Gay Marriage and Polygamy

[NBVegita]

So I was talking with someone at work today and they brought up a really valid point.

 

Right now there is all the legislation going through concerning gay marriage. Her point was that if you're going to pass legislation support/approving gay marriage, then should polygamy also be legal?

 

I would have so say yes. If the argument is that the government can't tell you whom your spouse is, why should they have the right to tell you how many spouses you can have?

 

What do you think?

[»Lynx]

That is a good point, however it kind of ruins the whole meaning behind marriage. I'm no expert on what marriage actually is legally, however my philosophy is that when you marry, you intend to stay with that one person for the rest of your life... The whole 'till death do us part' thing. Obviously, in a modern society this isn't exactly something that is set in stone (with Divorce rates going through the roof), but I think it's a valid point to add to the reasoning as to why Polygamy generally isn't something that's practiced (in Western society, anyway) - and probably won't be practiced further due to I guess what is a conflict of morals/points/interests etc...

 

But then, I guess there's also the legal aspects, as well as the 'Who are the Government to tell me how to live my live' argument.

 

-L

[Aceflyer]

So I was talking with someone at work today and they brought up a really valid point.

 

Right now there is all the legislation going through concerning gay marriage. Her point was that if you're going to pass legislation support/approving gay marriage, then should polygamy also be legal?

 

I would have so say yes. If the argument is that the government can't tell you whom your spouse is, why should they have the right to tell you how many spouses you can have?

 

What do you think?

 

I personally would support people if they want to be in a poly relationship and want their relationship to be recognized as a plural marriage. However I disagree that gay marriage concerns the same issue that poly concerns. Gay marriage is not about creating a 'new' right. Just like interracial marriage, gay marriage is merely about having the government recognize that an existing civil right - the right of two consenting people to enter into civil marriage - is not illegally denied to a minority group. However, there is no existing civil right for multiple consenting people to enter into a plural marriage. Thus, the poly issue is about creating a new right, whereas the gay marriage issue isn't about creating a new right at all.

 

 

Edited for clarity. -Ace

Edited April 16, 2009 by Aceflyer

[NBVegita]

I agree with your assessment that having one partner is a moral issue issue.

 

That's exactly why I have to agree with polygamy too. The only tangible resistance to gay marriage was based on it being "immoral", yet it is being decided daily that immoral or not, legally it is a right that the government should not infringe on.

 

I would inversely say that if morals don't matter where gay marriage is concerning, it shouldn't matter with polygamous marriage either.

[NBVegita]

I would disagree Ace.

 

Gay marriage was excluded as a law, or right as you depict it, when they legally stated that marriage is between two heterosexual humans of opposite sex. By not including gay marriage, they never had a civil right to marriage, just as by not including polygamists, they have never had that right.

 

Marriage, to my knowledge, has never been defined, at any time, as the civil union of two beings, regardless of gender.

[Aceflyer]

I agree with your assessment that having one partner is a moral issue issue.

 

That's exactly why I have to agree with polygamy too. The only tangible resistance to gay marriage was based on it being "immoral", yet it is being decided daily that immoral or not, legally it is a right that the government should not infringe on.

 

I would inversely say that if morals don't matter where gay marriage is concerning, it shouldn't matter with polygamous marriage either.

 

Not quite. There is no existing right to plural marriage and so the government is not infringing here.

[Aceflyer]

I would disagree Ace.

 

Gay marriage was excluded as a law, or right as you depict it, when they legally stated that marriage is between two heterosexual humans of opposite sex. By not including gay marriage, they never had a civil right to marriage, just as by not including polygamists, they have never had that right.

 

Marriage, to my knowledge, has never been defined, at any time, as the civil union of two beings, regardless of gender.

 

No. Gay marriage has only been excluded by law since 1996 or thereabouts when conservative activists started pushing for passage of "Defense of Marriage" laws that 'defined' marriage as only being between a man and a woman. As multiple state Supreme Courts have found, these laws violate the doctrine of equal protection. If same-race heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, then equal protection mandates that interracial couples and homosexual couples must also be allowed to marry. There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to allow some couples to marry but not others.

