General Discussion

elleng

(130,970 posts)

6. What about this decision suggests marriage between more than 2 persons must be required by a State?

Sat Jul 4, 2015, 08:21 PM

Jul 2015

Here is the decision, beginning with an official summary:

Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage
between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully
licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

297 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The gay marriage decision has put us in uncharted waters with regard to polygamy [View all] Wella Jul 2015 OP

Are you speaking about women with plural marriages with men? Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #1

Polyandry and polygamy are being done serially in the larger culture Warpy Jul 2015 #85

Warren Jeffs ran a cult similar to the Branch Davidian. The cults like Jeffs controlled are nothing Thinkingabout Jul 2015 #96

Interesting perspective Wella Jul 2015 #115

Agreed. Marriage should be about love, not a tool to enforce societal expectations LittleBlue Jul 2015 #2

Er, I think you are ignoring a big chunk of America. asturias31 Jul 2015 #136

Don't care. All voluntary interactions should be free. TampaAnimusVortex Jul 2015 #294

why should marriage be about "love"? People marry for all kinds of reasons. KittyWampus Jul 2015 #212

We have an astronomical divorce rate, people running around on their 3rd and 4th marriages LittleBlue Jul 2015 #227

actually, the claim about love is no longer credible. You think people who get divorced didn't love KittyWampus Jul 2015 #245

Your argument makes no sense. Why would divorce invalidate their love? LittleBlue Jul 2015 #256

Except we have seen what happens in polygamous cultures mythology Jul 2015 #3

That's when polygamy is the norm Ex Lurker Jul 2015 #8

Wrong gollygee Jul 2015 #9

The anti gay marriage side argues that it hurts society Ex Lurker Jul 2015 #11

Specific people are tangibly hurt by polygamy gollygee Jul 2015 #12

Specific people are tangibly hurt by monogamy Igel Jul 2015 #126

Every place where polygamy is practiced, it is overwhelmingly hurtful gollygee Jul 2015 #189

Do you understand how polyamory is practiced in the US and that this would be Wella Jul 2015 #283

You don't know that gollygee Jul 2015 #290

I do know that the alternative model will be what appears in the media Wella Jul 2015 #292

It would be used mostly to enslave women, just like it's used everyplace it exists. gollygee Jul 2015 #293

How do you know that? Wella Jul 2015 #295

Poygamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property Agnosticsherbet Jul 2015 #4

Monogamy has tended to mean male dominated societies where women are property Igel Jul 2015 #127

So why let men keep a harem? Agnosticsherbet Jul 2015 #234

Discrimination against gay people is wrong; THAT closeupready Jul 2015 #5

Actually, the polyamorous trio I knew were three gay women Wella Jul 2015 #159

What about this decision suggests marriage between more than 2 persons must be required by a State? elleng Jul 2015 #6

Sotomayor suggested it that polygamy could be a result during the Prop 8 hearings. Wella Jul 2015 #14

Not in THIS decision, right? elleng Jul 2015 #20

The issue remains the same. Sotomayor basically said if marriage is a fundamental right... Wella Jul 2015 #24

No, she gave Olson a softball question that he CRUSHED geek tragedy Jul 2015 #125

He didn't crush it, and the question remains open. Wella Jul 2015 #128

These two issues are not equivalent. gollygee Jul 2015 #7

Legally, the two issues may both revolve around civil rights and discrimination Wella Jul 2015 #25

No one is being discriminated against by the government's sanction of 2-person marriages. pnwmom Jul 2015 #139

Says you! Wella Jul 2015 #141

And the vast majority of other Americans. I'm not saying the law could never change, no matter what. pnwmom Jul 2015 #144

The vast majority of Americans were opposed to gay marriage too, until recently Wella Jul 2015 #147

No, it's the same as telling a gay man he can only legally marry 1 gay man, not several. pnwmom Jul 2015 #149

No, you're telling someone who deeply loves two people and wants legal recognition Wella Jul 2015 #152

By your argument, a person who deeply loves 100 people should be able to pnwmom Jul 2015 #154

That is a problem, yes Wella Jul 2015 #156

You should start holding plural parades I guess. JoePhilly Jul 2015 #10

ding ding Joe wins the thread! elehhhhna Jul 2015 #18

I imagine there will be events if the idea really takes hold Wella Jul 2015 #26

I'll take my 4 wives!!!! JoePhilly Jul 2015 #222

+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #31

STOP IT JOEPHILLY Skittles Jul 2015 #133

You are incorrect in suggesting marriage's societal purpose has been diminished. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #13

Benefits to the individual have caused a change in marriage's social purpose. Wella Jul 2015 #15

