1. "A first premise of the Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy."

Everything discussed here seems to apply equally well to the "personal choice" to want to bond yourself intimately to multiple other people.

2. "A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals."

Finding a right to polygamy would support a multiple-person union unlike any other in its important to the committed individuals. They cite Griswold, which says, "Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." All this soaring language applies equally well to a group of people who want to unite as one unit.

3. “A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education.”

Also: “By giving recognition and legal struc- ture to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows chil- dren “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” “

I’m sure there are a lot of polygamous “families” (e.g. Mormons) who would absolutely love the Supreme court to give recognition and legal structure to their relationship so their kids could “understand the integrity and closeness of their own family.”

4. “Fourth and finally, this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of our social order.” The rationale here is worth quoting at length.

“There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle. Yet by virtue of their exclusion from that institution, same-sex couples are denied the constellation of benefits that the States have linked to marriage. This harm results in more than just material burdens. Same-sex couples are consigned to an instability many opposite-sex couples would deem intoler- able in their own lives. As the State itself makes marriage all the more precious by the significance it attaches to it, exclusion from that status has the effect of teaching that gays and lesbians are unequal in important respects. It demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society. Same-sex couples, too, may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage and seek fulfillment in its highest meaning.”

Again, just replace “same-sex couples” with “polygamous families,” and you get the picture. We wouldn’t want to “demean” polygamous “families” by denying them the right to marry, would we? Why exclude them from “aspir[ing] to the transcendent purposes of marriage,” you hateful bigot?

Gonna need our house libs to explain this one.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203576)

Author: Gentleman Jim Corbett

This is the iron law of shitlibism that many still do not understand. Whether or not you agree with libs on any single issue, you need to remember that the rationale behind every lib victory will inevitably be expanded to new scenarios, even those which libs, in the course of working toward the preceding victory, assured the "moderates" were not a lib objective and would not be one in the future.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2917905&forum_id=2#28197873)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203579)

but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law

and society..." (page 6)

It's just a matter of time.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203605)

There is no historical or cultural precedent for fag marriage, however

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204373)

The four dissenting justices are arrested later that night for hate crimes. A visibly meth-addled Cory Booker appears on the White House steps, shirt ruffled and pants stained with a mysterious gooey substance, to announce the appointment of 4 critical race theorists to the Court.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203703)

you missppelled "Thundercock v. Florida"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204262)

Banning polygamy is, because we have a strong interest in protecting children and all too often women from these arrangements

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203655)

Further, if it was shown polygamous marriages were no more harmful than usual ones, would you support legalizing them?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203708)

dude honestly why the fuck are you such a buttfucking faggot to care about this, who gives a shit if polygamy is legal, i sure as hell don't

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204259)

"who gives a shit if polygamy is legal, i sure as hell don't"

"who gives a shit if polygamy is legal, i sure as hell don't"

Date: June 26th, 2015 12:04 PM

Author: ..,..,.,..:,,:,..,,:::,,..,:,.;.:..:.,:,::,

"Further, if it was shown polygamous marriages were no more harmful than usual ones, would you support legalizing them?"

dude honestly why the fuck are you such a buttfucking faggot to care about this, who gives a shit if polygamy is legal, i sure as hell don't

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2#28204259)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204283)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204299)

It seems most mainstream liberals support SSM for the reasons outlined by the court, oppose polygamy, and can't articulate a principled reason for the difference.

I suppose one way around that is to just bite the bullet on polygamy. It seems to conflict with some deeply held moral intuitions about the proper social order, but then again, so did gay marriage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204344)

Also, we're all products of rape, so maybe the court will legalize that too.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204346)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355194/U-S-Australian-citizen-sentenced-40-years-buying-boy-sole-purpose-exploitation.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204227)

there is plenty of empirical evidence showing ssm parents, or the lack of both mother and father influence can dramatically impact a child's development. whether that impact is for better or worse is up for debate. but you haven't convinced me that polygamous households are worse for children. old time mormon and amish communities seem just as stable or moreso than our industrial society and its consequences.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204349)

only fearmongering reptards keep bringing up slippery slope polygamy arguments in a desperate attempt for attention. even Roberts says it, which is disappointing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203664)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203735)

only fearmongering reptards keep bringing up slippery slope like how for years they kept talking about a road to constitutionally protected gay marriage. How stupid, amirite

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28203834)

The dissenters would say that Loving was about race discrimination, which gets strict scrutiny. The EPC argument here is gender discrimination, which only gets intermediate scrutiny. They could also say that this is discrimination based on sexual orientation, which only gets rational basis review.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204186)

it's a shame that our legal system can be so liberal on pointless issues like ssm and so corporate-reptilian on economic/corruption issues.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204457)

Two seconds of review of history reveals that polygamy subverts our social order in many ways, chiefly of which is that it is strongly correlated with welfare fraud and the intense subjugation of women

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204253)

Seems stupid to deny someone their love based on speculative claims about possible welfare fraud.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204296)

Second, the statutory scheme surrounding marriage is wholly predicated on two people. So the statutory scheme (SSA, estates, etc.) would have to change also, otherwise SCOTUS would have to throw the whole thing out.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204684)

And "ugh we would have to change some laws" is also not a good reason to deny people rights.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204701)

So you believe that the legally dispositive arguments for whether polygamy is a fundamental *constitutional* right will boil down to (1) the fact that it's not widely popular, and (2) the fact that it would be a pain in the ass to change the wording in a bunch of statutes?

Let me stop you right there, hoss.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204709)

The shorter answer to OP's question is that there is no legal principle, only practical ones.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204728)

I think the conservative position asks for far more judicial firepower than the constitution has ever provided any justice on questions like this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204790)

Sorry, I try not to converse with people who genuinely subscribe to the "living document theory." And by "people," of course I mean "disingenuous activist 110-IQ shitlibs."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2)#28204818)