<p>
That position has absolutely no legal foundation whatsoever. I can see how someone could try to argue the point, but it would be a long shot argument – simply because the laws defining marriage can (and do) define it as a one-at-a-time thing. A gender-neutral marriage law would define marriage as being between two people; and specify that no one could marry if they were already married to someone else.</p>
<p>I don’t think so!</p>
<p>Loving v. Virginia overturned marriage laws that were racially biased. (I will not extend the holding beyond that - theoretically, under the holding, a state could prohibit all interracial marriages.) At the time, people worried that the holding would pave the way for gay marriage. That happened - about forty years later. Hawaii and Massachusetts obliged in the early part of this century, with Vermont having civil unions on account of its Equal Protection clause having less effect than its neighbour to the south. (Hawaiians then amended their Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, but their Supreme Court did, prior to the quick amendment, rule in favour of it.) </p>
<p>Sorry, CalMom. You allow gay marriage and polygamy will be in the courts in less than a decade. Gay marriage is condoned by some religions but is not required by it. Many religions require or strongly support polygamy. There is this little thing called the First Amendment. It doesn’t take a genius to realize that any law that allows gay marriage but prohibits polygamy will be overturned. If it’s a religious thing, welcome to First Amendment strict scrutiny. Are marriage laws, those that allow gays to marry but prohibits the same to polygamists under a religious mandate to marry in this manner, narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest? I think not! </p>
<p>Frankly, CalMom, you must know that a law that allows gay marriage but does not allow polygamy will flunk rational basis (at least the version of rational basis used in the MA same-sex marriage case). There is no reason why a state could forbid polygamy, which has a much stronger historical and evoluntionary basis than gay marriage, while permitting every other version of marriage.</p>
<p>Don’t agree? Do you really think that enough federal and state judges will see it that way so it won’t happen? Why gays - sanctioned by no religion - but not polygamists - mandated by some sects of Islam and Mormanism and practiced throughout history? </p>
<p>
That has not stopped a legal argument in the past fifty years. Simply substitute “those of the same race” for ‘two people,’ or ‘religion,’ or, actually, whatever overturned-marriage-restriction-of-your-choice terminology, and you can see the judicial extension of our marriage laws in action. We’ve tried to define marriage in any number of limited ways, always to be foiled by those pesky Equal Protection clauses (which were really designed to prohibit de facto slavery). Heavens only knows what will happen when some brave soul throws religion into the mix!</p>
<p>Not to go off on a rant, but our esteemed Constitutional precedent considers abortion to be an extension of the right to be secure in one’s papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Surely polygamy will be sanctioned once gay marriage opens up the traditional definition of marriage - and then you have the First Amendment (that Amendment that is directly on point - no need to find “penumbras” of religious expression, nor to consider that the Constitution is a living, breathing document; no need, as everyone from the strict constructionists down to the liberals will be on board) artillary - weaponry that gays don’t have but succeed without.</p>
<p>Constitutional amendment, baby! Either that, or welcome to the brave new world of everyone running about with their better thirds. :)</p>
<p>Aries, I don’t have time at this hour to waste with your argument. It makes absolutely no sense. There is no claim of discrimination if a law defines a marriage as a union consisting of two individuals.</p>
<p>Time will tell, CalMom. Time will prove you wrong. You’re not up on the law, now are you? 
Polygamists are already gearing up for the fight. </p>
<p>
Discrimination can encompass religious discrimination. Many religions mandate that their members engage in polygamy. The element of “two” is, therefore, discriminatory against those whose religions dictate differently. </p>
<p>My argument makes sense, honey. It’s not “my” argument, though - it’s being made and it will be made. There is nothing fundamentally different about arguing that “husband” and “wife” is sex discrimination and arguing that “two” is religious discrimination.</p>
<p>Im with Aries. In fact, there is already international precedent for it:
<a href=“http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/301[/url]”>First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands | The Brussels Journal;
<p>If some adult woman wants to share her husband, fine by me. I think it’s too much of a sacrifice, personally.</p>
<p>The issue I have with polygamy is adult men taking 13 year old girls as slave wives. If an adult woman wants to enter into a polygamous relationship of her own free will, it’s her decision (and loss), but the real issue is with young girls, which seems like incest, and certainly statuatory rape.</p>
<p>“aries” may be right with all her facts but that does not change the simple truth that “discrimination” is not in and of itself a dirty word. There are times when it must be exercised in order to preserve the GREATER (as in majority) good. </p>
<p>Banning gay marriage is one instance where discrimination may be applied. – not because hetero-marriage has been perfect but because it is a hell of a lot better than the specter of telling our children “Oh, it’s okay, really, it is just another lifestyle choice and will have no bizarre effect on society as we know it.” Balderdash!</p>
<p>“aries” may be right with all her facts but that does not change the simple truth that “discrimination” is not in and of itself a dirty word. There are times when it must be exercised in order to preserve the GREATER (as in majority) good. </p>
<p>Banning gay marriage is one instance where discrimination may be applied. – not because hetero-marriage has been perfect but because it is a hell of a lot better than the specter of telling our children “Oh, it’s okay, really, it is just another lifestyle choice and will have no bizarre effect on society as we know it.” Balderdash!</p>
<p>Oops, sorry about the inept posting!</p>
<p>As David Chambers, Professor of Law at UMich says: “By ceasing to conceive of marriage as a partnership comprised of one person of each sex, the state may become more receptive to units of three or more.” (Chambers is a polyamory advocate).</p>
<p>Is there any doubt why the polyamorist movement has hitched its start to the gay rights movement?</p>
<p>All it take is a little digging and research to figure this out. We have a local “human sexuality” educator who was at Penn and moved to Widener in our area - William R. Stayton. A couple of years ago I saw a list of a hundred or more “educators” and other professionals signed on to a petition to legalize polyamory. Some of these people come from the family law angle, and others from the human sexuality angle (believing that humans are not fundamentally or naturally monogamous).</p>
<p>Yet the gay rights movement has made Rick Santorum a laughingstock for even daring to suggest such a thing as a “slippery slope” argument is possible.</p>
<p>Some people have fallen in line with the prediction of Kirk and Madson in After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90’s.:</p>
<p>“In any campaign to win over the public, gays must be portrayed as victims in need of protection so that straights will be inclined by reflex to adopt the role of protector.”</p>
<p>Seems to have worked judging by most of the posts on this thread, judging by some of the nonsense here that they can’t “express” their sexuality, for example, or that their natural sexual “outlets” are thwarted because they’re not allowed to marry. </p>
<p>And now we hear from AM that even polyamory is fine, depending on the age.
