Since it IS Constitutional to prohibit Polygamy it must be legal to ban Gay marriage right ?

or conversely if we redefine marriage to include same sex unions then wouldn't we also have to legalize plural marriages and those between siblings? Once you open the door to a new definition of marriage then you MUST leave it open to all others who want their life style accepted.Since it IS Constitutional to prohibit Polygamy it must be legal to ban Gay marriage right ?
Even CALIFORNIA, the undisputedly most ';progressive'; state passed Prop8. It is clear America is against gay marriage.Since it IS Constitutional to prohibit Polygamy it must be legal to ban Gay marriage right ?
Logically, your argument does not follow. There are no pre-existing laws banning discrimination based on plural relationships or incest. However, we have lots of laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation. It is these pre-existing laws that require a legal definition of marriage that does not discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. Marriage is not being redefined on a whim but out of a perceived legal necessity.





If you want to maintain the religious sanctity of marriage, then we should stop legally recognizing it. We should only recognize civil unions and define marriage as a special case of civil union.
This is the fifth question of this kind so far this hour.





And considering that the Mormon 'church' (better known as a cult) spent lots of time and effort in making Proposition 8i pass in California, it seems counterproductive for them have done so.





For if neither gay marriage or polygamy are legal, neither will be recognized by society. A crippling blow to the mormons!





For the record, I don't care either way anymore. I'm not gay or married.
Technically there is no ban on ';gay'; marriage. A gay man may enter into a marriage; a contract that the government has defined under DOMA as an act between a man and a woman.





A contract that by definition is for 2 parties does not inply it can include a 3rd, 4th or 5th.
Meyer v Nebraska and Skinner v Oklahoma both recognize a ';right to marry'; as being fundamental under the Federal Constitution. Read Lawrence v Texas to understand the why it is okay to regulate polygamy, incest, bestiality, etc etc, but no okay to regulate same-sex interactions. Scalia's dissent shows the flip side of the coin.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZS.html
And why MUST we? We don't. We can redefine it in a way that still leaves out polygamy and incest. However, I think if someone wants to be a plural wife, let them. As long as no one is getting hurt, why do we have to judge everyone and think that we are the only ones who are right?
Yes. I agree with you.


The problem with these arguments, however, is that people think just because you oppose homosexual marriage, you hate homosexuals. As long as shrill wins, reasoning is immaterial.
there is no ';right'; to marry. This is a state issue and CA voters were able to say no to gay marriage!





MOST Americans are against gay marriage, whether you like it or not.
';if we redefine marriage';





That's not going to happen so you can wipe that idea out of your mind.
they are both wrong. There is no ';marriage right'; in the constitution.
i thought we lived in a free society......my bad
No you are incorrect.





Nothing in Constituion gives government the right to tell people how their family will be structured...so the ';constitutional to prohibit polygamy'; is invalid





Also saying allowing gay marriage would open the door for incest EXACTLY the same as saying allowing cupcake production will open door for cannibalism.





Finally since marriage was ORIGINALLY a secular property agreement between families in the disposition of dowry and was REDEFINED multiple times from secular to religious, from polygamy to monogamy, from same country+race+religion to same faith+color to same color to just man+woman then it would seem we Straights HAVE oepned the door and so by your argument you advocate the redefinition.....good for you.





PS...yes there are laws that prohibit but BY LAW they must have a valid reason for society otherwise they violate the individual's liberty as protected and provided for by the Constitution, from which Federal AND State govt gets its authority. Since Federal Supreme Court is law of land and ruled that marriage is basic right and basic rights are not votable...the ban on gay marriage is illegal.








San Jose%26gt; Well 1) Prop 8 is illegal 2) basic law 101..if govt gets power from Constitution, and Constitution gets power from the people...and govt is NOT given authority over an issue by Constitution..then basic 3rd grade logic...people retain that right and govt has no authority over it. Kind of like how govt has no say over what music I like even though you+yours wish to madate that everyone listen only to Celine Dion
The legal definition of marriage is separate from the social or religious conceptions of the same term, though it is heavily related. It is assumed that a person of your choosing as your life partner will have certain contractual rights, such as inheritance, power of attorney, hospital visitations, child custody, and others. Marriage makes all of that automatic, simple, and inexpensive.