 

To clarify, the same legal reasoning does not apply to plural marriage because this would not pass the threshold test.

Edited April 16, 2009 by Aceflyer

[NBVegita]

There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to keep people from marrying multiple partners.

[Aceflyer]

There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to keep people from marrying multiple partners.

 

Way to cherry-pick which sentence from my post to reply to.

 

How about this sentence immediately following that sentence you cherry-picked?

 

To clarify, the same legal reasoning does not apply to plural marriage because this would not pass the threshold test.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Aceflyer

[Bak]

the government should get out of the marriage business as much as possible.

[NBVegita]

I wasn't cherry picking anything.

 

What is your so called "threshold test"?

 

I ask you to provide me something, in fact anything in the constitution that provides justification for a person to not be allowed to take multiple spouses.

[»Lynx]

[NBVegita]

There are a couple of ways to resolve that.

 

First would to have, as most polygamous sects do, a primary wife. She would receive the same rights to her husband as would any monogamous wife would. Then each subsequent wife would be more, in a legal sense, like a related dependent. The husband can claim them as his dependent, they are legally related to him for all legal purposes (Insurance, benefits, medical situations ect.). Yet none of them, unless stated in a will would have a right to inheritance/property/pension ect.

 

Second solution would be just simply divide everything by the number of spouses. If a woman passes away and leaves 4 husbands, each of them get a quarter share of the house/pension/inheritance ect.

 

In cases of divorce, you would only be able to sue for half of your percentage. In the example above, if an estate is worth $1,000,000 dollars. You share that with 5 people, the woman and her 4 husbands. Thus your share of the estate is effectively $200,000, but as a dependent you are only entitled to, up to, half of it. Assuming no prenuptial agreement.

 

In the case of children, that is between yourself and your husband/wife, and none of the others.

 

It wouldn't be very difficult to legislate.

[Aceflyer]

I wasn't cherry picking anything.

 

What is your so called "threshold test"?

 

I ask you to provide me something, in fact anything in the constitution that provides justification for a person to not be allowed to take multiple spouses.

 

Yes you were cherry-picking. Out of my entire post, you extracted a single sentence and used it in a misleading, out-of-context manner.

 

No. Gay marriage has only been excluded by law since 1996 or thereabouts when conservative activists started pushing for passage of "Defense of Marriage" laws that 'defined' marriage as only being between a man and a woman. As multiple state Supreme Courts have found, these laws violate the doctrine of equal protection. If same-race heterosexual couples are allowed to marry, then equal protection mandates that interracial couples and homosexual couples must also be allowed to marry. There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to allow some couples to marry but not others.

 

To clarify, the same legal reasoning does not apply to plural marriage because this would not pass the threshold test.

 

The threshold test means that the case is only considered if plaintiffs are found to be 'similarly situated'. Gay couples are similarly situated to current different-sex couples because there are only superficial differences (i.e., in genitalia). Hence the court could go on to consider whether equal protection would mandate that gay couples receive access to the same right to matrimony granted to similarly situated different-sex couples. Plural couples are not similarly situated to different-sex couples because the presence of one or more additional people in the relationship definitely does not constitute a superficial difference. Hence, the court would dismiss the hypothetical case at this point because equal protection does not apply between parties who are not similarly situated.

 

Again, the constitution, as far as I know, does not ban plural marriage. However, merely because it does not ban a specific practice does not mean it mandates that said practice be legal. What this means is that the constitution could not be used to overturn a hypothetical statutory ban on plural marriage. However, similarly, the constitution could not be used to overturn a hypothetical law permitting plural marriage. In essence, the issue of plural marriage is left to the legislative branch to decide.

 

There are a couple of ways to resolve that.

 

First would to have, as most polygamous sects do, a primary wife. She would receive the same rights to her husband as would any monogamous wife would. Then each subsequent wife would be more, in a legal sense, like a related dependent. The husband can claim them as his dependent, they are legally related to him for all legal purposes (Insurance, benefits, medical situations ect.). Yet none of them, unless stated in a will would have a right to inheritance/property/pension ect.