The social purpose of marriage has NOT been redefined. It has been reaffirmed. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #16

It is disingenous and deceitful to use the same language for different things Wella Jul 2015 #17

Your response was alerted on. See below. I was number 7 guillaumeb Jul 2015 #27

What is the purpose of alerting on my post? Just because I disagree with you that the social Wella Jul 2015 #32

I served on the jury. I did not alert on you. guillaumeb Jul 2015 #36

Please accept my apology. I confused your comments with others. Wella Jul 2015 #40

Accepted, of course. I agree with your original post. Well said. eom guillaumeb Jul 2015 #44

Thank you. Wella Jul 2015 #48

Another silly waste of time... joeybee12 Jul 2015 #232

a well reasoned and thoughtful criticism, to be sure. guillaumeb Jul 2015 #268

Sorry, that is just plain wrong. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #55

I didn't say "marriage" was redefined. I said that society has redefined the purpose of marriage Wella Jul 2015 #121

Odd. I don't see any 'redefinition'. To me marriage has always been about DebJ Jul 2015 #220

I'm not talking about your personal subjective view--there are 7 billion of those, quite literally Wella Jul 2015 #254

Then why have there always been marriages of older people that would not produce children? DebJ Jul 2015 #267

They were always the exception and not the rule Wella Jul 2015 #278

You didn't answer my question. If the purpose of marriage is solely to procreate and DebJ Jul 2015 #297

You need to get your argument straight. So to speak. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #230

+1000 smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #28

Me too. Jamastiene Jul 2015 #118

If you actually read some of my posts through this thread, you'd see that you're wrong Wella Jul 2015 #129

That would be a waste of time. JTFrog Jul 2015 #248

legal complications 6chars Jul 2015 #151

I agree, plural marriage seems more complicated in terms of new laws. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #228

Give it up. romanic Jul 2015 #19

K&R smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #30

There are people in plural relationships on this board. Are they all "perverts"? Wella Jul 2015 #34

I'll use whatever word I want to use. romanic Jul 2015 #109

I've known at least one poly situation and they were not perverts Wella Jul 2015 #112

I have several friends in poly relationships which are long term Mojorabbit Jul 2015 #123

I think you have to know people to understand the poly thing Wella Jul 2015 #130

I think some people on this board need to get out more laundry_queen Jul 2015 #236

Thank you. Wella Jul 2015 #242

You think it's okay to call people perverts whose lifestyle you don't like? Democat Jul 2015 #206

Seriously oberliner Jul 2015 #229

This is a cancervative talking point. xfundy Jul 2015 #21

Actually it's not: toasters do not have recognized civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #41

When can I expect an invitation Aerows Jul 2015 #22

Have you ever known anyone in a polyamorous relationship? Wella Jul 2015 #35

Funny you should ask that! Aerows Jul 2015 #42

So your answer is no, you've never known anyone in a polyamorous relationship. Wella Jul 2015 #45

Please stop. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #53

This message was self-deleted by its author Aerows Jul 2015 #57

Not worth replying to. Aerows Jul 2015 #59

I am NOT one of those faces. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #64

Have a great 4th of July! n/t Aerows Jul 2015 #67

You too. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #70

My Dad's advice Aerows Jul 2015 #79

They are not prevented from making a personal commitment to do so. They are only prevented pnwmom Jul 2015 #153

No. They are prevented from having their committment legally recognized. Wella Jul 2015 #288

Yes, funny how that works! smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #217

Unrec nt LostOne4Ever Jul 2015 #23

Yes, and in uncharted waters with regard to MAN-TURTLE MARRIAGE TOOOOOOOO~!!!!!!!!! MADem Jul 2015 #29

Turtles do not have recognized civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #43

You really should take your right wing tropes elsewhere--this one is painfully obvious. MADem Jul 2015 #51

You brought up a turtle; I told you a turtle did not have civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #54

I consider your source(s), which are fonts of anti-Democratic invective on a routine basis. nt MADem Jul 2015 #58

What sources? Wella Jul 2015 #65

Yeah, out of your own clever font of ideas. Mmmm hmmm! MADem Jul 2015 #68

Yes, my ideas. They are logical ones based on the legal theory of marriage as a civil right. Wella Jul 2015 #75

Sure, whatever you say--it's just a COINCIDENCE that right wing websites say the very same thing!!!! MADem Jul 2015 #84

The blog you quoted makes a poor (and garbled) argument. Wella Jul 2015 #87

3 times you've linked to that, but it doesn't say that there; it's from a RW website muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #165

