Justice Alito: Why Not Let 4 Lawyers Marry One Another?

They are only casual acquaintance but the single mother and grandmother down the street, joined together for over a decade to provide and care for their children/grandchildren sure seem to love each other. And they are excluded from marriage in all 50 states. No, your waters are not about two people who love each other and are instead exclusively about two gays who have sex with each other so you presume they must love each other. Waters which get muddied by two people who are not gay but also love each other, but are excluded from marriage.

 

No you didn't answer it...why do you consider him asking the same question as a supreme court justice,in a thread in which the topic is that question, trolling?

 

He would probably consider Alito to be trolling the court.

 

Because it's not the same thing. Polygamy and same sex marriage aren't the same thing, and frankly polygamy has a longer evidenced track record.

Polygamy has been practiced for thousands of years. therefore is "Traditional Marriage" It really is, only recently in the last few hundred years of our civilization has Polygamy been taboo. (and with good reason, good god, I had one wife, why the hell would four be better? That would be four times the awful.)

We have actually back peddled marriage from traditional roles in this country, Polygamy used to be a culturally accepted thing, now it's taboo, but we think that same sex marriage is taboo?

Cmon, really?

<Mod Edit: Off-topic/Replies>

 

Known to who?

He is asking the same thing as the justice in the OP...regardless of your views on polygamy or marriage,or him personally for that matter, that is not trolling!

<Mod Edit: Off-topic/Replies>

 

???? I made no representation as to how anyone "sees it". No representation as to how they "live" their lives as a "family" or how they "shared housing, meal prep, child care, housework, finances" I said a man with 5 wives has 5 marriages. If he divorces one wife the marriage doesn't end. Only one of his marriages end and the other 4 continue because they are separate marriages. Its not one marriage between a man and 5 women and it is instead 5 separate marriages, each and every one of them between one man and one woman.

 

<Mod Edit: Off-topic> The topic is polygamy and it's association with same sex marriage.

If two homosexual couples want to be married, that does not lead to polygamy.

 

Its like you still haven't yet taken a moment to read what Alito said, placed for your convenience into the title of the thread.

 

One state's Supreme Court said something a century and a half ago. Big deal. If this was true, infertile couples would be banned from marrying.

 

I did, and I disagree with it.

Same sex marriage does not equal to polygamy.

 

Other than the obvious fact that same sex marriage isn't the same as polygamy, why do you think it is relevant to discuss the difference here?

Are you against polygamy, but pro same sex marriage?

 

No, of course not. That's the point - marriage, at least in the US, consists of a large body of statute and case law, regulation, precedents, etc. Any significant deviation from a traditional marriage would entail rewriting nearly all of this body, which I used his dog to illustrate. Which makes it even more interesting that same-sex marriage doesn't involve changing ANY of all these things. Even the standard forms can be used without modification.

But Dixon doesn't mention any of this, because he is not honest. Ever.

 

Ok...still don't see how him marrying his dog would cause the problems you specifically listed if he did, but whatever.

 

I'll say it again, nobody EVER decided to have a baby because of SS survivor benefits. You made the claim and then refused to answer whether you had actually EVER heard of anyone EVER doing such a thing. Of course the answer is that you've never have heard of that happening and, quite frankly, we both know that you pulled the SS example straight out of your ass.

Furthermore, there is no underpopulation crisis in the US. Not even close. The very idea that we need to pay people to have children for the good of society is simply ludicrous. We live in a country that adds 2-3 million people to the population every single year. That country, which btw has tripled its population in the last century, is found in a world that has doubled in population in the last 45 years. Anyone looking at those stats who then comes to the conclusion that we should bribe people to get married on the off chance that they'll reproduce is a friggin' moron.

And, if there were a population deficit, the idea that a few benefits will make any difference is wishful thinking at its most unthinking. First off, half of pregnancies aren't even planned so financial considerations obviously don't play any role in those.

Secondly, poor people actually have more children than non-poor people. So if your goal was really to increase the number of children being born (which I don't believe is your actual goal, but I'll operate as if you are true to your word) then you would be advocating to give these "benefits" to people for actually having children instead of to people who engage in a voluntary legal contract which doesn't impregnate a single, solitary individual.

Perhaps you'll say that you want married heterosexual people specifically to have children. In that case you should be advocating for benefits to be given to everyone EXCEPT for married heterosexual people. In fact, you should have those married people pay the benefits out of their own pocket because as pointed out above, poor people generally have more children.

In light of the above, I have a hard believing that your position on this issue isn't founded on ulterior motives.

You're blinded by your own arrogance. That's hilarious that you just typed out that loooong ass garbled mess to tell me what you think my position and beliefs are as if you would know that better than me and that what I typed is not what I actually believe. What an astonishing waste of time.

I meant exactly what I said. If benefits like being able to name a SS survivor or tax breaks are going to be doled out then I would like to see them "distributed in a manner that views civil rights as of the utmost importance. I'd prefer no discrimination occur whatsoever, and that everyone would receive an equitable share and any 'benefits' would be afforded to all Americans." So EVERYONE would get to name a survivor and EVERYONE would get a tax cut.

