Would you be out if polyandry is reinstated?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Jacob I will thank you to let me make my own arguments please.

I think we have just scratched the surface regarding differences between gay marriage and polygamy. Since I am posting from my phone today, it might be a while before I can reply in more detail.

[Jacob]

Jacob I will thank you to let me make my own arguments please.

I think we have just scratched the surface regarding differences between gay marriage and polygamy. Since I am posting from my phone today, it might be a while before I can reply in more detail.

I haven't made any argument for you. I simply restated your position from the previous page, and asked for you to address what I see as a major shortfall. Sorry to have offended.

I anxiously await your clarification.

It seems to me that our laws should not preclude a segment of our society from enjoying the benefits of marriage in a legitimate fashion (with the partner they love).

[Uncle Ted]

Inheritance, for one.

Case in point, Brigham Young's estate. What a mess. Brigham Young didn't know what the hell he was getting into by pushing his polygamy idea.

[Pheidippides]

Years ago, back when I was in law school and full of piss and vinegar, I managed to make an argument in my criminal law class for criminalization of homosexual behavior - this is back just as Lawrence was coming up through the system but hadn't hit the SC yet (I think). The fact that I was able to do so credibly without being blacklisted after class even by my gay friends tells me that I did it well (also, presented it as a devils advocate sort of issue).

At the time, I was seriously rabid right wing nut job. I am quite a bit to the left now, comparatively. But the fundamental point of the argument is still something I believe, and it is this: our laws, criminal or civil, are a funhouse mirror reflection of our mores. It's not far off of a majority rule argument to some degree, but in a descriptive sense and not proscriptive.

I really do believe that the idea of the Constitution is much more powerful than the Constitution itself. You can see this in a vulgar way when the gun toting Montana militia conspiracy theorist carries around a copy of it in his pocket, despite the fact that he not only hasn't read it, he probably isn't able to read it. But the same principle applies at the highest levels of jurisprudence, if perhaps unwittingly, and it gives us things like Dredd Scott and similar.

The Constitution is a living, breathing document as much as We The People are a living breathing hivemind.

This is precisely why gay marriage and polygamy have little to do with one another. Anybody with half a brain can find a hundred differences between Thing 1 and Thing 2 with practice. Ascribing importance to those differences is where the morality comes in. And I don't see the morality of the country accepting of a multiple spouse union at this time.

[wuapinmon]

My acceptance of my wife's polyandry correlates perfectly with her acceptance of and participation in a 2 ♀> 1 ♂=

[Eddie]

I think polygamy should be legalized, but have no interest in ever living that way myself.

It is interesting to me that society is generally OK with a guy sleeping around and having multiple sexual relationships all at the same time (including having multiple children with these multiple partners), but is opposed to this same man formalizing the relationship with these multiple partners and taking a more active role & responsibility for the relationships.

I know I'm oversimplifying it. I get that. I just have a hard time seeing why it should be illegal. And really, it all goes back to my initial comment. It's totally OK to do if you don't marry the partners in question - what makes marrying them a bad thing?

[cowboy]

Anybody with half a brain can find a hundred differences between Thing 1 and Thing 2 with practice. Ascribing importance to those differences is where the morality comes in. And I don't see the morality of the country accepting of a multiple spouse union at this time.

I don't think anyone is arguing (at least not me) that polygamy and gay marriage are the same in any way. But if we're ultimately going to base our marriage laws on morality rather than people's rights then why is one standard of morality reprehensible and the other acceptable?

[Pheidippides]

I don't think anyone is arguing (at least not me) that polygamy and gay marriage are the same in any way. But if we're ultimately going to base our marriage laws on morality rather than people's rights then why is one standard of morality reprehensible and the other acceptable?

Rights are a function of the morality. I can make a similar argument for (say) rights of immigrants. They simply aren't afforded constitutional rights in the same way that citizens are, at least not until they get citizenship. The ways in which this is true are not always meaningful, but sometimes they are. Why? Because we intrinsically put a value on citizenship and sameness more than we do humanness, most likely.

That's my entire point: what we think should be rights/not rights/constitutionally protected/not constitutionally protected is self fulfilling to a degree, unless there is an impetus to change it. You can go down the list if constitutionally protected things and find a hundred exceptions. Where are these exceptions? Not in the document, but in our hearts and mind, or, rather the hearts and mind of the hivemind at the time of decision.

I'm not saying I like this btw.

[Paperback Writer]

Rights are a function of the morality. I can make a similar argument for (say) rights of immigrants. They simply aren't afforded constitutional rights in the same way that citizens are, at least not until they get citizenship. The ways in which this is true are not always meaningful, but sometimes they are. Why? Because we intrinsically put a value on citizenship and sameness more than we do humanness, most likely.

That's my entire point: what we think should be rights/not rights/constitutionally protected/not constitutionally protected is self fulfilling to a degree, unless there is an impetus to change it. You can go down the list if constitutionally protected things and find a hundred exceptions. Where are these exceptions? Not in the document, but in our hearts and mind, or, rather the hearts and mind of the hivemind at the time of decision.

I'm not saying I like this btw.

As you probably know, it can be interesting when the "hivemind" is limited to 12 minds in a jury room and it's "decision time". For example, non-citizens/illegal immigrants do not have second ammendant rights/the right to bear arms. That becomes an important factor in the prosecution's case. The non-citizen defendent has lived in American his entire adult life and is in possession of guns that would otherwise not be illegal if he were an American citizen. Does the defendent get "an exception" in the hearts and minds of some jury members?

[wuapinmon]

If our rights--endowed in us by our Creator--are unalienable, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, do non-citizens not share them?

[Pheidippides]

If our rights--endowed in us by our Creator--are unalienable, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, do non-citizens not share them?

No they do not. Nor do any citizens who are not white male land-owning Protestants. History tells us that anybody else is going to have to fight for their right (to party).

[Paperback Writer]

If our rights--endowed in us by our Creator--are unalienable, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, do non-citizens not share them?

Explain that to the Mexican Border Patrol Agents when you try to cross into Mexico with your hangun for which you have a concealed permit.

[wuapinmon]

No they do not. Nor do any citizens who are not white male land-owning Protestants. History tells us that anybody else is going to have to fight for their right (to party).

That's a decent enough answer. However, the 14th Amendment and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) seem to indicate that anyone born here has parents who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning, to me, if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then these unalienable rights (the Bill of Rights) should carry forward. How do we deny someone the 2nd, when I feel confident that most would object severely to violation of the 4th, even for a non-citizen?

Explain that to the Mexican Border Patrol Agents when you try to cross into Mexico with your hangun for which you have a concealed permit.

That's a non-answer. Mexican law is deeply flawed. We're talking about the United States of by God America.

[Jacob]

If our rights--endowed in us by our Creator--are unalienable, including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, do non-citizens not share them?

Yes, they do have those rights as they are natural rights and all men should have them. And those rights should be secured for them by their own governments, and if they are not, then they have a good reason to break the bands that tie them to that government and overthrow it like the founders did. Form a new one that guarantees them their rights.

[Pheidippides]

That's a decent enough answer. However, the 14th Amendment and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) seem to indicate that anyone born here has parents who are subject to the jurisdiction thereof, meaning, to me, if you are subject to the jurisdiction, then these unalienable rights (the Bill of Rights) should carry forward. How do we deny someone the 2nd, when I feel confident that most would object severely to violation of the 4th, even for a non-citizen?



That's a non-answer. Mexican law is deeply flawed. We're talking about the United States of by God America.

I can't remember the jurisprudence but there are a string of cases that say, no, that's not always the case.