Supreme Court declares US-wide right to same-sex marriage

[JakeSully]

I haven't read the SCOTUS majority opinion, but if it addresses specifically only same sex partners, then any state without polygamy laws might be open for trios or more.

The best part of the majority opinion of the court is that it is in a word.. "sublime"

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization's oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

[Seastallion]

[attrayant]

I haven't read the SCOTUS majority opinion, but if it addresses specifically only same sex partners, then any state without polygamy laws might be open for trios or more.

Legislation (and judicial interpretations thereof), cannot favor specific groups of individuals. The decision was not that a certain class of citizen should be treated differently, but that they should be treated the same as others.

Polygamy and gender are two different issues. Don't bring polygamy (or marrying dogs or vegetables, or bestiality, hebephilia, ephebophilia or any of the other sexual fetishes) into the discussion because that's not what this legal dispute was about.

Is there any jurisdiction in the country where polygamy is legal? If so, then other jurisdictions where it's outlawed have a justifiable complaint (not based on the morality of polygamy, but based on unequal treatment) which could, in theory, make it to the supreme court. Open a thread and discuss that on its own merits or lack thereof. But it's irrelevant to this thread.

[Jingthing]

It's just pathetic irrational right wing backlash. It will pass. It's not like abortion.

[Chicog]

Oh dear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyR4vOl2NGc

[arjunadawn]

What if three gay men decided they wanted to form a legal marriage?

Since that would be a same sex marriage, would it fall under this Supreme Court decision?

That actually happened in Thailand several months ago, so the possibility is there.

No. not covered in the decision.

Are you seriously asking the question or is the question just more bait?

Dude, if three people of any sex came into any clerk's office, they would be given a form for TWO people. So more than TWO not possible.

They would be told, two of you can marry each other but you'll have to decide which two and that is that.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

There has never been even one same sex marriage of any kind in Thailand recognized by Thai law.

Next ...

Actually, I never intend to insult or bait others. Sometimes I fail, but it is never my intention. I have the same concerns as chuckd. I have read excerpts from the opinions and offer no comment on my take on it. However, I do not see the legal barrier to extending the rationale. In fact, nor can a man in Montana who has just filed locally to officially wed his two wives. It does necessarily follow then what is the definition of marriage and if limited, why? Why would two people be more entitled to the freedom to love till death do them part and not three people? Why would three women not be entitled to the same sacred institution. Some offer that this opens the door to pedophilia. I can hardly see merit in an act that is otherwise illegal. But the points I make above I do believe warrant consideration. Why would an institution that has always existed for men and women now found to be valid for any sexes nevertheless hold that the institution was, however, correct in permitted only two into the sacred pact?

Because it is not covered in the decision it is a hole wide enough to drive through. Perhaps the state can offer that it has imperative to prevent this but I cant really measure upon which shifting sands it would base this assertion.

[Chicog]

What if three gay men decided they wanted to form a legal marriage?

Since that would be a same sex marriage, would it fall under this Supreme Court decision?

That actually happened in Thailand several months ago, so the possibility is there.

No. not covered in the decision.

Are you seriously asking the question or is the question just more bait?

Dude, if three people of any sex came into any clerk's office, they would be given a form for TWO people. So more than TWO not possible.

They would be told, two of you can marry each other but you'll have to decide which two and that is that.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

There has never been even one same sex marriage of any kind in Thailand recognized by Thai law.

Next ...

Actually, I never intend to insult or bait others. Sometimes I fail, but it is never my intention. I have the same concerns as chuckd. I have read excerpts from the opinions and offer no comment on my take on it. However, I do not see the legal barrier to extending the rationale. In fact, nor can a man in Montana who has just filed locally to officially wed his two wives. It does necessarily follow then what is the definition of marriage and if limited, why? Why would two people be more entitled to the freedom to love till death do them part and not three people? Why would three women not be entitled to the same sacred institution. Some offer that this opens the door to pedophilia. I can hardly see merit in an act that is otherwise illegal. But the points I make above I do believe warrant consideration. Why would an institution that has always existed for men and women now found to be valid for any sexes nevertheless hold that the institution was, however, correct in permitted only two into the sacred pact?