I have given the link and it's from NBC. I don't know why you keep trying to lie about my "sources" Wella Jul 2015 #166

No, it's not from NBC. You can go and read the fucking thing at both links. muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #176

The link I had was from NBC. Sotomayor's quote was all over the place: Wella Jul 2015 #181

"Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson ..." muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #203

Actually, you missed some sources of that string of words Wella Jul 2015 #205

And some other sources of that string: Wella Jul 2015 #211

So you now give the link I gave in #165; a 2012 pdf that doesn't use it; 'opinion-conservative' muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #214

And 3 times the link has been from NBC. My newest one is from Slate: Wella Jul 2015 #168

Thank YOU! smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #46

This wingnut argument does not belong at DU. It's offensive and obvious. MADem Jul 2015 #56

Figures. The trolls are outing themselves. smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #63

Can you actually argue an issue or do you just smear people? Wella Jul 2015 #110

I'm not smearing--I've provided facts. You're just parroting rightwing memes, and I've linked to MADem Jul 2015 #117

No you haven't. Not one fact, not one stitch of proof. Wella Jul 2015 #142

Well, he did say them. This isn't about closed minds--this is about your deployment MADem Jul 2015 #160

Logic is logic; it either works or it doesn't. Wella Jul 2015 #161

This isn't about smearing people--it's about pointing out ideas that have long been discredited and MADem Jul 2015 #164

You are so hell bent on smearing me that you're missing the liberal sources with the same info: Wella Jul 2015 #167

You keep repeating the word "smearing" as though repetition will make your argument fly--it won't. MADem Jul 2015 #169

You're the one whose repeating the same smear over and over Wella Jul 2015 #171

I have provided you links to prove what I've said. You reply by falsely calling my linked proof MADem Jul 2015 #172

You've "provided links" to sites I've never used nor seen. That's not proof, that's a smear tactic. Wella Jul 2015 #174

The idea--in case you're unclear--is for you to READ THEM so you can see where your rightwing MADem Jul 2015 #177

The idea is for you--in case you're unclear--is to look at the logic of the argument itself Wella Jul 2015 #182

Your logic--as I and others have pointed out, is failed and poor. nt MADem Jul 2015 #186

My mother always said to consider the source. Wella Jul 2015 #188

Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery--but I am most certainly not your mother. nt MADem Jul 2015 #192

Are you in a poly relationship? smirkymonkey Jul 2015 #218

John Roberts is not a liberal ... GeorgeGist Jul 2015 #247

He's the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I take him more seriously than a politician. Wella Jul 2015 #250

Actually, you are claiming things that don't exist... joeybee12 Jul 2015 #233

It has been redefined througout the 20th century. Read the OP Wella Jul 2015 #285

Two things, first no, it really does not. Second, where the fuck is this alleged mass of group Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #33

... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #37

Can you show me logically why it does not? Wella Jul 2015 #38

It's your bogus assertion. Back it up. I'm not here to think for you, chum. First, you have to Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #47

I did back up my assertion. You have yet to back up your objection. Wella Jul 2015 #50

One is not equal to two muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #163

But there is not a fundamentai different in the civil right to marriage in each person Wella Jul 2015 #170

Yes, there is a fundamental difference. muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #180

Legally, corporations are people. Wella Jul 2015 #183

Please consider the idea... DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #49

One could argue that in the situation you describe Wella Jul 2015 #61

The literature suggests some people are born DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #71

I don't, actually, have any lit about it either way DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #81

That's the polygamy community as it is known in the US. Show me this polyamory, group marriage Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #97

It is people I know actually. DeadLetterOffice Jul 2015 #99

+1000--most notably your summation, there. MADem Jul 2015 #178

With all due respect jberryhill Jul 2015 #39

I swear Aerows Jul 2015 #52

Neither dogs nor toasters have a civil right to marry. Wella Jul 2015 #158

No shit--and by their words we shall know them! nt MADem Jul 2015 #62

Your words make it very clear that you don't understand the issue Wella Jul 2015 #83

I understand "the issue" quite well--and I understand where you got your "argument"--even if you MADem Jul 2015 #86

I've read your poorly argued blog link. Wella Jul 2015 #88

I've offered several links in this thread, and if you read them, you'd have slinked away by now. MADem Jul 2015 #179

There is no need to slink away from poor logic. Wella Jul 2015 #184

Obviously, you're standing by your poor logic--but you really SHOULD slink from it. MADem Jul 2015 #185

Imitation (even poorly done) is the sincerest form of flattery Wella Jul 2015 #187

Ah, resorting to cheap and childish insult so soon? MADem Jul 2015 #190

Have you learned what a fact is yet? (Not an insult: a genuine question.) Wella Jul 2015 #194

