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.
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”).
And polygamous women servicing all their marriages quickly devolving to chaos.
But that too is what barry wants for American society.
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.
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
“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.
Imagine more than one wife and they all eventually synchronize their menstrual cycles.
No thank you!
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...
*ping*
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.
You could not be more correct Megan, whatever the Protected Homosexual Class wants, they get.
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.
Your picture is sickening.
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.