Because it is not covered in the decision it is a hole wide enough to drive through. Perhaps the state can offer that it has imperative to prevent this but I cant really measure upon which shifting sands it would base this assertion.

I don't get the argument. The previous law didn't mention multiple spouses. Why should outlawing gender discrimination make a difference?

[chuckd]

Being a member of this forum since 11/26/2002 and never voicing an opinion, one way or the other, concerning my feelings about the gay community, I frankly find it somewhat deplorable when I do venture forth and ask a legitimate question concerning gay marriage, my question suddenly becomes "right wing backlash".

I never mentioned "marrying dogs or vegetables, or bestiality, hebephilia, ephebophilia or any of the other sexual fetishes". I simply asked the question about polygamy.

Others brought those subjects up, not me.

However, having little else to do besides defend myself for asking a question, I did run across the following quotation raised as a result of the Supreme Court decision:

------------------------------------------------------------------

“Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court, in a dissenting opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I will graciously bow out and return to my past ways of never posting on anything that relates to the LGBT community.

[Jingthing]

Good riddance.

IF the topic of legalizing multiple partner marriage ever becomes a national issue, that would be the time for debate about that.

Don't hold your breath.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Jingthing

[arjunadawn]

What if three gay men decided they wanted to form a legal marriage?

Since that would be a same sex marriage, would it fall under this Supreme Court decision?

That actually happened in Thailand several months ago, so the possibility is there.

No. not covered in the decision.

Are you seriously asking the question or is the question just more bait?

Dude, if three people of any sex came into any clerk's office, they would be given a form for TWO people. So more than TWO not possible.

They would be told, two of you can marry each other but you'll have to decide which two and that is that.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

There has never been even one same sex marriage of any kind in Thailand recognized by Thai law.

Next ...

Actually, I never intend to insult or bait others. Sometimes I fail, but it is never my intention. I have the same concerns as chuckd. I have read excerpts from the opinions and offer no comment on my take on it. However, I do not see the legal barrier to extending the rationale. In fact, nor can a man in Montana who has just filed locally to officially wed his two wives. It does necessarily follow then what is the definition of marriage and if limited, why? Why would two people be more entitled to the freedom to love till death do them part and not three people? Why would three women not be entitled to the same sacred institution. Some offer that this opens the door to pedophilia. I can hardly see merit in an act that is otherwise illegal. But the points I make above I do believe warrant consideration. Why would an institution that has always existed for men and women now found to be valid for any sexes nevertheless hold that the institution was, however, correct in permitted only two into the sacred pact?

Because it is not covered in the decision it is a hole wide enough to drive through. Perhaps the state can offer that it has imperative to prevent this but I cant really measure upon which shifting sands it would base this assertion.

I don't get the argument. The previous law didn't mention multiple spouses. Why should outlawing gender discrimination make a difference?

Your response is a strawman- I never stated that "outlawing gender discrimination make a difference." I offered no opinion one way or another even suggesting as much. I do not believe chuckd did either. In fact, I made it clear I offer no take on the decision, only that the decision is a now wide open to interpretation. This may be an unintended consequence but it escapes me how this line of reasoning could not at least have been offered, however weak the likelihood it would come to pass was. It is already happening. Indeed, the US has a history of polygamy, most widely known with regard to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. While polygamy was repudiated by revelation following American aggression toward the new religion, break away sects have unofficially embraced it all along. There is a substantial but illegitimate polygamy population in the US and it could hardly have been overlooked that they would watch this decision closely.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/

http://www.youngcons.com/that-didnt-take-long-man-applies-for-marriage-license-to-marry-second-wife/

My only note is regarding another poster questioning a slippery slope. The question poses no burden upon the merits of the scotus decision; none at all. It only posits that in fundamentally redesigning marriage they have not fundamentally defined marriage, one way or another. Going back and forth here is really moot because the door has indeed been opened and it being opened is not a commentary on those who celebrate this recent decision; it is simply a fact attendant to the decision. Without question it can now be asserted that marriage does not stop at two people. I dont know what merit this has but I also cant imagine what opposition the courts or state could have, or support. It is really a very benign question and the question or even the aftermath can certainly not have anything to do with gays, etc. It is an issue of law, not sexuality that I am concerned about.