Recognizing this situation as a legal institution requires that we not discriminate based on the sexes of the partners choosing to enter into that contractual relationship, under the 14th amendment. Sex discrimination can only be based on real differences between the sexes, according to the Supreme Court. The Court has also, over the years, eliminated from the government's ability to consider any of the real differences between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. The government has no interest in what consenting adults do in their bedrooms and therefore there is no important governmental interest based on real differences among the sexes in prohibiting gay marriage.





Now polygamy is different, not on a moral basis, but as a practical legal institution. I don't care what kinds of consensual relationship adults want to have or how they choose to live, but as a practical contractual situation, you cannot grant two powers of attorney, custody, inheritance and other issues also create a thorny situation. If you eliminate these rights then there is no real meaning to the government recognition of the marriage. You might as well leave it a purely social construct. Note that there is no constitutional ban on discriminating based on the number of parties in a contract.





As for incest, not all states prohibit it. It is not unconstitutional to so prohibit because the State has the authority to govern what contractual relationships you can enter into with your family members. A CEO's children often can't buy stock in a publicly traded company because of fears of insider trading, for example. The government will stay out of your bedroom. If you sleep with your sibling, you won't go to jail, but the government won't, in many states, grant marriage rights to your sibling. Again, some states do, but it's not unconstitutional for the State to decide either way.





And that's essentially the difference between the situations.
Your whole rant is flawed. First, the constitution does not prohibit Polygamy. Federal law only prohibits polygamy in the territories, not the states. Federal law also does not provide legal recognition of polygamy. It defines marriage as one man, and one woman. Marriages are a state issue, not a federal.





So you think just because it illegal, that it's not practiced? They have to marry like the gays do outside the two states where they can get married. They marry with a ceremony, file contracts, POA's and all the support documentation so they can almost everything a hetro marriage is automatically entitled to. If you don't believe me, check out: http://www.lovemore.com/





Your slippery slope idea of siblings getting married is not really an issue, just on basic biology if the siblings or other family members grew up with each other, they would all suffer from the Westermarck Effect, that prevents family members from having sexual thoughts about each other, and in all the cases where siblings had sexual relations and marriage was a result of mental trauma, child molestation (by a parent who did not spend a lot of time in the home) or just that they grew up apart.





Five hundred years ago, at the Council of Trent, was the first time Marriage was approved to be the business of the church, and it was taken in with great reluctance and seen as a distraction at the time, yet now all these proud monogamous church going people think one man, and one woman has always been the standard. Before then, wives were property, traded for property for breeding rights. There was no romance. It was economic and for the survival of the community. Polygamy was often practiced when mates came up short, because it was better to have more people when it came time to gather food, and defend your home. When the American idea came about, there was this thought that Polygamy was not that American because it was assumed that the Alpha males would take up all the quality women, leaving poor soles nothing to hope and wish for. What good is a new country and some land, if you could not settle down with a woman and build a family? That's your real reason why Polygamy was not accepted.





Now move to modern times. We are reaching a point to where governments and societies are starting to notice the planet is getting too heavy with people. We can still make food, but all our waste is starting to impact the globe in ways we will never be able to predict, but we are just at the point where having families is going to be seen as a premium that is no longer a tax deduction. No longer the goal of the collective good (though Communist sounding as that is), to be able to breed uncontrollably. Right now if you told an American they could only have a few kids, and would have to abort any more, it would be a civil war. When people run out of food, that policy will one day be embraced.





So what ramifications does that hold? It should be no big deal that we now have child free hetro marriages. Having gay marriages is no big deal because making families is starting not to be a priority. Any form of marriage that is responsible should be no big deal because there are so many people, a few doubling or tripling up is not going to hurt the population to find a suitable mate.





Fortunately the Church is losing ground, all ready up to 20% in the nation who do not claim to be of any religion (Atheist), and growing daily. So debate it all you want, talk about your slippery slope all you want, how morales are falling, and how it will end our perfect country, but what is really happening is that the world is changing, and all these gay and plural marriages will be legal one day.





Fortunately Prop 8 was defeated, because all though it was a loss for Gays in California right now, it has made the issue a national one, instead of a State issue. It will become a civil rights issue, and things will be changing, just as it did to get women equal rights, and then the blacks as well. Things are creeping in the right direction.