Gullible, perhaps?</p>
<p>Aries said - “Golani - nope. Marriage, throughout many countries and eras, has included quite a bit more than “man and woman.” It has not been uncommon for marriage to include a man and several women; a man and women and girls (ask any Islam - their Muhummud was betrothed to a six-year-old and consummated the marriage when she was 9); marriage for less than the duration of life (the ancient Romans, during their waning years, were quite willing to divorce). The polygamy question isn’t going away anytime soon.”</p>
<p>The point, dear aries, is that marriage has always been between two (or more) members of THE OPPOSITE SEX. What part of that do you not understand?</p>
<p>"If you are naive enough to think bathhouse style promiscuous behavior doesn’t warrant a public health response, then there is no sense discussing it further. Random sex with random people, regardless of the gender mix & match, is a serious public health concern. "</p>
<p>I completely agree with you that that lifestyle is a public health concern. Which should be addressed with education, as should the “down low” phenomenon. In my opinion, men who go to bathhouse-type situations know their risks up front, whereas married women whose husbands are doing that don’t. We need to bring gay marriage into acceptable society now and for young men people growing up so we can remove the secrecy aspect.</p>
<p>I think Aries is right that polygamists are gearing up. There have already been protests and preparation for the legal fight. Whether they will win, I surely don’t know, but the fight will occur without question.</p>
<p>“If some adult woman wants to share her husband, fine by me. I think it’s too much of a sacrifice, personally.”</p>
<p>I have a problem with it because those marriages tend to create many children who can not be financially supported by their parents. It’s almost inevitable in those families and, frankly, I don’t want to pay for it.</p>
<p>I am sick of acid-poisoned, 1960’s syle iconoclasts trying to change everything under the sun just for kicks, which is how they come across, all the while heading into that dark night oblivious to the probable consequences of their actions.</p>
<p>Don’t want to step on toes here but I think it would be appropriate for many amongst us to simply say that they find polygamy, or whatever else they feel is morally wrong to be immoral. </p>
<p>It’s ok.
You can have opinions on what you think is right and wrong. It doesn’t make you a bad or intolerant person. Historically, it was not uncommon for young girls to be married off at 12-13 years of age–all around the world.</p>
<p>Now we say: 18 absolutely! as if it is a precise numerical point of maturity. It isn’t…and everyone knows it; but we as rational people tend to think that you should draw the line somewhere, even if it is not universally fair to all, at all times.</p>
<p>Why the squeamishness? </p>
<p>Things can be wrong because we believe them to be wrong; not just because of the social or economic costs associated with certain practices, why the hemming and hawing. </p>
<p>If you think something is wrong, based on moral or ethical presuppositions, say so. How PC does everything need to be these days.</p>
<p>I think polygamous marriage is bad.</p>
<p>There, I said it.</p>
<p>Right FS.</p>
<p>I think single sex marriage between otherwise unencumbered adults is a great thing. I am adamantly opposed to polygamous marriage.</p>
<p>Hmm… guess what – I do not approve of gay marriage. Whew, what a catharsis! – where is the bidet?!</p>
<p>For all the PCers out there: Remember that tolerance is the golden rule – and it must be applied also when most difficult – in the face of INtolerance.</p>
<p>acid-poisoned, 1960’s syle iconoclasts</p>
<p>[those damn hippies](<a href=“http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly2.htm”>http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_poly2.htm</a>)</p>
<p>For those of you bold enough to say that you think that group marriage is wrong, does this mean you hate those who chose to live that lifestyle? Are you afraid of them? Do you advocate violence towards them? Do you want the government to make sure that no more than 2 people in a house are having a sexual relationship with one another? Or, do you simply not want the government to recognize such unions because you think that would have a negative impact on society?</p>