[arjunadawn]

Being a member of this forum since 11/26/2002 and never voicing an opinion, one way or the other, concerning my feelings about the gay community, I frankly find it somewhat deplorable when I do venture forth and ask a legitimate question concerning gay marriage, my question suddenly becomes "right wing backlash".

I never mentioned "marrying dogs or vegetables, or bestiality, hebephilia, ephebophilia or any of the other sexual fetishes". I simply asked the question about polygamy.

Others brought those subjects up, not me.

However, having little else to do besides defend myself for asking a question, I did run across the following quotation raised as a result of the Supreme Court decision:

------------------------------------------------------------------

“Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective 'two' in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, US Supreme Court, in a dissenting opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I will graciously bow out and return to my past ways of never posting on anything that relates to the LGBT community.

I regret your question was seen as provocative. I do not think it was and easily joined in as I have the same questions.

What is sad is that in being defensive those who feel insulted presumes this question itself is a reflection of the gay community, etc; why else the posture. This most certainly has nothing at all to do with the gay community, nor does it detract or add to its recent victory. You see, IMO, whether the gay community ever moved through the court pipeline or not the issue with polygamy would have invariably made its way up through the courts. It is simply a very real shadow marriage that exists in the US, for a number. If the gay community never had a court case percolate to the scotus invariably, perhaps, a muslim family might. It is absolutely a valid presumption this may have happen and therefore clearly divorces itself from the actual people involved in the recent ruling. But the ruling itself did not close the barn door on definition, only expanded the application of marriage, and did not restrict it.

It is a totally valid question and if folks dont want to talk about it here, ok. But it will be an issue. It may get struck down or lost in courts for years, but it is brewing already- ipso facto, it is a valid question.

[Jingthing]

Multiple partner marriage is OFF TOPIC here.

Wait for it to be an actual national issue.

Probably NEVER.

OF COURSE right wingers are blaming gays and their fight for civil rights with fear mongering over slippery slopes. You'd have to be very naive and unaware of U.S. politics not to realize that.

There will of course be a continued right wing backlash against same sex marriage rights ... but it won't last long or be very severe because it's nothing like abortion which does have a more serious legitimate ethical issue over the fetuses which are indeed destroyed.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Jingthing

[mesquite]

I haven't read the SCOTUS majority opinion, but if it addresses specifically only same sex partners, then any state without polygamy laws might be open for trios or more.

Legislation (and judicial interpretations thereof), cannot favor specific groups of individuals. The decision was not that a certain class of citizen should be treated differently, but that they should be treated the same as others.

Polygamy and gender are two different issues. Don't bring polygamy (or marrying dogs or vegetables, or bestiality, hebephilia, ephebophilia or any of the other sexual fetishes) into the discussion because that's not what this legal dispute was about.

Is there any jurisdiction in the country where polygamy is legal? If so, then other jurisdictions where it's outlawed have a justifiable complaint (not based on the morality of polygamy, but based on unequal treatment) which could, in theory, make it to the supreme court. Open a thread and discuss that on its own merits or lack thereof. But it's irrelevant to this thread.

bestiality.jpg

Justice Roberts felt otherwise.

He wrote, "much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-polygamy-gay-marriage-supreme-court-perspec-0702-20150701-column.html

[Jingthing]

So bring a case there and see and talk about THAT if and when that EVER happens.

I bet you the court wouldn't even accept such a case unless and until the issue works it way through more local systems for DECADES.

Again, right wing anti-gay FEAR MONGERING.

[attrayant]

Dear Chief Justice Roberts:

We'll bomb that bridge when we get to it.

