SCOTUS struck down DOMA

[werepossum]

"Toaster" is the highly offensive and derogatory term used by racist humans in reference to Cylons. That fine young woman is a cylon. As you can see, the rumors about cylons wanting to murder you and eat your babies are purely specious. No way that hot toas--er, dish would want to do that.

Thank you for repairing my ignorance. I did not know that.

 

[woolfe9998]

Thank you for repairing my ignorance. I did not know that.

It was a very clever excuse for inserting a hot woman pic into the thread. I support such clever excuses.

I recommend the TV series highly as well.

 

[Riparian]

There are some toasters I wouldn't shacking up with...

If BSG had a home appliance catalog, I would purchase nearly all of their products.

 

[michal1980]

so is plural marriage now legal?

 

[Bird222]

so is plural marriage now legal?

Not yet.

 

[lopri]

Correct result, terrible legal reasoning.

 

[werepossum]

It was a very clever excuse for inserting a hot woman pic into the thread. I support such clever excuses.

I recommend the TV series highly as well.

I too.

That's Battlestar Galactica, Correct? Is it even still on? I can remember catching a couple. I liked the woman who plays (I think) the President and the man who (I think) plays the battlestar commander, but I didn't care for the writing or the principle two pilots.

If BSG had a home appliance catalog, I would purchase nearly all of their products.

LOL Pretty sure my wife would veto this appliance. Although she did like that "Two beers away from a little girl on girl action" tee shirt . . .

 

[Paratus]

I too.

That's Battlestar Galactica, Correct? Is it even still on? I can remember catching a couple. I liked the woman who plays (I think) the President and the man who (I think) plays the battlestar commander, but I didn't care for the writing or the principle two pilots.


LOL Pretty sure my wife would veto this appliance. Although she did like that "Two beers away from a little girl on girl action" tee shirt . . .

I was gonna vote for her (Roslin) too:

 

[Paratus]

so is plural marriage now legal?

Why would it be.

Government marriage benefits were always between two individuals and the government. The ruling only says you can't exclude someone from the contract based in their sex. Not that you can't exclude other people from the contract.

All contracts are limited to the people involved.

 

[michal1980]

Why would it be.

Government marriage benefits were always between two individuals and the government. The ruling only says you can't exclude someone from the contract based in their sex. Not that you can't exclude other people from the contract.

All contracts are limited to the people involved.

Based on what Kennedy said

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples.

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute" violates the Constitution, he said


So why would we treat plural marriage as being less respected than others?

 

[nehalem256]

Why would it be.

Technically it wouldn't until a state legalizes polygamy. At which point the federal government would be compelled to recognize it as equal.

Government marriage benefits were always between two individuals and the government. The ruling only says you can't exclude someone from the contract based in their sex. Not that you can't exclude other people from the contract.

All contracts are limited to the people involved.

Correction, government marriage benefits were always between a man and a woman. Funny how you like to leave out funny little details like that.

 

[lopri]

Based on what Kennedy said

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples.

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute" violates the Constitution, he said


So why would we treat plural marriage as being less respected than others?

What does plural marriage have anything to do with same-sex marriage?

 

[nehalem256]

Based on what Kennedy said

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples.

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute" violates the Constitution, he said


So why would we treat plural marriage as being less respected than others?

Actually based on your quote it sounds more like he is striking down the ban because it is mean to gay people.

The whole point of marriage is to establish a class of people whose relationships are more respected. If you are claiming the government cannot do that you are essentially invalidating the idea of government recognized marriage.

 

[nehalem256]

What does plural marriage have anything to do with same-sex marriage?

They are both form of marriage that the government has/does discriminate against.

EDIT: And actually you are right the comparison is absurd. Plural marriage has deep historical roots. Same-sex marriage is a recent leftist invention. There is actually less argument against plural marriage.

 

[Paratus]

Technically it wouldn't until a state legalizes polygamy. At which point the federal government would be compelled to recognize it as equal.



Correction, government marriage benefits were always between a man and a woman. Funny how you like to leave out funny little details like that.

Correction: government marriage benefits were always unconstitutionally between a man and a woman. That's now being rectified. Funny how you like to leave out funny little details like that.

But it's ok, today was a rough day for you Nehlem so if you have to let the butt-hurt flow.

 

[michal1980]

What does plural marriage have anything to do with same-sex marriage?

i'm curious if it would be recognized by the federal government now.

 

[nehalem256]

Correction: government marriage benefits were always unconstitutionally between a man and a woman. That's now being rectified. Funny how you like to leave out funny little details like that.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

Apparently the constitution has changed

 

[nehalem256]

i'm curious if it would be recognized by the federal government now.

