Using Lawrence v Texas Fuels Polygamay In Equal Consideration As Gays For Marriage

Gays quote Lawrence v Texas all the time in citing justification for the decriminalization of sodomy as building a foudation to call sodomy "marriage". In fact they are building a case they hope the Supreme Court will hear revolving around all the points made here:

Gays will line up and tell you [oddly] how polygamists seeking marriage rights is "nothing like gay marriage". And yet when questioned, their only rebuttal is 1. "gays are good and polygamists are bad" or 2. "it will be too complicated for family law cases upon divorce or death".

As to point #1: Sorry, that's not how precedent works. Lots and lots of people think gay marriage is a bad idea...a vast majority of Americans think that way in spite of what blue-district polling is saying.

As to point #2: Family law and probate cases are already incredibly complicated, with stepparents, grandparents, guardians and vast extended families all vying for custody or inheritance. Polygamy if structured well going into the marriages on paper might actually ease some of that complexity by having clear language outlining who gets who and what.

So the question is here, is it legitimate for polygamists to use Lawrence v Texas to pave the way for their own marriages in exactly the same footsteps as gays? Please don't be prejudiced against polygamists and assume they're all marrying 12 or 16 year olds to have sex with them. Many polygamists, the majority, are marrying other consenting adults. You only hear about the sensational cases in the news because consenting adults are not newsworthy..

One of the moderators here, Shiva, has quoted the same Lawrence v Texas "rights to association" language over and over. So I'll just assume s/he approves of polygamy doing the same thing?

 

Why do you believe that the government should regulate the actions of consenting adults that harm no one?

 

What makes you think the issue of polygamy is the same issue as gay marriage?

Polygamy IS "nothing like" gay marriage! Its a whole new set of issues.

There are NO "new issues" with allowing gay marriage. Two people simply get married like everyone else is allowed to do and have the identical rights and established law we have for two people being married.

"MORE than two people getting married" involves new laws. It would be fine to consider it as far as I am concerned, but it has nothing to do with gay marriage, except for the homophobes who are trying to drum up hatred against gay marriage with the red herring of polygamy in their hate-filled propaganda campaigns.

 

What about the poodle lovers ??!!! Why all the hatred against those who seek to marry their pets???!!

 

Bullcrap. Gay marriage is two people tryingt o exploit SPECIAL PRIVELEDGES for themselves, which is the OPPOSITE of "getting married like everyone else"...

 

Marriage laws in this country are discriminatory based on gender. Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to enter a marriage contract with a woman just like a man can?

Discrimination based on gender is not allowed in this country.

 

Because same-sex marriages aren't recognized in most states. You have the right to move to one of the states that do.

 

How can animals legally consent again?

I hope you don't have any pets. You can't seem to be able to tell the difference between consenting adults and animals so I'm afraid you might make that mistake with them.

 

States Rights do not include the right to violate the civil liberties of its citizens.

 

Gays don't have special civil liberties. They have the same civil liberties as the rest of us.

 

States do not have the right to discriminate based on gender. They also can not ignore the full faith and credit clause. Once DOMA is found unconstitutional a marriage in Mass will be legal in Miss.

 

No they don't. They are restricted.

 

FF&C has never been used to force a state to recognize a marriage that it doesn't want to recognize. There is no federal law that recognizes gay marriage. Even if DOMA were abolished, which it won't be because it would open the door for all marriages not just the gay ones, new legislation would have to be written in order to enact a federal law for gay marriages. Then the 10th Amendment would come into play, because that is the amendment that prevents federal law from trumping state law and the will of the people; the people in 31 states have already voted against gay marriage 34 times in a row. You gays and gaykissers have a long way to go before you'll ever see a universal marriage law. Certainly not in this lifetime.

 

Yes they are. Again, just like the rest of us.

 

DOMA has already been found to be unconstitutional in several court cases, so it's only a matter of time. FF&C has to recognize ALL public records from other states, not just records that the state chooses.
The federal government does not need to write any laws regarding marriage, it just has to recognize ALL marriages. There really is nothing to it.
I wouldn't bet on NOT seeing marriage equality within my lifetime, quite possibly in the next 10 years.
The federal government has already involved itself in marriage at a sate level by ruling to allow interracial marriage.

 

I once had to contact the authorities to help a friend on Facebook. I pray you know someone on here good enough to do the same and get you the help you so obviously need. My wishes are with you.