Best wishes,

Everybody else.

[arjunadawn]

Multiple partner marriage is OFF TOPIC here.

Wait for it to be an actual national issue.

Probably NEVER.

OF COURSE right wingers are blaming gays and their fight for civil rights with fear mongering over slippery slopes. You'd have to be very naive and unaware of U.S. politics not to realize that.

There will of course be a continued right wing backlash against same sex marriage rights ... but it won't last long or be very severe because it's nothing like abortion which does have a more serious legitimate ethical issue over the fetuses which are indeed destroyed.

For a guy who I so often agree with, and actually share agreement now, why the rage? I assure you, the one single event in Montana already is picked up nationally because of its causal relationship to the OP that you say is "OFF TOPIC." On every news piece around the world on this Montana action it clearly states it is predicated upon this OP. You may bump heads with people on here, or watch knuckleheads do this, but I am not this. I have a very sterile, detached concern of a slippery slope.

You are correct that right wingers are blaming gays, Obama, etc. However, if I were gay I would have done the same thing. One thing you should take some solace in as that right wingers are virtually defanged in America regarding social policy. If you dont want to chat about this, ok. But this is not a stalking horse topic to smear a group of people, at least not by me.

Note: Americans have some real dumb asses. None of us would be surprised if some clown with money and time and hatred elected to sue to marry his Teddy Bear or dog to agitate the recent ruling. We can likely agree this is the kind of crap that could happen. But this is not what happened. The guy in Montana genuinely wants to be married to two wives. They live together as such for a long time and only one of them is legal. The arguments, at first glance, really are meritorious.

Edited July 4, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Jingthing]

No further comment from me on the very tangential multiple partner marriage slippery slope right wing fear mongering on this thread.

If others want to continue their full HIJACK of this thread towards that, well that's a shame, but I won't add to that anymore.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Jingthing

[attrayant]

I'm not sensing any rage, just a bit of aggravation that something pretty clear-cut has to be explained multiple times.

So let's put that whole polygamy thing up on a shelf for now, pretty please with sugar on top?

[arjunadawn]

Okay.

Edited July 4, 2015 by arjunadawn

[GinBoy2]

Oh dear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyR4vOl2NGc

I guess we don't have to worry much about her moving to Thailand then!

...full of those devilish unbelieving Buddhists with a smattering of those Muslim "Isssssslaaaaamic 'streamists"

Edited July 4, 2015 by GinBoy2

[Jingthing]

Surely the real Jesus would have been horrified by this lady rationalizing her insanity in his name. Oy!

[Chicog]

Your response is a strawman- I never stated that "outlawing gender discrimination make a difference." I offered no opinion one way or another even suggesting as much. I do not believe chuckd did either. In fact, I made it clear I offer no take on the decision, only that the decision is a now wide open to interpretation. This may be an unintended consequence but it escapes me how this line of reasoning could not at least have been offered, however weak the likelihood it would come to pass was. It is already happening. Indeed, the US has a history of polygamy, most widely known with regard to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. While polygamy was repudiated by revelation following American aggression toward the new religion, break away sects have unofficially embraced it all along. There is a substantial but illegitimate polygamy population in the US and it could hardly have been overlooked that they would watch this decision closely.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/

http://www.youngcons.com/that-didnt-take-long-man-applies-for-marriage-license-to-marry-second-wife/

My only note is regarding another poster questioning a slippery slope. The question poses no burden upon the merits of the scotus decision; none at all. It only posits that in fundamentally redesigning marriage they have not fundamentally defined marriage, one way or another. Going back and forth here is really moot because the door has indeed been opened and it being opened is not a commentary on those who celebrate this recent decision; it is simply a fact attendant to the decision. Without question it can now be asserted that marriage does not stop at two people. I dont know what merit this has but I also cant imagine what opposition the courts or state could have, or support. It is really a very benign question and the question or even the aftermath can certainly not have anything to do with gays, etc. It is an issue of law, not sexuality that I am concerned about.