 

Second solution would be just simply divide everything by the number of spouses. If a woman passes away and leaves 4 husbands, each of them get a quarter share of the house/pension/inheritance ect.

 

In cases of divorce, you would only be able to sue for half of your percentage. In the example above, if an estate is worth $1,000,000 dollars. You share that with 5 people, the woman and her 4 husbands. Thus your share of the estate is effectively $200,000, but as a dependent you are only entitled to, up to, half of it. Assuming no prenuptial agreement.

 

In the case of children, that is between yourself and your husband/wife, and none of the others.

 

It wouldn't be very difficult to legislate.

 

Still sounds like a mess to me. Divorce proceedings between 2-people couples already often are amazingly complicated, just imagine the mess with a plural couple.

 

None of this though has any bearing on whether plural marriage should be allowed or not.

[NBVegita]

First:

 

Your statement:

 

There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to allow some couples to marry but not others.

 

My statement:

 

There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to keep people from marrying multiple partners.

 

I didn't quote your sentence at all. I took your sentence and created my own sentence. Thus my statement was neither out of context nor misleading because it was not your sentence, it was mine. I simply analyzed your argument and posted the same argument you made for my side of the argument.

 

Second:

 

Again, the constitution, as far as I know, does not ban plural marriage. However, merely because it does not ban a specific practice does not mean it mandates that said practice be legal. What this means is that the constitution could not be used to overturn a hypothetical statutory ban on plural marriage. However, similarly, the constitution could not be used to overturn a hypothetical law permitting plural marriage. In essence, the issue of plural marriage is left to the legislative branch to decide.

 

I simply stated that there is no constitutionally sufficient justification to ban it, which your sentence would agree with. Now assuming that it is all completed at the state level, there is no legal justification, just as there was none for banning gay marriage to ban polygamy. There is a moral justification that people believe it is wrong to take multiple partners.

 

Marriage has been defined as a civil union between a man and a woman. (singular)

 

Using the doctrine of equal protection:

 

Among the rights expressly reserved to themselves by the people of the United States, was a complete equality of civil privileges. This right is inherent in every people, and when not expressly relinquished, remains with them as a matter of course. But in respect to the people of the United States, it is not merely tacitly reserved, it is guaranteed, and asserted, and recognized in the constitution of our general government, as well as in those of the states, as their great fundamental principle.

 

The same argument made for gay marriage can be in fact made for polygamy. The supreme court interprets the doctrine to state that it is unconstitutional for marriage to be defined as a man and a woman, you can also discern that it is unconstitutional for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman.

 

The base of the argument is that you cannot limit marriage as a union of just a man and woman because it infringes on the rights of those civilians whom choose to marry someone of the same gender. The exact argument can be made that you cannot limit marriage as a union of a singular person, to another singular person because that infringes on the rights of those civilians whom choose to marry multiple partners. Your argument that being heterosexuals are allowed marriage and thus it's unjust to deny homosexuals the right of marriage again can be elaborated to if you allow monogamous marriage it is unjust to deny polygamous marriage.

 

Plural couples are not similarly situated to different-sex couples because the presence of one or more additional people in the relationship definitely does not constitute a superficial difference.

 

That is completely based on your opinion. Someone could pose the same argument for homosexual couples because they cannot bear children. That alone is not a "superficial difference" between heterosexual couples. The fact that you consider homosexuality a superficial difference and polygamy non-superficial really has no legal standing. Both, would be and are, up to the interpretation of the supreme court at that time. Which is why gay marriage has been illegal for so long, because it has been morally unacceptable. There is no better legal argument to ban gay marriage than there is to ban polygamous marriages.

 

Gay marriage has only been excluded by law since 1996 or thereabouts

 

Please cite.

 

Still sounds like a mess to me. Divorce proceedings between 2-people couples already often are amazingly complicated, just imagine the mess with a plural couple.

