Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dissenting judge raises polygamy question
The Greensboro News-Record ^ | July 29, 2014 | Doug Clark

Posted on 07/31/2014 2:24:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Yesterday's majority opinion in the Virginia same-sex marriage case obviously is getting all the press, but Judge Paul Niemeyer raised an interesting issue in his dissent.

"The plaintiffs also largely ignore the problem with their position that if the fundamental right to marriage is based on 'the constitutional liberty to select the partner of one’s choice,' as they contend, then that liberty would also extend to individuals seeking state recognition of other types of relationships that States currently restrict, such as polygamous or incestuous relationships," he wrote.

Ridiculous? Yes, it's easy to dismiss this reasoning as preposterous. But, of course, that was the overwhelming response to arguments for same-sex marriage just a few years ago.

So why is Niemeyer wrong?

Surely, there's no clamor for allowing "incestuous" marriage. But "marriage" doesn't require procreation or even a sexual relationship. If it's viewed as a legal arrangement that bestows certain benefits, why should the law bar, say, two elderly sisters from claiming those benefits? Why should they be prohibited if the goal of "marriage equality" is to allow a person to marry any other person?

Polygamy is fundamentally different in that it involves an arrangement among three or more people. Yet, this is an arrangement that might be in demand among a significant number of Americans. After all, it did exist legally at one time in our nation's history. Today, our multicultural society includes people whose religious traditions, and even current practices in other parts of the world, permit polygamy. Several years ago, an NPR report cited studies indicating that some 50,000 to 100,000 American Muslims live in polygamous marriages -- although of course they are not recognized as such under any state law.

Niemeyer was not advocating for recognition of polygamous marriages. On the contrary, he was warning that the same legal construct used to expand marriage laws to include same-sex unions must logically continue the expansion.

In a Canadian case, a judge ruled that laws against polygamy violated the religious rights of Mormons but said those rights are outweighed by the harm done to women and children in such arrangement -- which sounds like an attitude once held against families headed by same-sex couples. This ruling was confirmed by a higher court, but that likely won't be the last word on the subject there.

In our country, a federal judge last year ruled against part of Utah's law banning polygamy. But, if Niemeyer is correct, these later rulings in favor of same-sex marriage might strengthen future challenges to polygamy laws.

But Niemeyer didn't convince his two colleagues. Or they were concerned only with the immediate question and not about the future progression of marriage. In fact, such concerns will not deter those who demand an expansion of marriage. Why should they?

Still, Niemeyer raised the issue and laid it out for consideration. If nothing else, it adds another dimension to the discussion.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; polygamy; romneyagenda; romneymarriage; romneypolygamy; romneyvsamerica; virginia
Here it comes, as predicted.
1 posted on 07/31/2014 2:24:22 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I'm opposed to polygamy, it does not meet the existing system in humans.
2 posted on 07/31/2014 2:28:49 AM PDT by eizverson22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
The law is not logical. It is arbitrary, couched in heaps of rhetoric that makes the false claims of "logical" and "rules based."

We'll have marriage between siblings and polygamy when a sufficient number of judges decide to grant it. Meanwhile, they can just as easy exclude family members and polygamy, as they now include homosexuals.

3 posted on 07/31/2014 2:46:33 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Obama Marriage Equality photo Obama-Marriage-1.jpg
4 posted on 07/31/2014 3:04:32 AM PDT by missnry (The truth will set you free ... and drive liberals crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eizverson22

polygamy has Biblical roots-—It will be law in time why—well people are doing it—having kids—lots of them. If legal the kids of the second + wives would have some rights. Now they do not. The fathers need to be held accountable. Not everyone would go for this—and that is good—but for some it might be just the thing people need. It needs unselfish people to work—and we have few of them in the 21st Century.


5 posted on 07/31/2014 3:15:49 AM PDT by Forward the Light Brigade (Into the Jaws of H*ll Onward! Ride to the sound of the guns!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: missnry

The only thing incorrect about that poster is that the dates are too close.