 

Only the SCOTUS can ultimately rule DOMA as unconstitutional. And FF&C only applies to legal documents that are recognized in federal law. You can argue that marriage falls under federal laws due to the marriage tax, but then again, you're talking about what the government can tax you on, not on what you are entitled to. I'm sure that the government would just love to tax more people. Start writing to your congressmen and get started on those petitions!

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Full+Faith+and+Credit+Clause
Public records. Marriage licenses are public records. As such they are included in the FF&C.
DOMA will be in front of the SCOTUS within 2 years, but probably next year. Bet on it. And seeing as how it blatantly goes against the FF&C it IS unconstitutional.

 

I think this argument is fairly People's Front of Judea-esque, but for the moment I'll pretend to agree with you that the fact that gays are currently allowed to marry members of the sex they are not attracted to is sufficient to satisfy any constitutional test.

But it's a bit like living in a world where, arbitrarily, tea is legal and coffee isn't. All the tea drinkers have it pretty good - they can buy and drink it to their hearts' content. But coffee lovers, fighting for their right to drink coffee, keep getting told that they can already drink tea and they should be happy with that.

The problem is that some idiot, based on bronze-age ideas about what's right and what's wrong, decided tea was good and coffee was dangerous. With the best evidence available today the solution is obvious: the law should be changed to allow any adult the right to drink a nice warm beverage. Then, as the various lobbies muster their men, each new beverage can be considered on its own merits. Coffee? Sure, coffee's harmless.

What about the slippery slope? What's next? People drinking warm cyanide, or warm kerosene? Probably not, because a good case can be made that these beverages, however decadent and delightful, pose a substantial threat to any society where they are legal to drink.

But the thing is, nobody is pushing for cyanide beverages. People are afraid, but that's just their fear of change. Similarly, pedophiles and polygamists and beastiality enthusiasts will all have to get in line and make their cases. But since there is no evidence that being gay, raising kids while being gay, or acting in a gay way around christians causes any harm whatsoever other than offense. And we don't have any constitutional right not to be offended.

So instead of digging in your heels about the coffee or the gays, why not choose the path that will reduce suffering and bigotry? Why not make the choice that will not affect heterosexuals' lives in any way at all unless they get offended? Why not redefine marriage as the right of an adult to be wed to another adult of his or her choice, one at a time?

End of problem. The gays now can partake in marriage with the person they're in love with, something I take for granted and I imagine you would fight to preserve if it were taken away from you. You're not harmed in any way, the net happiness goes up in this country, and you can sleep well knowing you made the moral choice. And your grandchildren won't be ashamed of you.

 

Are marriages subject to FF&C, though? If they are, then you are faced with a dilemma here. Since most states DON'T recognize same-sex marriages, then FF&C can also be used to force same-sex marriage states to fall in line with the normal marriage states as well. That's a double-edged sword that you're swinging there, little lady. Best be careful with it cuz you might get hurt!

 

Just when an argument in another thread criticising gay marriage is cauterised up pops another one. I dunno about the People's Front of Judea but this definitely rings a bell, as in "bring out yer dead!" "I'm not dead yet!" "*bop* "

It's not dead yet but it should be.

Marriage is a social invention. Since it was invented by humans it can be designed in any way that a particular bunch of humans want. Polygamy could be a valid marriage form, there's nothing to stop it. Same-sex marriage could be a valid marriage form, there's nothing to stop it. Humans could marry alpacas if the marriage contract was constructed in a manner that allowed humans to marry animals, there's nothing to stop it.

Now, who and what is to be denied the right to marriage and on what grounds would that denial be made?

 

The PFJ ended up fighting for a man's right to have babies, which is about as useful as a gay man's right to marry a woman.

The big joke is that in 50 years anybody still alive will vehemently deny ever having been homophobic.

 

I agree. The rest of us are restricted. That is unconstitutional too.

The government should not be in the business of restricting the actions of consenting adults when said actions harm no one.

 

So then you're for polygamy successfully wielding Lawrence v Texas to win the privelege of marriage also?

Are you saying that in today's timeline or 50 year prior to Ancient Greece?

 

Marriage is not a privelege. It's a right. Both the Supreme Court and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (a treaty the US has signed, making it binding law according to the Constitution) have said as much.