 

None of this though has any bearing on whether plural marriage should be allowed or not.

 

Completely agreed.

[Aceflyer]

First:

 

Your statement:

 

There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to allow some couples to marry but not others.

 

My statement:

 

There is no constitutionally sufficient justification to keep people from marrying multiple partners.

 

I didn't quote your sentence at all. I took your sentence and created my own sentence. Thus my statement was neither out of context nor misleading because it was not your sentence, it was mine. I simply analyzed your argument and posted the same argument you made for my side of the argument.

 

Except that that sentence wasn't my argument. You cherry-picked a single sentence from my post/argument, and rephrased it to make it mean something totally different.

 

Second:

 

I simply stated that there is no constitutionally sufficient justification to ban it, which your sentence would agree with. Now assuming that it is all completed at the state level, there is no legal justification, just as there was none for banning gay marriage to ban polygamy. There is a moral justification that people believe it is wrong to take multiple partners.

 

Marriage has been defined as a civil union between a man and a woman. (singular)

 

Using the doctrine of equal protection:

 

Among the rights expressly reserved to themselves by the people of the United States, was a complete equality of civil privileges. This right is inherent in every people, and when not expressly relinquished, remains with them as a matter of course. But in respect to the people of the United States, it is not merely tacitly reserved, it is guaranteed, and asserted, and recognized in the constitution of our general government, as well as in those of the states, as their great fundamental principle.

 

The same argument made for gay marriage can be in fact made for polygamy. The supreme court interprets the doctrine to state that it is unconstitutional for marriage to be defined as a man and a woman, you can also discern that it is unconstitutional for marriage to be defined as one man and one woman.

 

The base of the argument is that you cannot limit marriage as a union of just a man and woman because it infringes on the rights of those civilians whom choose to marry someone of the same gender. The exact argument can be made that you cannot limit marriage as a union of a singular person, to another singular person because that infringes on the rights of those civilians whom choose to marry multiple partners. Your argument that being heterosexuals are allowed marriage and thus it's unjust to deny homosexuals the right of marriage again can be elaborated to if you allow monogamous marriage it is unjust to deny polygamous marriage.

 

Incorrect, because we again are not even looking at equal protection here. Plural marriage would never make it to that stage because as previously stated it would fail the threshold test. I'm not sure why you keep harping on the fact that the constitution doesn't prohibit plural marriage. The question is not whether the constitution prohibits plural marriage, the question is whether the constitution requires plural marriage. And the answer to that question is (unfortunately) no.

 

Plural couples are not similarly situated to different-sex couples because the presence of one or more additional people in the relationship definitely does not constitute a superficial difference.

 

That is completely based on your opinion. Someone could pose the same argument for homosexual couples because they cannot bear children. That alone is not a "superficial difference" between heterosexual couples. The fact that you consider homosexuality a superficial difference and polygamy non-superficial really has no legal standing. Both, would be and are, up to the interpretation of the supreme court at that time. Which is why gay marriage has been illegal for so long, because it has been morally unacceptable. There is no better legal argument to ban gay marriage than there is to ban polygamous marriages.

 

Obviously any statements made by me constitute my opinion, just as any statements made by you constitute your opinion.

 

Based on analysis of the courts' opinions, differences in genitalia were considered analogous to differences in skin color or race. You have two people. If two people of the same skin color but different genders can marry under state (not constitutional!) law per the legislature or per the will of the people, then the constitution mandates that the same state law must also allow two people of different skin colors or of the same gender to marry. You can't allow some two-people couples to marry but not allow other two-people couples to marry. If you allow some two-people couples to marry you must allow all two-people couples to marry. This is not the same as saying if you allow some two-people couples to marry you must allow all n-people couples to marry. What about the case where n = 1?

 

Morally I think plural marriage is just as right as gay marriage. But if the court would want to mandate plural marriage they would have to go about it a different way legally, they couldn't just use the same argument they used for gay marriage (which was based on the argument used for interracial marriage).

