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

Not sure of your point. A plain reading indicates it means precisely what I said it means. Citizens of each state are entitled to the same rights as the citizens IN the several states whenever they are in one of those states. You should probably give up on trying to intrpret our constitution as you seem to come up with some strange interpretations in every case.

 

Hi Meta, we agree on much but this birth rate thing is retarded. If we wanted more births we'd enourage folks to join the LDS church, convert to Islam (American) or become Hispanic. They're making babies like none other, in America.

This thing is simple. It's about couples marrying, and for too long we've ignored what is very real, and has been throughout human history: some of us are homosexual, about 30 million of us, and not recognizing those relationships, while recognizing straight relationships only, is patently bigoted, unjust, unequal, discrimination -- and must be stopped, immediately, and from coast to coast.

So to bring up polygamy, when we're talking couples (that's two, if I remember my English studies correctly, Justice Sotomayor), is patently stupid, too, as is the friggin "gotta make babies for marriages to have value" retardation that haters use to rationalize their pinheaded bigotry. That's all it is. A friggin diversion, since they cannot come out and say the truth: we're bigots and want to deny gay people the rights we have.

 

Agreed! Plus it defies logic. Just as a hetero couple is more apt to start a family, so too will a gay couple be more apt to want a family, either by adopting, having a surrogate, or if two women, IVF or AI, or a close friend who wishes to help. It's amazing how much logic, and not merely humanity, one needs to suspend, in support of bigotry and the stupid veils they (think) are hiding it behind.

 

Polygamy is exploitative to women of religion, there should be an exemption for that if 3 more more participants are allowed to marry.

That is to save them from being part of a harem to a Christian man, who controls their minds through scriptures to fit his needs.

Gay Marriage, Polamory, Monogamish are all free of indoctrination.

 

So says you. I say you can do whatever you and your crazy nitwit partners want as long as it is of free will and NOT COSTING THE TAXPAYER.

 

In other words, it is a choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the United States and you are claiming it is limited in its scope to that which is not specifically enumerated in the Article.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree to disagree; polygamy is one solution for women who complain they can't find any more nice guys.

 

Unless you have some justification for treating a Christian who controls his wives through scripture and an atheist who controls his wives through intimidation, that would be unconstitutional discrimination

 

What about all those couples you hear about who latter learn that they're siblings? In Ireland, a couple had to marry in secret after discovering that they both have the same biological parents. (The government threatened to arrest them if they went through with the mariage.)

Or consider the followinf scenario: an adult and the child of consenting parents want to get married. Should the government forbid them?

Are you so naive that you can't see the recognition of homosexual marriage as the the crack in the dam?

Those of us who support traditional marriage are sometimes referred as 'bigots,' but don't feel excluded -- in thirty years' time, the free-loving incesters and kiddie f*ckers ill be calling you the same. . .

 

Atheists don't have harem's, only Christian's and Muslims exploit women in this way for the male religious leaders benefits.

Polygamy cannot be compared to any alternative lifestyle, and is far from homosexual lifestyles.

 

Your bias against religion is showing and what you propose wouldn't withstand a constitutional challenge.

 

But there isn't a single word within the article enumerating anything even related to choice of law. I limit it's scope enumerated by the words within the article whereas you limit it to the scope of your imagination and you have a fertile imagination.
Couldnt find even one published source to support your claim, could you? That's why your resorting to repeating yourself, again and again.

- - - Updated - - -

But there isn't a single word within the article enumerating anything even related to choice of law. I limit it's scope enumerated by the words within the article whereas you limit it to the scope of your imagination and you have a fertile imagination.
Couldnt find even one published source to support your claim, could you? That's why your resorting to repeating yourself, again and again.

 

The crack is declaring marriage to be unrelated to procreation and now about fostering the formation of stable homes. Whether a couple has sex or not is unrelated to the need or ability to form a stable home

 

Article 4, Section 2 clearly provides that choice of law in any conflict of laws.

 

Article 4, Section 2 is a choice of law in any conflict of laws, or our Founding Fathers would not have included it in our supreme law of the land via that choice.

 

Nope. "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States". Not as much as a single word referring to choice of law or conflict of law. That is purely a product of your imagination.

Stated simply enough that EVEN you should be able to comprehend.

 

A plain reading says otherwise and I am not the one appealing to ignorance through political conditions that no longer exist.

A plain reading clearly supports my contention regarding that choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the United States. Why do you believe civil Persons in our republic should not have recourse to Article 4, Section 2 as a choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the authority of the US, based on our supreme law of the land and written social Contract and federal Constitution.

 

Why didnt the founding fathers make SSM legal themselves? They'd have a pretty good idea of what they intended.

 

Marriage is a private Act that only needs State recognition to be commuted to a public Act.

 

What words in the clause convey a choice of law issue in yourr mind? Have you yet found that published source to back up your assertion or do you not even bother looking because you realize it wont be found as your view is a product of your own imagination?

 

Article 4, Section 2 is clearly enumerated as part of our supreme law of the land.

 

Why didn't they ban slavery? Many if not most of them were opposed to it. But they realized that with humans, sometimes it's best to let things progress over time, rather than imposing a jarring change. To my knowledge, we have little or no references to homosexuality from the founders, pro or con, but that does not surprise me. Just as I don't fault my grandfather for being racist (and he was), they were products of their time, and the topic of homosexuality was probably not ever discussed in polite company. Heck, I don't even think the word existed at the time.

But, like many other errors of the past that were ultimately corrected properly, the time for recognizing the rights of homosexuals is upon us. And, just as the end of slavery, the right of women to vote, and the end of prohibiting interracial marriage, one way or another, we will size with liberty and justice, FOR ALL.

 

A fact no one denies. You grasping for refuge in a strawman because you can't find any evidence to support your assertion?

 

Why just the homosexuals and not all couples that are currently denied the right of marriage