I don't want any discrimination to occur and I would like all Americans to receive an equitable share of the money that is taken from Americans at virtual gunpoint (I would prefer that the money not be taken to begin with, but I'll settle for this for now). To me, that seems like a very straightforward and easy to understand position. I would like for even single Americans to receive those benefits.

That pretty much covers every one of the 4 or 5 asinine and irrelevant examples you wasted your time coming up with.

Of course there is a reason. It's called payola writ large. Like most other "benefits," those "benefits" buy votes. They bought votes when they were first implemented and they are dangled about during elections to buy more votes.

I'm honestly taken aback that a person with so many posts on a political forum doesn't realize that. Don't you pay attention during election time? You've never seen a political ad? They'll tell you in no uncertain terms that if you vote for a Republican then your SS benefits will be taken away. Turn the channel and you'll see another one telling you that if you vote for Democrats then your SS benefits will be taken away.

I know one thing for certain: There was never a time when a bunch of American politicians got together and said, "We really need to start giving people benefits when they get married so that they will (*)(*)(*)(*) and have more children," and then went and passed legislation for that reason. LMAO.

 

So you say. For a long time, many believed otherwise. Many still do believe that race mixing leads to mongrelism.

I don't see any rational reason for government to be interested in the well-being of children, other than that their rights are respected.

 

I'm just considering the key differences under law. There is no body of family law designed to handle multi-marriage. While it would be merely a paperwork change to recognize homosexual marriage, multi-marriage would require a great deal of legislation to unravel.

This may be true, though I think you are ignoring the thorny property issues. And, we aren't just talking about polygamy here. In order to be truly equal, multi-marriage must be able to accomodate homo and heterosexual cross partnerships such that a man could be married to a woman who is married to another man, and the first man is married also to another man who happens to be married to that other man. Aside from child custody, property is a big mess when it comes to this. I'm not against it, I just don't think that there are any special interests pushing for it.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, I should have read further back. I have no issue with changing the terminology used. It seems a reasonable compromise.

 

Yes, that is what it means. The 14th also doesn't apply. But if it did apply, then you'd have to apply it to polygamy,
because it would be using the same argument as same sex marriage.

Rather than having judges decide it, if we are to maintain an allegiance to the Constitution, it should be decided
via another amendment. If those who believe it should be the law of the land, then that is the course they should
be pursuing. But they don't because they know that it would never pass.

 

No, it is not false. It's a fact. Just because some people wish to redefine something doesn't make it so.
I don't have to accept it, neither does anyone else.

I was bringing it up because it explains why marriage is between one woman and one man.

No, they cannot. You only wish to make it irrelevant so that you can dismiss it.

Show me where the 14th Amendment states the 10th Amendment is repealed?

No state is discriminating based on gender. Only 11 states have passed laws for same sex marriage.
The others were decided by judges. Some of the 11 states passed laws only after judgments that
the laws were unconstitutional, which they are not. States have always wrote their own marriage
laws.

I have read the 14th Amendment and nowhere does it say that states can't.

Yes I do. In order for Utah to join the union as a state, they had to outlaw polygamy
in order to comply with it.

 

I would say if same sex marriage is constitutional then polygamy must also be constitutional as both are exceptions to the past
"acceptable" definition of marriage. In fact, I would support one woman or one man having more than one partner in marriage as a means of affording a large family that many people desire. Lets throw the entire concept of marriage to the wind and allow anyone to marry the same sex, more than one partner(supported by the religion they believe in). No foul, no difference.

I personally don't care as the whole concept of marriage has been reduced to nothing more than a contract easily dismissed through the legal system of divorce. It means less and less as time goes on. Divorce to easy now IMO. Perhaps this is just one of the reasons the younger generation is not getting married or waiting until they are in their 30's+ to do so and especially when they financially not in a position to do so regardless of having a College degree.

 

Multi marriage is a seperate issue and seperate law. Frankly it is completely insulting and a little concerning that a sitting Supreme Court Justice can be so (*)(*)(*)(*)ing oblivious.

Why should same sex couples have to answer for what other groups may or may not do in the future? That is not their responsibility.

If other groups would like to appeal to the courts to have other laws reviewed, that is certainly within their rights as Americans to do so. However that is completely irrelevant to the this case.

 

So heterosexuals who adopt aren't forming families?

Oh look how you step on your argument with hate.

Keep trying.

 

No you are labeling people, human beings, as being nothing more than a sex act. Trying to pretend the only thing they are is how they have sex.

 

Can procreare without marriage. Can marry without procreation.

It's an invalid argument against same swx marriage, because procreation is not required. You might as well argue that same sex couples can't marry because they can't breathe under water. Makes as much sense m

 

Who do you think you are to think a consensual act between 2 people is any of your business?

 

I've been asking that same question in every gay marriage thread.. You can see the response i get. Nice to know a Supreme Court Justice thinks like I do...