 

Gay marriage has only been excluded by law since 1996 or thereabouts

 

Please cite.

 

Here's a quick and dirty citation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marr...e_United_States

 

1996 was the year the federal DOMA was passed, incidentally, which is why I said '1996' and not '1998' earlier.

[NBVegita]

Except that that sentence wasn't my argument. You cherry-picked a single sentence from my post/argument, and rephrased it to make it mean something totally different.

 

You don't understand. Never did I quote you, or state that it was your sentence. I simply made my OWN sentence that paralleled one of yours. I simply took a sentence from your post, adjusted it to meet MY needs and subsequently posted it as my OWN sentence.

 

his is not the same as saying if you allow some two-people couples to marry you must allow all n-people couples to marry.

 

In your opinion it isn't. Legally is a different story.

 

Incorrect, because we again are not even looking at equal protection here. Plural marriage would never make it to that stage because as previously stated it would fail the threshold test. I'm not sure why you keep harping on the fact that the constitution doesn't prohibit plural marriage. The question is not whether the constitution prohibits plural marriage, the question is whether the constitution requires plural marriage. And the answer to that question is (unfortunately) no.

 

You are stating that it doesn't match your threshold test. Your threshold test is no basis for a legal argument. I'm stating there is no legal argument. Your threshold is based off personal opinion, not legal opinion. Also:

 

Among the rights expressly reserved to themselves by the people of the United States, was a complete equality of civil privileges. This right is inherent in every people, and when not expressly relinquished, remains with them as a matter of course.

Coupled with section 1 from the 14th amendment of the constitution:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Add in the supremacy clause of the constitution:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

 

Under that interpretation, the constitutions at a state and federal level do not implicitly restrict the right to polygamous marriage, thus it is an infringement of their civil rights if they are denied it. The anti-Bigamy act was passed in 1862 with no due legal process. Similar to the Defense of Marriage act, it restricted American rights with no due legal process to back it up. Prior to 1862, polygamy was not illegal.

 

I am simply stating that if you use the argument that it violates a citizens right to depict whom they can and cannot marry, it violates their rights to depict how many people you can or cannot marry. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

Based on the case I posted above there is no threshold argument. I'm not arguing that because monogamous marriage is legal, that polygamy should also be legal. I am stating that, using the quoted above, by making polygamy illegal you are violating the civil rights granted to American's by the United States Constitution.

 

And actually the argument posted above could be used used for Gay marriage also.

[Aceflyer]

You don't understand. Never did I quote you, or state that it was your sentence. I simply made my OWN sentence that paralleled one of yours. I simply took a sentence from your post, adjusted it to meet MY needs and subsequently posted it as my OWN sentence.

 

My problem is with the fact that you "took a sentence from my post [and] adjusted it to meet [YOUR] needs." As you have now admitted the fact that you did in fact do this 'adjusting', we are fine.

 

In your opinion it isn't. Legally is a different story.

 

No. That's your opinion. You're not any more qualified to speak for the courts than I am. Quit trying to denigrate my posts.

 

You are stating that it doesn't match your threshold test. Your threshold test is no basis for a legal argument. I'm stating there is no legal argument. Your threshold is based off personal opinion, not legal opinion. Also:

 

No. That's your opinion. Your opinion is that there's no legal argument. Your judgment is based off personal opinion, not legal precedent.

 

... I am simply stating that if you use the argument that it violates a citizens right to depict whom they can and cannot marry, it violates their rights to depict how many people you can or cannot marry. It's a pretty simple concept.

 

Based on the case I posted above there is no threshold argument. I'm not arguing that because monogamous marriage is legal, that polygamy should also be legal. I am stating that, using the quoted above, by making polygamy illegal you are violating the civil rights granted to American's by the United States Constitution.

 

In your opinion that may be the case. Legally is a different story.

[NBVegita]

lol I didn't realize sentences were private property...I'm sorry...lol.

 

You're lacking some fundamentals.

