I'm not a Massachusetts resident, but if I were, I think that it might well be in order. I would at least persuade my legislators that my state should not be one of only three which does not make its Supreme Court Justices stand for re-election.
Don't you see that, just as the MA court turned the law on its head, any other judge could do the same with regards to polygamy?
If we ever get a SCOTUS ruling on polygamy in the same vein as Lawrence vs. Texas was, yes, it might be possible for a rogue Supreme Court of a state to do this. I cannot imagine it happening, however. Can you see Ruth Bader Ginsberg letting a Utah polygamist off the hook, after he parades his subservient "wives" in front of the Court? I sure can't.
"Will of the majority," indeed!"
This was NOT a vote for gay marriage, this was a vote dealing with amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. Check the polls, you'll find uniformly, that there is less support for amending the Constitution than there is for gay marriage.
Once the case reaches the Supreme Court, polygamy laws will have to be overturned, consistent with Lawrence--unless the court wants to rescind that recent decision, which they will not do, or admit its contradiction. Justice Scalia's dissent in Lawrence said as much.
Justice Scalia's hyperbole notwithstanding, there has never been a SCOTUS decision (or that of any lower court, or even that of a court in another Western civilization) that has ruled in favor of polygamy. It is a different issue! I don't know how to convey to my fellow conservatives that everybody besides them views it as such. Homosexuality has some empathy in this country, polygamists are looked on as manipulative evil little men intent on dominating and subjugating women, while the women are looked upon as mindless brainwashed idiots for going along with polygamist's twisted interpretation of religion. If liberals don't back it, and conservatives don't want it, it ain't gonna happen!
Polygamy has been practiced historically, biblically, and is currently widely practiced throughout the world.
This is the primary reason liberals will never back it, its associated exclusively with patriarchal cultures that liberals condemn. This is one of the areas where liberals and conservatives are united.
And the notion that polygamy shouldn't be legalized because it's "only a tiny fringe" isn't a valid argument--and, meaning no offense, betrays a naive approach on your part to the issue.
In order for a change to happen in our society, it needs a sizable (although not majority) constituency. Other than a few religious whackos that keep getting beaten down in court, there is no constituency in favor of polygamy.
And only recently has the court ruled on the side of the homosexual agenda. Revamping old laws against sexual behaviors and redefining marriage is a NEW phenomenon in the courts. You're saying that because polygamy hasn't been sanctioned yet, it never will.
My point is simple. We cannot assume that anti-polygamy laws will be held intact by the courts, particularly in light of recent precedent that paves the way for their revocation. You apparently feel a confidence in the good judgment of courts that I cannot share.
If we ever get a SCOTUS ruling on polygamy in the same vein as Lawrence vs. Texas was, yes, it might be possible for a rogue Supreme Court of a state to do this. I cannot imagine it happening, however.
This point concedes the danger of Lawrence v. Texas--and, again, presumes that the Supreme Court will not follow its own established reasoning.
Can you see Ruth Bader Ginsberg letting a Utah polygamist off the hook, after he parades his subservient "wives" in front of the Court? I sure can't.
There you go again with the stereotypes.
The court will make a decision based on the validity of the arguments made, not on the perceived social stigmas of the parties involved. The argument presented by polygamists will be similar to the one made by homosexuals: "I and this person want to get married, yet the government discriminates against me. My choice in whom I marry is my personal business. The state has no right to forbid me to marry."
In Lawrence, and in MA, the courts have rejected the idea that the morality of the majority factors into the debate. In the absence of that, the court has no legal basis on which to deny polygamists marriage licenses. Indeed, when we remove the moral majority objections to polygamy, there is scarcely an argument against it.
After all, it's just a question about numbers, right? On what basis can the government determine how many persons are suitable for a marriage? Why should the government care? People should be able to marry according to their beliefs and tendencies in a free society, right?
I'd like to hear your legal objections to polygamy, sans the moral majority argument you have obviously rejected.
This was NOT a vote for gay marriage, this was a vote dealing with amending the Constitution to prevent gay marriage. Check the polls, you'll find uniformly, that there is less support for amending the Constitution than there is for gay marriage.
My point with that remark was show your contradiction. You say polygamy should be illegal because the majority objects to it, yet you advocate homosexual marriage, despite its minority support.
If liberals don't back it, and conservatives don't want it, it ain't gonna happen!
The lobbying for polygamy is going on before the courts, not in our legislative process. The courts act without regard to what the populace wants, as they force new laws on the public. That's the condition of our legal institutions today.
In order for a change to happen in our society, it needs a sizable (although not majority) constituency. Other than a few religious whackos that keep getting beaten down in court, there is no constituency in favor of polygamy.
Again, you assume the issue will be decided legitimately in the legislature. It is not. And again, I fail to see how you can reconcile holding this position while advocating gay marriage under minority support. The people don't want same-sex marriage, and never asked for it. I didn't notice MA court taking a poll when they ruled for gay marriage.
It is a different issue!
The issue is the same. It's about the definition of marriage. The Federal Marriage Amendment would have prohibited gay marriage and polygamy, and kept the traditional definition.