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.
Polygamy (one man, many wives), polyandry (one woman many husbands), homosexuality, etc. These are non-traditional things. They are all considered immoral by most religions, but some religions disagree. Polygamy is considered completely acceptable by Islam as long as the man does not take more than four wives. Some Protestant religions will perform same-sex marriages. I don't know of a religion that sanctions polyandrous marriage, but that doesn't mean that no such thing exists.
It comes down to this: Is it the duty of the government to deem certain unions immoral and thereby invalid? The Anti-Bigamy Laws passed in 1800's and upheld by the United States Supreme Court sets the precedent on the matter. Yes the federal and state government do have the right to deem certain unions immoral and illegal. The Supreme Court even upheld the right of law enforcement to arrest couples who cohabitated without being married. The Supreme Court even upheld the seizure of all LDS property for that religion's defense/support of polygamous unions -- thus any organization can be targeted in the same fashion by SCOTUS precedent.
So any state in this nation can pass a law banning homosexuality or polyandry outright. All persons participating in sexual activities that have been deemed illegal can be arrested. All members of any group advocating for them can also be arrested and all properties of individuals and groups advocating homosexuality could be confiscated. The United States Supreme Court precedent says that all such laws and actions is perfectly valid. If you want to change that fact, the Supreme Court would have to reverse all of their rulings against polygamy in the late 1800's. Those legal precedents say the government can go a lot farther than not recognizing your union as a valid marriage. They say that you have no rights unless and until the government says you do. By that same standard, the government has tremendous latitude to tell you how to live your life, who you can have sex with, etc.
I'd say you have to clean up the mess the SCOTUS made in the 1800's first. Otherwise, demanding the right to non-traditional marriage makes no sense. Until then, the government has the right to go a lot further than just telling you that you can't get married.
I'm not confused. What ought to be and what is is identical in this case. Marriage is and should be only between man and woman.
No. Marriage has a number of definitions throughout the world.
One man + One woman
One man + Many women
One women + Many men (less common)
Man + Man
Woman + Woman
Man + Child (too common in some parts of the world)
You may prefer one type over the other. That's your PERSONAL opinion that should have no bearing on the rights of free citizens in OUR society.
Don't want to marry someone of the same sex? Then don't.
I'd say you have to clean up the mess the SCOTUS made in the 1800's first. Otherwise, demanding the right to non-traditional marriage makes no sense. Until then, the government has the right to go a lot further than just telling you that you can't get married.
LOL< ironic considering your tagline:
"Proud to be a Libertarian." You are no such thing sir!
I'm not confused. What ought to be and what is is identical in this case. Marriage is and should be only between man and woman.
That's your opinion. And my opinion is that your stance violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Everyone ought to be treated equally under the law.
Straight people are allowed legal rights when they marry and these legal rights are not available to homosexuals.
Laws against polygamy and prostitution are not examples of unequal application of the law.
I can agree with prostitution as it is a financial transaction that has been deemed illegal. But if the US government has a right to tell a man he can't have five wives and that it is illegal to cohabitate and have sex with with five women he is not married to ... well then the government apparently has every right to tell you how to live your life sexually. The Supreme Court upheld those laws, so until there is a reversal, government has the right to deem all unions and sexual behavior illegal as they see fit. Homosexuality is not exempt from that precedent. Why would it be?
Few cases exist where the most extreme laws involved have been enforced recently. That does not mean they never have been, nor does it mean they cannot be enforced again.
"Proud to be a Libertarian." You are no such thing sir!
LOL, have I actually stated my opinion on the matter? No I have not. I have simply pointed out that the SCOTUS set a precedent and that precedent says that government can tell you who you can have sex with and who you can or cannot marry.
I didn't say I agree with the idea. Far from it. The anti-polygamy crusade of the 1800's was a clear example of the US federal government going way too far and butting into people's personal lives when they shouldn't have the right.
Both should be legal. If it's consenting adults of sound mind and body why should I care what they do in their personal lives...Why is it always allegedly freedom loving conservatives who so desperately want to control what people do in their personal lives and bedrooms?
Both should be legal. If it's consenting adults of sound mind and body why should I care what they do in their personal lives...Why is it always allegedly freedom loving conservatives who so desperately want to control what people do in their personal lives and bedrooms?
There's a lot of truth to that. It was the Republicans who were the driving force behind the anti-polygamy crusade of the 1800's. But precedent from that era says that the government has every right to tell you that you can't engage in certain types of sexual activity, who you can and can't live with and who you can marry.
It's a mess. The issue is, you gotta clean up the precedent mess made by the SCOTUS back then. It's a lot like the "separate but equal" segregation rulings -- they just need to be killed by saner heads in today's SCOTUS.
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.