 

You're not any more qualified to speak for the courts than I am./

 

That is exactly my point!!! How the hell are you supposed to know the outcome of a threshold case that has never happened!? I'm not trying to argue for the courts, you are.

 

The debate, at least of this phase, started when I stated Gays never had the right to marry. You then quoted, and now cited a source saying it just recently became illegal. You then stated that the reason why this has been overturned is that supreme court judges have said it goes against the doctrine of equal protection. I did not ask you to cite that as I agree with your consensus. Next you proceeded to state that polygamy would not pass a threshold test (by which I have tried researching and not found a single case where it was used in a non criminal case, not saying it hasn't happened, I haven't found it). That alone is you speaking for the courts.

 

Now moving forward I argued that based on the DOEP that it violates poly's constitutional rights. I also argued that it passing a "threshold test" or not, is simply your opinion of what you believe a judge would rule on a case. That is tantamount to telling me that a jury WILL find the defendant guilty and admitting that as legal fact. Moving forward you keep arguing a threshold rule (and stating that it will not pass, it must be nice to be able to read a judges mind in the future) as if I'm stating that I'm trying to justify polygamous marriage based off of monogamous marriage. I again reiterate that your statement that polygamy would definitely fail a "threshold test" is simply your opinion. I then quote not only the DOEP, but the 14th amendment and the supremacy clause of the constitution to help validate my point that banning polygamy is infringing on the natural and civil rights of an American citizen. I even then state when polygamy was made illegal and that there was no due legal process making so, thus again showing that it is infringing on civil rights.

 

This is where you state: "You're not any more qualified to speak for the courts than I am."

 

Which I agree 100% with. You're the one claiming to know the courts decision of your "threshold test", I simply keep reiterating that you can't know the outcome. Second I'm not arguing that any court would agree with my statements, I'm simply creating an argument based on binding legal documents. Is it my interpretation of those legal documents? Sure, but just about every law, amendment and legal argument is based on some measure of opinion. I back mine up with the DOEP, 14th amendment and the supremacy clause, you back yours up with your interpretation of how the threshold test, which from my research is simply for criminal cases(http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/threshold.html just one source), would be interpreted by a judge.

[Aceflyer]

lol I didn't realize sentences were private property...I'm sorry...lol.

 

Sentences obviously aren't private property but I don't appreciate it when people take my words and twist them to suit their own needs. It's a common tactic propaganda artists use against the opposition and the practice just irks me.

 

You're lacking some fundamentals.

 

This statement is merely your opinion, not a fact.

 

That is exactly my point!!! How the hell are you supposed to know the outcome of a threshold case that has never happened!? I'm not trying to argue for the courts, you are.

 

Eh? I never tried to argue for the courts any more than you did. Just because I happened to base my arguments on precise legal precedent rather than on broad original interpretations of the text of the constitution doesn't imply I was claiming to singlehandedly be speaking for the US Supreme Court or any other court.

 

I did not invent the threshold test. Such a test was applied recently by the Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien.

 

The debate, at least of this phase, started when I stated Gays never had the right to marry. You then quoted, and now cited a source saying it just recently became illegal. You then stated that the reason why this has been overturned is that supreme court judges have said it goes against the doctrine of equal protection. I did not ask you to cite that as I agree with your consensus. Next you proceeded to state that polygamy would not pass a threshold test (by which I have tried researching and not found a single case where it was used in a non criminal case, not saying it hasn't happened, I haven't found it). That alone is you speaking for the courts.

 

No. That was me analyzing court opinions regarding gay marriage and concluding that if the same chain of reasoning were to be applied to poly marriage, poly marriage would not pass the same threshold test that gay marriage passed. An actual court considering poly marriage might use a different chain of reasoning altogether. Again, your accusation that I was "speaking for the courts" is ludicrous and brings up the phrase "attacking a strawman."