If a state recognized a plural marriage the federal government would have to. That would appear to be what the majority opinion said.

But then again lefties have no problem discriminating against forms of marriage they dislike so all bets are off.

 

[soulcougher73]

If a state recognized a plural marriage the federal government would have to. That would appear to be what the majority opinion said.

But then again lefties have no problem discriminating against forms of marriage they dislike so all bets are off.

Guess you've forgotten about the conservative right religious people who dislike SSM?

 

[nehalem256]

Guess you've forgotten about the conservative right religious people who dislike SSM?

I haven't. I just have listened to them throwing a decade+ long fit about a form of marriage they want recognized is being discriminated against.

 

[werepossum]

What does plural marriage have anything to do with same-sex marriage?

Both are changes to our traditional definition of marriage. Other than that, nothing.

I personally have no strong feelings about plural marriage either way, but it presents unique issues and potential entanglements that gay marriage simply does not. Plural marriage would require a new set of statutes to cover dissolvement, responsibilities, and privileges. Gay marriage presents no such differences from traditional marriage unless we choose to artificially add them, as government does not (yet) regulate genitalia. I can however understand why an opponent of gay marriage would attempt to tie it to plural marriage, even if I see no real purpose to do so.

 

[Paratus]

Based on what Kennedy said

Justice Anthony Kennedy, speaking for the 5-4 majority, said DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated the right to liberty and to equal protection for gay couples.

"By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute" violates the Constitution, he said


So why would we treat plural marriage as being less respected than others?

Because as Nehlem so kindly pointed out no state currently recognizes plural marriages so everyone is equal under the law.

 

[werepossum]

Because as Nehlem so kindly pointed out no state currently recognizes plural marriages so everyone is equal under the law.

That plus government is free to infringe on anyone's rights; it just needs to show a compelling reason. Seems to me that SCOTUS has conclusively said that "I think it's icky" and "We don't let them marry now" are not sufficient reasons to discriminate by the nature of their reasoning. Congress may (or may not) ultimately find sufficient reasons against plural marriage to satisfy SCOTUS once it is adjudicated, but I strongly suspect that gay marriage will not be a compelling reason for legalization.

 

[Atreus21]

Both are changes to our traditional definition of marriage. Other than that, nothing.

I personally have no strong feelings about plural marriage either way, but it presents unique issues and potential entanglements that gay marriage simply does not. Plural marriage would require a new set of statutes to cover dissolvement, responsibilities, and privileges. Gay marriage presents no such differences from traditional marriage unless we choose to artificially add them, as government does not (yet) regulate genitalia. I can however understand why an opponent of gay marriage would attempt to tie it to plural marriage, even if I see no real purpose to do so.

If polygamists were to seek marriage rights tomorrow, on what basis would you argue against it that doesn't conflict with Kennedy's logic?

If there is any limit rightly to be placed on marriage rights, Kennedy's opinion today does little to establish it.

 

[werepossum]

If polygamists were to seek marriage rights tomorrow, on what basis would you argue against it that doesn't conflict with Kennedy's logic?

If there is any limit rightly to be placed on marriage rights, Kennedy's opinion today does little to establish it.

I'd argue three tracks. First, that there is no established body of law governing plural marriages. Second, that plural marriages have a history of coercion of minors. Third, that dissolution of plural marriages offers unique problems in custody that would make Hell the lives of children so afflicted. None of these apply to gay marriage unless we artificially create a division.

Of course, I could just as easily argue the opposite. Case law will create the required legal precedent as it is needed. Cults already practice plural marriages in legalized form, via divorce and continued cohabitation, without the protections that would be afforded under legal plural marriage. Children are already affected by plural cohabitation, without the protections of established law or the security of a formalized, recognized marriage.

As I said, I really have no strong feelings either way. I could make the same argument about gay marriage personally - I have no family or really close friends who are gay - but with gay marriage I can recognize at a glance that the only distinctions from hetero marriage (from government's standpoint) are those we choose to create or those which exist only because they exist. Once one learns to look at questions with a view toward maximizing personal liberty - not why should we legalize this, but why should we not allow it - the question becomes self-evident. Thus I recognize a ban on gay marriage as an arbitrary discrimination that serves no real purpose. This makes such a ban a serious infringement of personal liberty for no good purpose and we should all fight that whether or not we are personally affected. The same arguments MAY be made for plural marriage, the situation is just not as immediately self-evident to me.

By the way, I agree that the majority opinion makes it difficult to place any bounds on marriage. I think this is a good thing. Government should always be in the position of having to come up with an extraordinarily good reason to disallow personal liberty.