With the gay marriage ruling

[lancer78]

Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 01:23 AM - Edit history (2)

do you think there will be a push now for polygamous marriages? What would be the legal reasoning for or against?

Just curious here.

[Skittles]

1. this gal wonders the same

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017274862

[NuclearDem]

2. "Just curious here."

Uh huh.

[Skittles]

3. YOU PEOPLE should know the answer

NOW COUGH IT UP!

[lancer78]

4. Got a facebook post saying

that the SSM ruling would also allow polygamous marriages. Was just wondering what the reasoning behind that argument would be. Personally, I think the state has a rational basis for banning those types of marriages.

[Aerows]

12. "those types"

Nice.

[brooklynite]

5. The community interested in such an option isn't large enough to make a difference...

The legal reasoning against would be that a three person relationship is far more complicated (legally speaking) than a two person relationship, and everyone has the opportunity for a two person relationship of their choice.

[lancer78]

7. I agree

that it would be vastly more complicated, and therefore the state would have an interest in banning it. I also can understand that some responders to this thread might be sensitive over the question that I asked because "Gay marriage will lead to polygamy" was an argument used by the opponents of SSM.

[Lil Missy]

6. "you people"???

No. Because it's a stupid comparison.

[lancer78]

8. "Why should gay people be allowed to be married"

Was considered a stupid question 20 years ago. As I noted above, I understand people's sensitivity to my question as that was an argument made by those who wanted to keep their bans on marriage equality.

[lancer78]

9. Editied the question

took out the phrase "you people" as it was a poor choice of words and was not intended to be hurtful.

[Starry Messenger]

10. "Gay marriage" isn't a change to the state of marriage.

That was part of the ruling by the SC. It's an expansion of the right that already currently exists, the right of two people to join legally. It was found that discriminating on the basis of gender and orientation (I think? legal eagles can correct me) was unconstitutional.

We don't currently have any basis of marriage that is poly. People who are poly will have to fight that battle on a different basis, if they want plural relationships to be legal.

[Kalidurga]

11. If ten people want to get married and all live together I don't care.

If they all want to break up again don't care. It will be a headache to sort out like other people said, it's much more complicated. As it is it's not really something the government can stop. These theoretical 10 people figure out how to pair up and get legally married and if they have a big enough house they can live together, but just not all be married at once legally.

[Betty Karlson]

13. Second time in just two days that

the homophobic connection (gay marriage will lead to polygamy) is posted in GD. Always as a short question. Always JUUUST short of trolling.

Here's the thing, pal: gays and lesbians wanted to take part in an existing institution. They wanted the same recognition that every other couple had for their life-long commitments. They didn't want to change it.

Alternatively, as Dan Savage once said: "I have been to a few poly weddings, but I have never been to a fifth poly anniversary."

Either way, I don't think there wil be a push. And I doubt that you were "just curious".

[joshcryer]

14. The most significant argument would be immunity for mass coupling.

That is, say someone commits a major crime, and has a few co-conspirators. They then all get married before the trial. None of them now have to be witnesses against one another. They have immunity from testifying against their "loved one."

It can get complicated.

I think in theory it should be allowed, but that's the argument that would be used in cases against it.