 

Now moving forward I argued that based on the DOEP that it violates poly's constitutional rights. I also argued that it passing a "threshold test" or not, is simply your opinion of what you believe a judge would rule on a case. That is tantamount to telling me that a jury WILL find the defendant guilty and admitting that as legal fact. Moving forward you keep arguing a threshold rule (and stating that it will not pass, it must be nice to be able to read a judges mind in the future) as if I'm stating that I'm trying to justify polygamous marriage based off of monogamous marriage. I again reiterate that your statement that polygamy would definitely fail a "threshold test" is simply your opinion. I then quote not only the DOEP, but the 14th amendment and the supremacy clause of the constitution to help validate my point that banning polygamy is infringing on the natural and civil rights of an American citizen. I even then state when polygamy was made illegal and that there was no due legal process making so, thus again showing that it is infringing on civil rights.

 

The above, using your own logic, is either you "speaking for the courts" or is merely your personal opinion. Your quotes from legal documents don't help your point unless you are presuming to speak for the courts. I could address your points in more detail but am not inclined to do so as you would just dismiss it as me "speaking for the courts" again.

 

This is where you state: "You're not any more qualified to speak for the courts than I am."

 

Which I agree 100% with. You're the one claiming to know the courts decision of your "threshold test", I simply keep reiterating that you can't know the outcome. Second I'm not arguing that any court would agree with my statements, I'm simply creating an argument based on binding legal documents. Is it my interpretation of those legal documents? Sure, but just about every law, amendment and legal argument is based on some measure of opinion. I back mine up with the DOEP, 14th amendment and the supremacy clause, you back yours up with your interpretation of how the threshold test, which from my research is simply for criminal cases(http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/threshold.html just one source), would be interpreted by a judge.

 

I happened to base my arguments on precise and recent legal precedent. You based your arguments on your own broad original interpretations of the text of the constitution. The former approach is clearly favored by actual courts as they base their arguments on legal precedent whenever possible.

 

At this point I am done with this 'debate' as it is evident we are going in circles. I am happy to discuss different perspectives on the implications of recent legal precedent but would rather not attempt to defend myself from strawmen on the one hand and argue against freewheeling interpretations of the text of the constitution on the other hand.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Aceflyer

[SeVeR]

This isn't a moral issue it's a cultural one. To allow people to marry more than once would be a destructive influence on our culture, spreading misery and conflict. Men would dominate in most cases and women would suffer, a trend which runs counter to our cultural era of equality. Morally speaking there is nothing wrong with it outside of arguments about tradition.

 

Looking at this through Darwin's eyes, dominant men and submissive women would procreate more often and any heritable traits as well as developmental traits concerning dominance would be selectively favorable creating a society more inclined towards dominant men and submissive women. One would have to debate the quality of equality to stand for such a future.

[NBVegita]

First, again I did not "twist your words". Twisting your words means you're implying that I'm trying to portray that you stated something you didn't.

 

I created a brand new sentence, completely separate from your own, that was mine, using similar words you used. That is not twisting your words. It is a parallel statement, nothing more.

 

Let me spell this out for you. If you state:

 

It is impossible for A to validate.

 

And I say:

 

It is impossible for B to validate.

 

I'm not twisting/misquoting any of the above!!! I'm basically stating that if it is impossible for A to validate, then inversely it is impossible for B to validate. I don't see what is so hard to grasp.

 

From Varnum v. Brien:

 

In most equal

protection cases, the court applies a very deferential standard known as the

“rational basis test.” Under this test, “[t]he plaintiff has the heavy burden of

showing the statute unconstitutional and must negate every reasonable basis

upon which the classification may be sustained.” Classifications based on race,

alienage, or national origin and those affecting fundamental rights are, however,

evaluated under a “strict scrutiny” standard.

 

Thus still fitting my argument.

 

Again how can you not understand that if you are implicitly stating that a ruling, based on a judges opinion, without citing any case fact to back it up, would automatically guarantee a negative outcome? You have implicitly stated that if polygamy was taken to court, the judge would not validate it under a legal precedent that is highly interpretive.

