US Politics 3

[DanteGabriel]

Under the Court's reasoning, there must also be a constitutional right for parents or siblings to marry, as long as one of them is sterile. Now maybe people think that should be the law, but to argue that it is constitutionally required via equal protection seems pretty weak to me.

... And there we go. Equation of gay marriage to incest. I look forward to further argumentation that gay marriage will open up the floodgates to people marrying barnyard animals, Senator Santorum.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

I do think that if homosexual marriage is held protected by the 14th Amendment then poligamy should be protected as well as long as everyone in the marriage consents and is able to consent. That said I don't think that's a bad thing, although it will make divorce proceedings in those cases much more complex.

[Swordfish]

Under the Court's reasoning, there must also be a constitutional right for parents or siblings to marry, as long as one of them is sterile. Now maybe people think that should be the law, but to argue that it is constitutionally required via equal protection seems pretty weak to me.

I see no reason to deny consenting adults the rights afforded to other consenting adults in this case.

Including incest and polygamy.

If we must have a government sanctioned version of marriage, then we should not be favoring certain individuals over others where the state has no vested interest in doing so.

And I have never seen an argument against either of those things that meets the standard IMO.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

... And there we go. Equation of gay marriage to incest.

I personally don't equate the two. But the judge so generalized what "marriage" means that they are legally indistinguishable as a matter of law.

I look forward to further argumentation that gay marriage will open up the floodgates to people marrying barnyard animals, Senator Santorum.

Not from me. The judge did define it as two persons, which would exclude both animals and polygamy. But incest? Read his definition of what the institution means, and explain why it wouldn't qualify.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

If all parties consent, are able to consent, and the choice to marry is protected by the 14th amendment why would polygamy not fall under that protection?

[Ser Reptitious]

FLOW,

I realize you're being a bit bombared with questions here right now, but I'd love to hear you respond to this:

Remind me again, how many referendums were held on whether Chicago's handgun ban should be upheld?

I love it how Republicans such as yourself get all constitutional when anything involving guns is at issue, but when we're talking about marriage equality, suddenly the constitution might as well not exist and it's all about "the will of the people"!

Scot and Swordfish,

I do think that if homosexual marriage is held protected by the 14th Amendment then poligamy should be protected as well as long as everyone in the marriage consents and is able to consent. That said I don't think that's a bad thing, although it will make divorce proceedings in those cases much more complex.

I see no reason to deny consenting adults the rights afforded to other consenting adults in this case.

Including incest and polygamy.

If we must have a government sanctioned version of marriage, then we should not be favoring certain individuals over others where the state has no vested interest in doing so.

And I have never seen an argument against either of those things that meets the standard IMO.

Advocates for polygamy and incest can make their own case. The issues are different (and much murkier, IMO) than with gay marriage. The only connection between them is the old worn-out 'slippery slope' argument, but one could just as easily say that allowing anyone to marry puts us on such a slippery slope. Setting the goal posts in an arbitrary place is a piss poor argument against gay marriage.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Rep.,

I'm not argueing against homosexual marriage via slippery slope. I'm sayin that if marriage is a protected right via the 14th if all parties consent to a polygamous arrigement and are able to give such consent why would there be a rational basis for denying them the right to marry each other? It's the same analysis. The only difference is the number of people.

[Tempra]

FLOW,

If all parties consent, are able to consent, and the choice to marry is protected by the 14th amendment why would polygamy not fall under that protection?

It is quite possible to put forth a compelling state interest against polygamy that could withstand even strict scrutiny. Namely, polygamous relationships are often abusive, incestuous, and coerced. The consent issue is a lot tricker with polygamous marriage than gay marriage because there is often very strong religious and familial pressure forcing girls to marry.

There are similar arguments that can be made against incestuous and even gay marriage, but whether anyone views these arguments as "compelling" depends upon your predisposition to the issue.

[Tempra]

FLOW,

Remind me again, how many referendums were held on whether Chicago's handgun ban should be upheld?

I love it how Republicans such as yourself get all constitutional when anything involving guns is at issue, but when we're talking about marriage equality, suddenly the constitution might as well not exist and it's all about "the will of the people"!

Not FLoW, but take a look at the second amendment. Find me a similarly clear amendment in favor of protecting gay marriage. The best you can do is the oh so murky due process and equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

So, because of isolated instances of abuse if a group of adults expresses consent to a polygamous marital union their fundemental right to marry under the 14th amendment should be denied? I don't buy it.

[Swordfish]

FLOW,

I realize you're being a bit bombared with questions here right now, but I'd love to hear you respond to this:

Scot and Swordfish,

Advocates for polygamy and incest can make their own case. The issues are different (and much murkier, IMO) than with gay marriage. The only connection between them is the old worn-out 'slippery slope' argument, but one could just as easily say that allowing anyone to marry puts us on such a slippery slope. Setting the goal posts in an arbitrary place is a piss poor argument against gay marriage.

i wasn't making an argument against gay marriage. I'm in favor of gay marriage.