6 posted on 07/31/2014 3:21:41 AM PDT by MSF BU (Support the troops: Join Them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

You’re absolutely right. These rulings are completely arbitrary. There is a distinct, practical difference between marriage and what the left now calls marriage. Two people of the same sex or even multiple people of different sexes cannot create a union with offspring. It doesn’t matter how much two homosexuals or lesbians rub against each other, they cannot create life. All they do is engage in mutual masturbation (sorry, but completely true). Nor can a woman create a hybrid child from multiple fathers. ONLY one man and one woman can create the natural union that produces a life.

Now the judges say it ain’t so, but the state has a vested interest in the creation and raising of children. A child can only have one biological father and one biological mother, and it benefits all of society when that family unit is maintained. Yes. That means the state should even encourage such lifetime family bonds, as that benefits all citizens. Divorce, for example, damages more than just that one family. It harms our culture.

So, the judges are just making it up as they go. Logic doesn’t mean a thing to these folks. They have a political axe to grind, and they’ll grind it regardless of the consequences.

Note that leftist judges are essentially totalitarian. They simply cannot abide a political system where citizens have a right to set standards in their own communities. Some communities may foolishly want “gay marriage”, but others may not. “Oh no! We can’t permit that!” these judges think.

They are essentially very evil, un-American people. Americans have fought and died for our freedoms. These out-of-control, totalitarian judges think they’re some sort of heroes who are only using their power to fix wrongs and make things fair. No. What they’re actually doing is rending the civil society apart! Even worse, they actually seem to think this can go on forever without the people eventually rising up and tearing apart this system of “laws” (actually tyrants) they’ve created.


7 posted on 07/31/2014 3:23:29 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Didn’t Rick Santorum take a bunch of flak years ago for suggesting this very thing would happen?


8 posted on 07/31/2014 3:24:26 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Forward the Light Brigade

“fathers need to be held accountable”

Only if the same accountability is applied to mothers. Which, of course, it isn’t.

Also:

Since the article points out that marriage is really about benefits, the ultimate solution may be to eliminate all benefits for spouses. Then there will be no incentive for homosexual marriage, polygamous marriage, incestuous marriage, etc.


9 posted on 07/31/2014 3:25:57 AM PDT by ChicagahAl (Don't blame me. I voted for Sarah.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

Among other people.


10 posted on 07/31/2014 3:29:43 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Homosexual “marriage” does not redefine marriage, it undefines it.


11 posted on 07/31/2014 3:34:33 AM PDT by joshua c (Please dont feed the liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

(Black indicates polygamy legal, light blue or gray somewhat legal)

Similarly, many are now predicting the march to sharia law here in the US. I hope and pray this prediction does NOT come true.

12 posted on 07/31/2014 3:39:19 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: P.O.E.

What man, in this day and age, in this economy, could afford more than one wife?


13 posted on 07/31/2014 3:42:21 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"What man, in this day and age, in this economy, could afford more than one wife?"

Good point. Even if I could afford it monetarily which I can't. I couldn't handle it physically and mentally. Two hollering at me? Three? Not this ole country boy.

14 posted on 07/31/2014 3:51:05 AM PDT by DeaconRed (I see why they want our guns. Thank you founding fathers for the second amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If we adhered to constitutional boundaries, not man-made boundaries, the federal gov’t would not be involved in marriage at all.

Couples or groups could be married in their church and then file legal paperwork creating the legal arrangement they seek.


15 posted on 07/31/2014 3:51:11 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
What man, in this day and age, in this economy, could afford more than one wife?

Those on welfare.

16 posted on 07/31/2014 5:11:06 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

17 posted on 07/31/2014 5:22:54 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: missnry

18 posted on 07/31/2014 5:23:52 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eizverson22

While true, polygamy makes more sense on a societal level than gay marriage. At least it has procreative qualities. In my opinion, we are already further down the slippery slope than polygamy, the gays just have better organization and lobby.


