You should read Justice Alito's dissent.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2..._polygamy.html

Still think so?

Yes. I think that article is completely incoherent. His approach to the Constitution is that it should be scrapped and replaced by the words "liberty and equality" and then we all try to work out what that means and issue decrees on that basis. Except plural marriage doesn't count as liberty because something something gender equality.

lmfao

Evangelical Christians that need to live in a world where gays have equal rights, blacks that get murdered by the police, all part of the same problem. Just two sides of the same coin right there.

Polygamists are the new gays. Talk about ridiculous slippery slopes. Have we studied what a pathway to legal polygamy looks like? Clearly trying to fit 3 or more people into a framework of exactly 2 people has a math challenge.

Clearly trying to fit two penes into one or two vadges into one presents a math problem.

That's not the same thing as fitting three or more individuals into a relationship for two individuals, legally, math wise, and socially.

A basketball team can't claim they get to have more players on the floor because a football team gets more players on the field.

The government is only in the marriage business of 2 person teams plus dependents. It doesn't mean it can't be in the marriage business of 3 or more people. Just that polygamy has it's own merits to argue, which are not because of the gays.

Of course the false equivalence between gay and polygamist goes on and on. One is not even cultural.

As far as IRL, I spend my time in NYC and NJ, which obviously has a very liberal attitude about things, meaning I'm unlikely to find many people in my age category to begin with who are anything but giddy about SSM legalization. Online, it's almost always a religious objection, or the slightly less mature "GAYS R TEH ICKY". Maybe there are some I've seen who raise an issue with the reasoning used by SCOTUS, but they always always segue within a couple of comments to irrational rants, proving that their legal analysis is nothing but cover.

What slippery slope?

The government is only in the marriage business of male/female teams plus dependents. It doesn't mean it can't be in the marriage business of same gendered people. Just that gay marriage has it's own merits to argue, which are not because of the interracials.

And polygamy is no more or less cultural than homosexuality.

https://xkcd.com/1431/

Two people getting legally married leads to 3 or more people getting a two person marriage, with the implications that is ruinous.

You still haven't equated adding the number of individuals to a marriage as being equal to accessing the 2-individual flavor of marriage that government offers. 3 people can't fit in a space exactly defined for 2.

I would like to include polygamists. The practicality of the matter is distinct compared with including gay people. The finer points which define any discrimination polygamists face are pertinent.





Gay cultures and polygamist cultures do intersect.

It's not how we perceive it, it's how they perceive it. Just seems like everyone is mad at everyone anymore.

This may be one of my favorite DS posts ever. Simple, subtle, brilliant.

But it makes sense. If you're thinking of this case as the majority not properly giving rights to a group of people, maybe you're thinking about it incorrectly. Because it doesn't matter what logic they used to strike down a law that improperly and unfairly denied rights to people.

Government doesn't exist to grant rights, it exists to restrict them in the name of safety. Restricting gays from marrying served no purpose, so the restriction was rightly lifted.

Yes, the logic or explanation to undo the restriction may not have been perfect, but then neither was the logic behind enacting the restriction.

:shrug: I'm just spitballing here. But that's what DS's post made me think about.

Even I think you might have gone a bit overboard. The post was simply an example of a mathematically inclined person who believes that you form your opinion after hearing arguments rather than the other way around.

Posts are like art: open to interpretation

It's all a bit weird though. People are talking like they're for or against SSM because of the interpretation of the law when the reality is the other way round.

Both sides use it as cover. There are relatively few who are able to seriously consider arguments against their preferred outcome.

Arguments around polygamy get really funny. Now that same sex marriage is legal, polygamist groups of even numbers can all have legal marriage by pairs.

I see it as my job to change that.

You seem confused about what mathematics is.

Ban me I am begging you

As long as polygamy isn't old men controlling young women and is instead consenting adults coming together as equals I'm not sure there are any arguments against it that aren't just "it's icky."

The problem is that marriage is fundamentally a series of rights granted by government - it gets you various tax breaks etc. If you just want a ceremony, you could already do that. This wasnt Lawrence v Texas, the government was not restricting any rights or private behaviour, but rather granting extra privileges to certain couples, based (or so it is argued) on the government's interest in stable nuclear families. I am not in favour of that at all, but I'm not so sure it's unconstitutional.

I don't care about arguments about stuff like polygamy, I could give a **** whether that is legal or not. The part of Roberts' dissent which I agreed with was the part about the Court needing to be cautious when making rulings based on implicit rights in the constitution. I'm fine when the court affirms that the Constitution provides strong protection for citizens against government interference in private behaviour (eg Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas). Outside that though, I favour caution. We've already had one total disaster ruling in the shape of Citizens United v FEC, which struck down the government's ability to rein in corruption on the back of a ludicrously broad reading of the First Amendment. A broad reading of the Equal Protection clause might, off the top of my head, outlaw things like progressive taxation and affirmative action, which I doubt would get the same enthusiastic response from liberals.

You'd have to rethink many rights currently associated with marriage, for example which of your spouses has the last word in making medical decisions when you are not able to.
Dividing up assets in case of divorce in a polygamous marriage could be difficult to the point of being impractical.