Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If Gay Marriage Is Legal, What About Polygamy?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was questioning former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson, a pro-gay marriage Republican. She brought up a very interesting question during the exchange: If gay marriage is legal, what about polygamy?

Sotomayor asked, "If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" before referencing "polygamy and incest among adults," as reported by Matt Canham of the Salt Lake Tribune. The argument is an illustration of a broader issue about the culture of American society. To agree that gay marriage is indeed protected by the "equal protection" clause in the Constitution, wouldn't the same apply for all consenting adult relationships?

Justice Sonia Sotomayor's thought-provoking question was echoed by Bishop Harry Jackson, a minister at Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md. He believes that "the real issue is the religious liberty issue and the issue of whether we can practice marriage as we believe it on an ongoing basis," and further stated that if same-sex marriage "is allowed to be mandated by fiat...then, right behind it, polygamy and many other forms of marriage will automatically sweep the land within just a matter of a few years." Advocates of legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to offering a compromise of "civil unions," which they argue is no different than "separate but equal" should consider this question.

Recently, President Obama's "Organizing for Action" tweeted a quote from the president, whose position on this has "evolved" in a big way from 2008, when he stated, "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage." The tweet quoted the President as saying: "Every single American deserves to be treated equally in the eyes of the law," followed by the hashtag #MarriageEquality. If this is true, than America should do away with programs like affirmative action, which do not treat everyone "equally". Additionally, if this is true, than loving polygamous families should be allowed to get married.

http://politics.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981863680

We'll, wasn't expecting that question to come up. I wonder how it will play out but mark my words. If gays have a right to marry, polygamist will be suing pretty soon too.

 

Once this slippery slope is trekked on, there will be no stopping what the freaks and sickos will demand as thier "right".

 

Actually, Sotomayor's question wasn't intended to be probing, but as a setup for Olson to draw the distinction between polygamous behavior and homosexual status. I happen to think he has a crappy argument, but don't read too much into Sotomayor's posing of the question. I don't think the justices actually buy the idea that polygamists and homosexuals are somehow similarly situated to each other.

As for polygamists suing, let 'em try it. They'll have to prove their own case. There won't be any precedents set by extending marriage to same-sex couples that are likely to apply for polygamists.

As for "slippery slopes", they're very often a fallacious debate tactic.

As for what the court will actually do, don't expect any sweeping rulings to come out of the Prop 8 and DOMA cases.

 

Anyone vaguely familiar with Loving vs Virgina knew the question was coming.

Isn't it interesting that all those who make the "slippery slope" argument never see that slope going backwards?

 

You mean like this? If gays can get married, then are laws barring polygamy and marrying first cousins also unconstitutional too? Only time will tell.

 

Your first sentence shows that it isn't. The suits will come fast and furious as the radical progressives move on to the next unlawful sexual civil right.

 

It's a mistake to think that any of the three (mult-partner marriage, same-sex marriage, consanguine marriage) are somehow connected to the others in a way that providing legal recognition of one necessitates recognizing the others. it is not the inclusion or exclusion of this or that group that brings into question what other groups may be included or excluded; it is the fact that there is legal recognition of marriages in the first place that brings up the question of who may or may not be included/excluded.

 

Why bother with the slow grind and just open up marriage to everyone who is a consenting adult . Dont (*)(*)(*)(*) with me and I won't (*)(*)(*)(*) with you .

 

My first sentence was a bit of sarcasm, followed by the reality there recognizing one group doesn't give validity to the claims of another group. Each claim has to be evaluated on its own merits.

Now, if you want to foam at the mouth about "radical progressives", knock yourself out. I'm here for real debate, not trading buzzwords and dogwhistles.

- - - Updated - - -

Because some people interpret the taking of taxes and using it support anything they disagree with as (*)(*)(*)(*)ing with them.

 

WTF did Olsen answer?

 

I think if government stopped giving married people any type of special benefit they would still complain ...

 

Come on. The precedent is that marriage is really anything. Own the future and the POS this will make it.

 

It does establish the precedence that the SCOTUS can disregard and overturn what a state's constitution says about marriage. This case will directly effect the other anti-traditional marriage case coming after it. You don't want to admit this obvious flaw to your argument.

Ad hom attack rejected as being childish, unnecessary, counter-productive, and uncalled for.

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor question could any state restrict marriage for any reason, why yes in one case and no another? Seem like a pretty qualify question for all types of marriage to me.

 

Aren't gay saying equal protection under the US Constitution give them the right to marry, why are gays more equal than any other group if their successful in their arguments?

 

If gay marriage comes federal right it would open up marriage for any two consenting adults ... Not really special .

 

If consenting adults wish to enter into plural marriages, who cares?

I would certainly support the rights of folks own live their own lives how they see fit. I have no desire to have a government that regulates how folks opt to form relationships.

 

What "rights" and privilege are conferred to those who are "married" (between a man and a woman) that cannot be extended through civil unions or the like? This is what I don't understand. Seems like gays are butthurt by the connotation of the word marriage and want to redefine it. After all, legally, they can have all the benefits provided by civil unions and the like.




For example, if you wanted to have your "wife" who is a goat have your inheritance, you can do that via will. There is no need to redefine marriage as between a "X" and a "Y" and sheit on years of tradition for heterosexual people who want "marriage" -- the actually term, to be used as between a man and a woman.

 

I agree. If we are going to open this up, let's not be a bunch of pansy hypocrites.

If you are a consenting adult, then have a nice day with your partner(s).

I see no fair reason why polygamy with consenting adults should be excluded.

 

But, wouldn't you support the same govt forcing an employer to pay spousal benefits to a gay spouse?

 

Exactly what the State of Virginia argued when trying to argue for their ban on mixed race marriages.

 

Why do you care what it's called if the rights are the same ?

 

Why not three? Why would you discriminate based on a number?

We are either intellectually honest about this or we are not... stay the hell out of everyone's bedrooms and knock off your pet group distinctions.

I can see the couples where the wife in menopause is no longer interested in sex working out new arrangements. The husband picks up a new wife, she signs a deal that she only gets to a percentage of the assets that increase while she was married to the husband if he passes and everyone is happy. This will really blow up the market for the South East Asian and Russian brides.

 

Please don't confuse the proximity of polygamists and gays and the new status of life under "marriage equity".
Whether Sotomayor was sincerely probing this issue or not the fact remains...how do you
refuse marriage to any two people (or three or more) once a "right" to marriage is established?

You can't!