the most nonjudgmental around.
Marriage is a social compact, and as such, society decides what the definition of that compact is. Society hasn't extended that definition to incest.
Personally, while I would find a marriage between two closely related individuals personally repugnant, I don't really have a right to any objection, except for the possibility of two-headed offspring.
Although, if you really want to marry your mother, then perhaps the two of you should move to Hawaii. It's my understanding that the people who live there are the most nonjudgmental around.
Apparently society doesn't decide what the definition of the compact is, apparently 5 judges do. What you find repugnant is irrelevant. Many people find gay marriage repugnant. Apparently the court has discovered that the constitution gives people the right to marry whomever they choose, man or woman; so why would incest be excluded?
Apparently society doesn't decide what the definition of the compact is, apparently 5 judges do. What you find repugnant is irrelevant. Many people find gay marriage repugnant. Apparently the court has discovered that the constitution gives people the right to marry whomever they choose, man or woman; so why would incest be excluded?
36 states allowed same-sex marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling, so more than 5 judges made that decision.
Brown v Board of Education was where only 9 judges decided that the doctrine of separate but equal violated the 14th Amendment - is there a problem with that ruling?
36 states allowed same-sex marriage prior to the Supreme Court ruling, so more than 5 judges made that decision.
Brown v Board of Education was where only 9 judges decided that the doctrine of separate but equal violated the 14th Amendment - is there a problem with that ruling?
The people voted in those states, and made that decision. In this case the supreme court acted as benevolent overlords and made that decision for us.
Brown vs. Board is a very different case, and didn't involve changing the definition of education, but rather who could access it. If the Amish wanted to change the definition of education to barn-building, and wanted to have their children not adhere to state standards, they couldn't ask the supreme court to change the definition of education to include barn building in lieu of state requirements. The definition of education (i.e. standards) is left to the legislators, not to the supreme court. If the Amish children were being excluded from equal education however, then they could make a case for equal protection.
Last edited by Cleverfield; 07-06-2015 at 01:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't it about 'love' and equal benefits, now?