It seems to me that you are the one who is setting the goal posts in an arbitrary place.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

So, because of isolated instances of abuse if a group of adults expresses consent to a polygamous marital union their fundemental right to marry under the 14th amendment should be denied? I don't buy it.

I'm not sure how isolated the abuse, coercion and incest are in polygamous relationships. The data is quite hard to come by since these relationships tend to be underground. Nevertheless, it would require extensive state intrusion into these relationships to verify that such activity was not occurring. Further, polygamous relationships would be a great drain on societal resources. It is not uncommon for polygamous individuals to produce dozens of children, often all eligible for welfare benefits. The state would thus have a compelling interest in NOT permitting these relationships in order to preserve scarce funds.

I don't necessarily believe that polygamous relationships should be outlawed. I do believe that all legal arguments that can be made in favor of gay marriage are equally applicable to incestuous and polygamous relationships, no matter how much pro-gay marriage supporters want to deny the link. I am just putting forth the arguments that states have made in favor of their bans on polygamy.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Also, I just don't think the slippery slope is likely to go where the alarmists say. Most people know a gay person, perhaps even have a family member or friend who is gay. When you actually know gay people and realize that they are not some abomination like the televangilist says, they aren't so threatening. It took time for coming out to be socially acceptable, but it's now largely accepted.

Those are all valid policy/moral arguments for why someone could support a referendum on gay marriage but not sibling incest. But they aren't legal distinctions sufficient to make one part of a fundamental constitutional right, and one not.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

My problem with your argument is that the same argument can be made against traditional heterosexual marriage. With lots of data publicly available showing the abuse, dependency, and other problems that arise after heterosexuals get married. Does the State then have the power to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? All I'm saying is the same standards should be applied to homosexual and polygamous marriages.

[Tempra]

Tempra,

My problem with your argument is that the same argument can be made against traditional heterosexual marriage. With lots of data publicly available showing the abuse, dependency, and other problems that arise after heterosexuals get married. Does the State then have the power to deny heterosexuals the right to marry? All I'm saying is the same standards should be applied to homosexual and polygamous marriages.

Certainly, but you know as well as I do that the United States will cease to exist before heterosexual marriage is banned. There are advantages to being the extreme majority. At best, incestuous, polygamous, and gay couples make up about 3-5% of society (the vast majority of that number being gay couples).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

A goat can't consent.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Not FLoW, but take a look at the second amendment. Find me a similarly clear amendment in favor of protecting gay marriage. The best you can do is the oh so murky due process and equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

Right. I'd also point to the Supreme Court case holding that flag burning is protected speech. I don't like the result on a personal level, but the fact is that there is an express amendment in the constitution that protects political expression, regardless of whether I like that expression or not.

[Ser Reptitious]

Scot,

I'm not argueing against homosexual marriage via slippery slope. I'm sayin that if marriage is a protected right via the 14th if all parties consent to a polygamous arrigement and are able to give such consent why would there be a rational basis for denying them the right to marry each other? It's the same analysis. The only difference is the number of people.

The government of British Columbia is gearing up for a fight against a polygamist community in the interior of BC. Two of the communities' leaders have been charged with polygamy and the case is expected to wind its way to the Supreme Court of Canada. As you are probably aware, gay marriage has been legal here in Canada for roughly five years already (on the national level - some provinces have had it longer).

I don't have time to go dig for it right now, but there is an expert report that has been commissioned by the BC government to examine the harm that polygamy creates. Off the top of my head, aside from the widespread abuse and inherent inequality that these relationships create, one of the biggest arguments against polygamy is that it creates social instability, since wealthier people (usually males) will naturally end up with multiple spouses, leaving many poor young men unable to find a mate (ever). Fertile ground for violence and criminality. I'll try to see if I can find the article I read somewhere.

Tempra,

Not FLoW, but take a look at the second amendment. Find me a similarly clear amendment in favor of protecting gay marriage. The best you can do is the oh so murky due process and equal protection clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments.

The second amendment is murky enough itself. The right to bear arms does not automatically equal the right to bear any kind of firearm (otherwise, why are rocketlaunchers still restricted). Then there is also the debate about whether the clause is only applicable to members of a militia. It's all a matter of interpretation!

The same goes for equality.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tempra,

What rational basis is there to deny a "fundemental right" to 3-5% of the population?

[TrackerNeil]

In this thread, I see a lot of "rights clearly not found in the Constitution" and "Plessy was wrong, Brown was right." It's all so certain, but I think that if cases and readings of the Constitution were clear...well, we wouldn't need courts at all, would we? Everyone would just read the Constitution and agree. These things aren't clear, which is why using terms like "judicial activism" is IMO bullshit. Context matters.