You're the only one here tossing "opinion"--and it's an ugly one you have, too. MADem Jul 2015 #196

Actually, this thread is much better thought out than most others Wella Jul 2015 #66

I've known all kinds of people jberryhill Jul 2015 #73

Equal protection can be extended to plural marriage through a civil rights argument Wella Jul 2015 #78

isn't is the same argument used by the nra? restorefreedom Jul 2015 #60

It is the marriage equality movement that argued the civil/fundamental right aspect Wella Jul 2015 #69

i am not even remotely comparing gun carnage restorefreedom Jul 2015 #77

Of course the government can place limitation with a "compelling state interest" Wella Jul 2015 #82

Because this has happened in every country that's legalized same sex marriage? herding cats Jul 2015 #72

It's a horseshit argument Aerows Jul 2015 #89

It's a logical argument Wella Jul 2015 #95

It's legal BS and they know it. herding cats Jul 2015 #100

That's all it is Aerows Jul 2015 #101

That's what it is in it's whole, but for a tiny fringe it's a pretend window. herding cats Jul 2015 #107

At the risk of sounding insensitive Wella Jul 2015 #157

Your perspective is a bit narrow Wella Jul 2015 #155

This message was self-deleted by its author Skittles Jul 2015 #135

Other nations have different notions of civil rights and of the Wella Jul 2015 #90

Good luck. herding cats Jul 2015 #94

I don't think it will happen overnight, certainly. Wella Jul 2015 #98

You're talking about longer than I've been alive. herding cats Jul 2015 #103

Thanks for making me feel really old. :) Wella Jul 2015 #108

That wasn't my intention! herding cats Jul 2015 #116

LOL! (That's ok.) :) Wella Jul 2015 #120

Well, I hope you're not a betting woman. herding cats Jul 2015 #122

I'm not fond of losing a bet, but I think I will win this one Wella Jul 2015 #134

You're planning a PR program to tell women they're wrong? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #173

No, the plan is a PR program to promote the idea the poly relationships are not always oppressive Wella Jul 2015 #175

Where are you going to get the money and activists for this fight? DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #216

Polymarriage is where gay marriage was 50 years ago. Wella Jul 2015 #258

There were famous out gays who helped to legitimize marriage equality... DemocratSinceBirth Jul 2015 #263

Not in the early 1980s. The late 90s and 00's, sure. Wella Jul 2015 #271

It's about freedom. BKH70041 Jul 2015 #74

The underpinning of the SCOTUS decision is marriage as a civil right Wella Jul 2015 #92

That being able to marry the person you love is a civil right gollygee Jul 2015 #191

What if you love multiple people? Wella Jul 2015 #193

The SCOTUS isn't going to go their way. gollygee Jul 2015 #195

What societal harm do you see in polyamory? Wella Jul 2015 #197

The evidence is in the reality of how it works everywhere it's practiced gollygee Jul 2015 #199

Up until recently, women were treated like second class citizen in monogamous cultures Wella Jul 2015 #201

That isn't so recent that it will be interesting to the scotus gollygee Jul 2015 #202

We still have domestic violence, we still have a pay gap, we still have street harassment Wella Jul 2015 #207

This message was self-deleted by its author herding cats Jul 2015 #76

Are you a racist? nt Hutzpa Jul 2015 #80

Wrong... ms liberty Jul 2015 #91

What you say is true, but none of it precludes plural marriage Wella Jul 2015 #93

You appear to have ignored my last sentence... ms liberty Jul 2015 #114

Actually I have addressed that issue of "compelling interest" elsewhere Wella Jul 2015 #119

if this argument is true DonCoquixote Jul 2015 #102

No, that's arguing backwards. Wella Jul 2015 #105

The one thing we all seem to forget is if the State has a compelling interest. Peregrine Jul 2015 #104

This is a good point. However, what would that compelling interest be? Wella Jul 2015 #106

Next thing you know, people will marry turtles. Jamastiene Jul 2015 #111

Turtles do not have recognized civil rights. Wella Jul 2015 #113

You should really study "rational basis" jurisprudence geek tragedy Jul 2015 #124

GLBT lawyers had to argue that institutionalized heterosexual monogamy Wella Jul 2015 #138

Since when has polygamous people become a "class" of people? justiceischeap Jul 2015 #266

Actually, the are considered, in some quarters, as a "sexual minority" (Psychology Today) Wella Jul 2015 #270

