Posted on 05/10/2015 7:48:35 AM PDT by C19fan
During the recent Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage, Justice Samuel Alito questioned if finding for the plaintiffs would open the door to marriages of multiple partners. Most considered the rejoinder more quip than question, a reduction ad absurdum of the marriage equality position.
But why can’t four (or more) consenting adults form a family together—perhaps not as a marriage, but as a family unit recognized by the state? Such cases have been brought for decades, especially in the 1970s heyday of communes, and have almost always lost. But a case currently working its way through the Connecticut court system may reopen the issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedailybeast.com ...
But not for Mormons in Utah. /s
Polygamy- another relic of barbarism.
Today's absurdity is tomorrow's public policy.
Only a matter of time until 8 adults and 3 children are all a “couple”
If Marriage is not One Man and One Woman then it is arbitrary and will become defined any collection of adults, children and animals that can be thought of and will be ephemeral and changing.
Siunds like the Waltons on TV.
This should be a simple property ownership matter: If all of the people in the house are co-owners of the house then they have a right to live there. The court should simply pass on the question of whether or not they are a family and instead rule on their right of occupancy due to their rights as owners.
The law limiting ownership to a legally defined family is discriminatory. All that should matter to the city is that the house is legally occupied by no more people than are allowed by law.
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.