 

Again:

 

The purpose of Iowa’s marriage law is to provide an institutional basis for

defining the fundamental relational rights and responsibilities of persons in

committed relationships. It also serves to recognize the status of the parties’

committed relationship. In this case, the court concluded, plaintiffs are similarly

situated compared to heterosexual persons; they are in committed relationships[/b

and official recognition of their status provides an institutional basis for defining

their fundamental relational rights and responsibilities.

 

Under that it implies that it had nothing to do with gender as to why they approved their threshold case, it was on the basis of each group being in a recognized committed relationship. Polygamy is a committed relationship. They only because discussing the gender role after their threshold test had allowed the proceedings to begin.

 

So quoting legal documents means I speaking for the courts? When a lawyer is defending you in court and cites legal documents, he is speaking for the courts? How are you supposed to create a legal defense, or offense, without being able to site legal documents? I've never presumed to know the outcome of a judges opinion, you have.

 

I don't think you understand. Unless you are presenting a case argument based on someone actually attempting to legalize polygamy, then you are presenting an opinion. Your opinion is not leaving room for error. You have not once stated that it "might not", "most likely would not", "probably not", ect. pass a threshold test. You are stating every time that it would not pass. As such, you are stating that if a legal argument, which is based off of opinion, is taken to a court of law, that you definitively know the answer. I am taking legal documents and presenting an argument based off of them. Not once have I claimed to know the outcome of what a court/judge would decide. Also your legal precedent, no where, even broaches the argument as to if/could multiple partners in a committed relationship differ from two partners in a committed relationship. So ultimately your case doesn't help prove your point because you are again stating definitively how one judge would interpret the ruling of another in reference to something he must create his own interpretation of. You realize that if you had simply said might instead of would most of this argument wouldn't be happening as I've never said that my argument is bullet proof and will not fail. I understand that this would wholly be up to the discretion of a judge and as such any outcome can happen. I'm simply providing an argument for polygamy, not an interpretation as to how a court would validate, or invalidate that argument.

 

I have repeatedly stated that neither of us can know the outcome of a threshold case against polygamy, as there is none on record to date, so as such your assertion that it would not pass is your opinion as to how a judge(s) would rule on a threshold test. That is tantamount to stating that a judge will convict a person of a crime before the case has even been heard.

 

I agree with you to a point on that Sever. I think part of the problem is that culturally polygamy is only viewed, much like Islamic culture, based on extremes, 60 year old men marrying 13 year old girls and the like.

 

Not that I'm saying we would culturally be likely to ever legalize polygamy, just that it creates a parallel legal argument to consider. It also doesn't help that no where does polygamy have any champions like the gay community does.

[Aceflyer]

Your post is absurd. Never once have I claimed that my analysis is necessarily bulletproof or that an actual court would necessarily agree with my analysis. In fact, even actual judges and courts do not necessarily always reach the same conclusions with each other when analyzing the same issue. Particularly for issues in flux, there is almost never a guarantee that every court in the nation would adopt the same analytical methods or reach the same conclusions. I do not as a rule insert lengthy legal disclaimers or check to make sure my posts are loophole-free and legally sound because this is just an online gaming forum for crying out loud. I do not appreciate your continued attempts to attack a claim I never made and this is why I am not going to further argue this issue with you. Edited April 20, 2009 by Aceflyer

[NBVegita]

Post #7

 

the same legal reasoning does not apply to plural marriage because this would not pass the threshold test.

 

Post #14

 

Plural couples are not similarly situated to different-sex couples because the presence of one or more additional people in the relationship definitely does not constitute a superficial difference. Hence, the court would dismiss the hypothetical case at this point because equal protection does not apply between parties who are not similarly situated.

 

Post #16

Plural marriage would never make it to that stage because as previously stated it would fail the threshold test.

 

Post #20

 

That was me analyzing court opinions regarding gay marriage and concluding that if the same chain of reasoning were to be applied to poly marriage, poly marriage would not pass the same threshold test that gay marriage passed.

 

I reiterate, you cannot possibly know how a judge(s) would rule on polygamy under a threshold test.

[»D1st0rt]

Would you really want multiple wives? I sure as hell wouldn't. One seems like plenty.