There is a rational basis to prevent polygamy lancer78 Jul 2015 #131

Interesting arguments but Wella Jul 2015 #140

Point #2 has been demonstrated. Aerows Jul 2015 #224

You know you just argued against gay people right? TampaAnimusVortex Jul 2015 #289

Apples and oranges. n/t Lil Missy Jul 2015 #132

Marriage to ONE person -- an adult, consenting, non-related person -- is a civil right, pnwmom Jul 2015 #137

The Loving decision made marriage a civil right but it was limited to heterosexuals Wella Jul 2015 #143

The state has no obligation to confer the benefits/responsibilities of legal marriage pnwmom Jul 2015 #146

No. The polyamorous will have to make their case Wella Jul 2015 #148

Perhaps the case will be made IN the media at some point, but... Zenlitened Jul 2015 #235

I think you're confusing what civil rights means. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #225

Completely different legal contract would need to be set up. alphafemale Jul 2015 #145

Yes, it will be hairy--no question. Wella Jul 2015 #150

Justice Roberts in the dissent to Obergefell also mentions polygamy: Wella Jul 2015 #162

polygamy and same sex marriages are structurally different booley Jul 2015 #198

The "overhaul of the system" excuse is going to wear thin as an argument as time goes on Wella Jul 2015 #208

it's a bit more then that booley Jul 2015 #237

Most married couples work out legal issues for themselves Wella Jul 2015 #257

OH FFS! DiverDave Jul 2015 #200

We're in uncharted waters Wella Jul 2015 #210

Why is this an issue? quaker bill Jul 2015 #204

Because the Sister/Wives guy filed for a marriage license, citing the SCOTUS decision Wella Jul 2015 #209

incorrect quaker bill Jul 2015 #272

Wikipedia. :) Wella Jul 2015 #273

I'm pretty sure I can tell the difference rock Jul 2015 #213

It is ill-considered to say "The original purpose of marriage..." Android3.14 Jul 2015 #215

There's another problem booley Jul 2015 #240

To you "liberals" duped into defending poly-whatever marriages romanic Jul 2015 #219

Duped? Polyamory is not some new thing and it's not about fooling anyone. Wella Jul 2015 #243

Hm, if two people are already married, then how can you have a contract DebJ Jul 2015 #221

Offensive and totally wrong...gay is trait, black is a trait, joeybee12 Jul 2015 #223

Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness Wella Jul 2015 #246

No, it hasn't... SidDithers Jul 2015 #226

I wouldn't go so far as to say an inherent trait and a lifestyle choice are the same thing. Rex Jul 2015 #231

Actually, humans are inherently poly--plenty of research on that. Wella Jul 2015 #251

Polygamy is also a lifestyle choice. Rex Jul 2015 #260

If humans are inherently poly, polyamorists can argue that they are "born this way." Wella Jul 2015 #261

Homophobic scaremongering. Stop posting this bovine excrement. Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #238

No, it's the real deal. The polyamorous are now slowly coming out of the closet. Wella Jul 2015 #241

Poly-amory is a choice. Sexual orientation, even when at times fluid, is never a choice. Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #244

Actually, there is more evidence for polygamy/polyandry than there is for the hardwired gayness Wella Jul 2015 #249

"arguing it was genetically fixed" is a turn of phrase that implies the sexual orientation was not Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #264

They are getting closer to admitting Jamastiene Jul 2015 #275

I was just alerted to older posts (from january) Betty Karlson Jul 2015 #276

Interesting Blog by a Polyamorist (for people who are not familiar with the community) Wella Jul 2015 #239

But your OP is still based on a flat-out false premise. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #252

Actually it's not. Wella Jul 2015 #255

Not the argument that pretends marriage has suddenly been changed. Zenlitened Jul 2015 #262

Not really, there's no chance the Supreme Court is going to rule in favor of polygamy... PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #253

I give it 20 years Wella Jul 2015 #259

That is asinine speculation. gollygee Jul 2015 #265

Wanna put a $50 on it? Wella Jul 2015 #282

Bullshit. gollygee Jul 2015 #291

The reasoning of this decision does not easily extend to plurals. Adrahil Jul 2015 #277

Same-Sex to Plural Marriage? (Psychology Today) Wella Jul 2015 #269

This is homophobic bigotry. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #274

That phrase includes many factors like divorce, having children out of marriage, etc. Wella Jul 2015 #279

none of which change the role of marriage in providing stability. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #280

Certainly they do. When 50% of all new marriages end in divorce Wella Jul 2015 #281

oy. we see you. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #284

Uh....what? Wella Jul 2015 #286

Yeah bullshit ibegurpard Jul 2015 #287

Maybe, but I think at minimum it's a long way off. Bradical79 Jul 2015 #296