19 posted on 07/31/2014 5:33:04 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ChicagahAl

There would also be no incentive for heterosexual marriage... and low birthrates are already becoming a major social problem.


20 posted on 07/31/2014 5:34:56 AM PDT by wolfman23601
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

It’s a fairly common practice among polygamists in Utah to establish multiple households, one wife in each, and make each wife responsible for the financial support of her own household (frequently this means “welfare”).


21 posted on 07/31/2014 5:52:25 AM PDT by DuncanWaring (The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

And polygamous women servicing all their marriages quickly devolving to chaos.

But that too is what barry wants for American society.


22 posted on 07/31/2014 5:52:32 AM PDT by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Every single Supreme Court decision regarding abortion and/or rights of homosexuals (Casey, Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor) applies with greater force - not equal force, GREATER force - to polygamy.

The Court just has not found the right case yet.

To use a Supreme Court phrase, if you accept the four cases above as precedent, there is no "rational basis" to forbid polygamy.

23 posted on 07/31/2014 5:58:01 AM PDT by Jim Noble (When strong, avoid them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise. Hat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

DFU SONG: Never My Love (never my goat)
DFU SONG PARODIES | 2-204 | Lyrics, Doug from Upland
Posted on 02/25/2004 8:52:25 AM PST by doug from upland

http://members.tripod.com/~midistation
MIDI - NEVER MY LOVE (scroll down to Oldies section)

You ask me if a liberal judge will stop me loving you
Never my goat...never my goat

You ask me if I’ll have to hide the things that I do to you
Never my goat...never my goat

When I watch you munching grass, I see your little ______ (fill in the blank)
And I lose...control...control

You ask me if the San Fran mayor will tell us we can’t be wed
Never my goat...never my goat

You ask me if John Kerry will keep you out of my bed
Never my goat...never my goat

When I watch you munching grass, I see your little ______ (fill in the blank)
And I lose...control...control, control

Never my goat...never my goat

Never my goat...never my goat

Never my goat...never my goat


24 posted on 07/31/2014 6:33:37 AM PDT by doug from upland (Obama and the leftists - destroying our country one day at a time)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA

“That means the state should even encourage such lifetime family bonds, as that benefits all citizens.”

The state (power brokers, govt) does not want what is good for the state (citizens, society) but what is good for the state (power brokers). The elimination of the family unit is good for the power brokers.

Already a majority in this nation have made government their god, and before long government will be family.


25 posted on 07/31/2014 8:09:59 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (Just what is the real reason to disarm a law abiding citizen like me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DeaconRed

Imagine more than one wife and they all eventually synchronize their menstrual cycles.

No thank you!


26 posted on 07/31/2014 1:59:40 PM PDT by rfreedom4u (Your feelings don't trump my free speech!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ChicagahAl

Since the article points out that marriage is really about benefits, the ultimate solution may be to eliminate all benefits for spouses.

...this is the entire essence of the issue of non-traditional marriage...


27 posted on 07/31/2014 2:20:53 PM PDT by IrishBrigade (')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion

*ping*


28 posted on 08/01/2014 9:46:02 AM PDT by MeganC (It took Democrats four hours to deport Elian Gonzalez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Polygamy will be made legal when three gay men or women sue for the right to marry each other.

Then the 14th Amendment will kickin and then poly will be legal for heterosexuals, too.


29 posted on 08/01/2014 9:47:31 AM PDT by MeganC (It took Democrats four hours to deport Elian Gonzalez)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
Polygamy will be made legal when three gay men or women sue for the right to marry each other.

You could not be more correct Megan, whatever the Protected Homosexual Class wants, they get.

30 posted on 08/01/2014 9:49:01 AM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The majority in Lawrence v. Texas also said their decision wouldn’t lead to homosexual marriage; yet the pro-homosexul marriage groups use that case in arguments to promote homosexual marriage.


31 posted on 08/01/2014 9:53:40 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: missnry

Your picture is sickening.


32 posted on 08/01/2014 8:32:03 PM PDT by NetAddicted (Just looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson