What does the church do if and when polygamy is legalized?

[tooblue]

Upcoming court cases in British Colombia will result in polygamy being legalized in Canada within the next couple of years IMO.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090510/BC_polygamist_bountiful_blackmore_090510/20090510/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

In February, B.C.'s Civil Liberties Association called for the Crown to drop the polygamy charges against Blackmore, saying the case against him would fail in court.

[SeattleUte]

Heterosexuals who want to marry plurally are not a suspect classification nor will they ever be a suspect classficiation. Homosexuals aren't a suspect classification either and I don't think the SC will ever give them that status. But that only matters to equal protection clause jurisprudence. The reason why the SC will likely never turn gays into a suspect class is because it will force the Court to then look at each law that arguably touches on this issue. Rather than do that, the Court will do what it usually does, go for the more narrow basis to achieve the desired result. Recognizing a fundamental right is significantly more narrow. Lawrence v. Texas was decided on the basis of substantive due process and not equal protection.

It's difficult to see how the Framers had ANY of this fundamental rights jargon in mind when the drafted the constitution.

The thing about Con Law jurisprudence is that every case is new. Every case at whatever level seems to be an effort to make new law. I've found this is ture whether you're arguing the Bill of Rights, Commerce Clause, First Amendment, whatever. It's jurisprudence of last resort.

I agree that a Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is a fundamental right could provide precedence for finding the same thing about polygamy. It doesn't compel this result. My opinion is as much conjecture as yours, but I don't think it will happen largely because the two types of marriages are not on the same moral footing. Immutabilty is a decive factor favoring gays. For that matter I don't think the Supreme Court will ever prohibit bans on gay marriage, but I'm less sure of that than about polygamy.

I think the court would say something like monogomous marriage is a fundamental right but plural marriage is not, just like marrying your sister is not. Moreover, as with incest there are moral and public policy reasons why the Constitution under whatever analysis would not support striking down a state or local law banning plural marriage. It would be an interesting opinion. If I wrote it I'd quote Augustine and some ancient philosophers.

[Indy Coug]

Polygamist males could argue that attraction to more than 1 female isn't a choice either.

Promiscuity in human males is scientifically proven to be an inborn trait.

[Jarid in Cedar]

My thought is that people think polygamy with underage brides is morally repugnant. I bet a guy marrying 3 women who are all over 18 gets a "to each his own" sentiment.

Winner, winner, Chicken dinner

[SeattleUte]

IMO.

The critical part of yoru post people should bear in mind.

[beelzebabette]

I'm kind of impressed that SU managed to hijack the question with one sentence. Perhaps I should sign up for SU's course in diversion before enrolling in DDD's School for Trolls.

[scottie]

...
(I absolutely detest polygamy, I would almost assuredly become inactive if the Church started performing plural marriages again)...

When you consider how much polygamy is rooted in LDS Church history, and the fact that it's still practiced in the temples, do you view that as being fairly hypocritical? If you would have left the church in 1850, why stay in it today? (That's something I ask myself all the time, so you wouldn't be alone).

[SeattleUte]

Like Hendrik Herzberg said, how ironic that Mormons say gay marriage will damage marriage but are such huge fans of polygamy.

[SeattleUte]

What does that have to do with anything? Of course getting married is a choice no matter who is getting married (except for some young polygamist girls).

Polygamist males could argue that attraction to more than 1 female isn't a choice either.

In fact on a superficial level they would have an argument using evolution where males are driven to have more partners and females are driven to the security of just one.

I'm not interested in arguing this point. A fool's errand. This goes into the waste bin of history along with debates about B of M historicity.

[SeattleUte]

In a republic if enough people want it, they are going to have it. The justifications will follow.

I agree with this, which is fundamentally why I think the Supreme Court will never recognize polygamy as any kind of Constitutional right. Not in our lifetimes at least. As for the rest of your post, your conjectures about future generations are, well, pure conjecture.

[I.J. Reilly]

I'm not interested in arguing this point. A fool's errand. This goes into the waste bin of history along with debates about B of M historicity.

BBB, SU is trying to get you to sign up for his troll school, too.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

The thing about Con Law jurisprudence is that every case is new. Every case at whatever level seems to be an effort to make new law. I've found this is ture whether you're arguing the Bill of Rights, Commerce Clause, First Amendment, whatever. It's jurisprudence of last resort.

I agree that a Supreme Court ruling that gay marriage is a fundamental right could provide precedence for finding the same thing about polygamy. It doesn't compel this result. My opinion is as much conjecture as yours, but I don't think it will happen largely because the two types of marriages are not on the same moral footing. Immutabilty is a decive factor favoring gays. For that matter I don't think the Supreme Court will ever prohibit bans on gay marriage, but I'm less sure of that than about polygamy.

I think the court would say something like monogomous marriage is a fundamental right but plural marriage is not, just like marrying your sister is not. Moreover, as with incest there are moral and public policy reasons why the Constitution under whatever analysis would not support striking down a state or local law banning plural marriage. It would be an interesting opinion. If I wrote it I'd quote Augustine and some ancient philosophers.

Believe me, I wouldn't personally have a problem if the SC overturned gay marriage bans. I would just love for the SC to then draw an arbitrary line in the sand and not find a fundamental right to plural marriage.

Just imagine if plural marriage were practiced on a wide scale by a major religion in the US. I'm not really sure if the results would be that much different from what we've seen out of the Green clan and Colorado City. Women are turned into a commodity and isolated from outside influences in order to keep them with the clan. Because Brother Rulon wants to marry his 16 year-old niece, some 16-18 year-old boy needs to be weeded out of the clan to create the room. The practice really is barbaric and shouldn't have any place in any Western society.

[Indy Coug]

I'm not interested in arguing this point. A fool's errand. This goes into the waste bin of history along with debates about B of M historicity.

Translation: I'm ducking this because I have yet to develop a coherent response to this counterargument.

[RobinFinderson]

People who say that nontraditional relationships don't hurt others really need to see this video. I think this is the strongest argument against gay marriage (via its lack of tradition) that I have seen so far. Enjoy:

[YOUTUBE]GnYAKAQd9Zg[/YOUTUBE]

[SeattleUte]

I'm kind of impressed that SU managed to hijack the question with one sentence. Perhaps I should sign up for SU's course in diversion before enrolling in DDD's School for Trolls.

If someone posted saying, "Why do Momrons beat their wives?" and someome replied, "Hey, wait a minute, why do you say we beat our wives? I disagree we do," would that be a hijack? I think this premise that we often see on LDS related boards that legalized polygamy will follow inexorably from gay marriage is faultly.

Why is it faulty? Because polygamy is evil and gay marriage is righteous! (Not what you learned in Sunday School, is it.)