Skip to comments.Justice Sotomayor and the path to polygamy
Posted on 04/22/2013 5:00:24 PM PDT by ReformationFan
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last month in oral argument over Californias Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
In time, the parties involved will be living beings and other living beings. And maybe in future, enlightened jurists will extend it to inanimate objects.
Problem is polygamy has been practiced and accepted longer then sodomy. If liberals are willing to accept sodomy, then their feminists cannot argue against polygamy. IMHO polygamy will offer economy of scale, more exemptions and the head of household will benefit more financially then the traditional couple or gay couple. IRS will definitely be against this. Let us see, average income is 50,000 for a couple, a man with five working wives can have a family income of 150,000 plus six exemptions without kids. While a couple making 150,000 can get only two exemptions without kids. Plus the first wife faces competition from four new wives, the guy may be busy but he has the driver seat in such a family. Besides this will accommodate Muslims, not bad for diversity. If Muzzie men are too busy managing their five wives, they do not have time nor energy to bomb US marathons. Less stressful for bachelors. Can’t decide which girlfriend to marry, marry them all.
Gay activists have already used the tree stump example.
Exactly correct. If marriage is a right, what other human rights are we to discover. Marriage is a union brought about to protect children and women from exploitation by MEN!
I am waiting for one of the proponents to put his/her fingers in their ears and stamp their feet in front of the Supreme Court. Near as I can tell, they want what they want and don't care about anything else, so there!
I'm hoping the leftist extremists will threaten to run away from home if they don't get what they want right this [fill in the blank] minute. If that magic moment arrives, I'll chip in as much as I can afford to send as many of the vermin as possible to Cuba.
Not at all.
He can't marry his mother. Can't marry his sister. Can't marry his daughter (Woody Allen notwithstanding).
In most states, he can't marry a first-cousin.
He can't marry a woman below the age of consent.
I don't know what the current rules are, but there was a time he couldn't marry a woman if either had, in the quaint vernacular of the era, a "loathsome social disease".
And, last of all, he can't marry any woman who clears all those criteria if he or she are already married.
So you see, there are lots of restrictions on even heterosexual marriage; it's just not true that "Any two people who love each other should be allowed to marry".
So the last, most fundamental, is that there must be one man and one woman.
“He can’t marry a woman below the age of consent.” Actually. mo ham head could marry a nine year old, so long as the parents give consent. And I think that may be in all fifty seven states presently.
>>He can’t marry his...
It’s notable that we now understand the genetic mechanisms at work that produce biological consequences, or due penalties - for ignoring those natural, historical, rules.
Turns out Darwin keeping the blood “pure” with his cousin wasn’t such a great idea after all. Ooops.
The homosexual due penalties will be likewise re-discovered by a foolish society.
Like that women who “married” the Berlin Wall-
More to the point, every thriving society throughout history, including those that accepted polygyny, has recognized the significance of a (female) wife's exclusive relationship with her (male) husband. I know of none prior to this century which have afforded such recognition to relationships which were not headed by exactly one (male) husband and at least one (female) wife.
Those who cite the bible in arguing for traditional marriage do their cause a disservice by giving same-sex "marriage" proponents a "separation of church and state" card they can play. The idea that a marriage must involve exactly one male and at least one female is as old as humanity itself, if not older (certainly many animal species mate for life, and it's doubtful they learned the behavior from mankind). It's not religion that suggests that there's a reason thriving societies that have nothing else in common recognize that a marriage must include a male and at least one female.
Incidentally, in a society where many unmarried women would have few prospects for employment other than prostitution or begging, and where the number of women desperate for a husband exceeded the number of men seeking wives, it's not hard to imagine that polygyny may have been less bad for women than any other alternative.