I wasn't responding to your post per se but asking a question.

As far as I can see, the only change in the law is that the participants in the marriage can now be of the same gender.

Why is this change more open to interpretation than the old one?

i.e. Why wasn't polygamy an issue before this ruling?

Or is the argument simply that now they've one this one, anything else is fair game?

Edited July 4, 2015 by Chicog

[Ulysses G.]

Why wasn't polygamy an issue before this ruling?

It WAS. It has been one of the biggest arguments against changing the definition of traditional marriage since this all began and was specifically brought op in the SCOTUS dissent. You must not have been paying much attention.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[Jingthing]

Why wasn't polygamy an issue before this ruling?

It WAS. It was one of the biggest arguments against changing the definition of traditional marriage and was specifically brought op in the SCOTUS dissent. You must not have been paying much attention.

That is totally incorrect.

It was mentioned in that written dissent.

It most certainly was NOT "one of the biggest" anti-marriage equality arguments.

I think you just made that up.

[arjunadawn]

Your response is a strawman- I never stated that "outlawing gender discrimination make a difference." I offered no opinion one way or another even suggesting as much. I do not believe chuckd did either. In fact, I made it clear I offer no take on the decision, only that the decision is a now wide open to interpretation. This may be an unintended consequence but it escapes me how this line of reasoning could not at least have been offered, however weak the likelihood it would come to pass was. It is already happening. Indeed, the US has a history of polygamy, most widely known with regard to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. While polygamy was repudiated by revelation following American aggression toward the new religion, break away sects have unofficially embraced it all along. There is a substantial but illegitimate polygamy population in the US and it could hardly have been overlooked that they would watch this decision closely.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/polygamous-montana-trio-applies-for-wedding-license/

http://www.youngcons.com/that-didnt-take-long-man-applies-for-marriage-license-to-marry-second-wife/

My only note is regarding another poster questioning a slippery slope. The question poses no burden upon the merits of the scotus decision; none at all. It only posits that in fundamentally redesigning marriage they have not fundamentally defined marriage, one way or another. Going back and forth here is really moot because the door has indeed been opened and it being opened is not a commentary on those who celebrate this recent decision; it is simply a fact attendant to the decision. Without question it can now be asserted that marriage does not stop at two people. I dont know what merit this has but I also cant imagine what opposition the courts or state could have, or support. It is really a very benign question and the question or even the aftermath can certainly not have anything to do with gays, etc. It is an issue of law, not sexuality that I am concerned about.

I wasn't responding to your post per se but asking a question.

As far as I can see, the only change in the law is that the participants in the marriage can now be of the same gender.

Why is this change more open to interpretation than the old one?

i.e. Why wasn't polygamy an issue before this ruling?

Or is the argument simply that now they've one this one, anything else is fair game?

Pardon me, out of courtesy to one or more TV posters I am going to refrain from this topic further. I suspect many people are quite pleased with the recent ruling and perhaps such discussion now is seen as tossing a mud pie. I can see where they might be alarmed, but this was not indictment. I do not want to be a part of that polarity, not now. Perhaps another time. (Your last sentence is correct).

[Jingthing]

Back to the core topic ... this is a great civil rights victory!
When I realized as a youth that I was gay American ... on top of dealing with painful coming out issues and social homophobia, it was a shock to me to realize I was not treated as a full first class citizen under the laws of my country.

Imagine the feeling ... it's alienating.

Gay youth of today, while still facing social homophobia and still facing anti-gay laws in many states (no protections against discrimination in housing and employment, etc.) I am confident will not have that horrible realization.

As far as I'm concerned, that is what this is REALLY about.

Making GLBT citizens full first class citizens under the law.

These citizens win and so does the country.

Yes, think of the children.

The GLBT children.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Jingthing

[Ulysses G.]

Why wasn't polygamy an issue before this ruling?

It WAS. It was one of the biggest arguments against changing the definition of traditional marriage and was specifically brought op in the SCOTUS dissent. You must not have been paying much attention.

That is totally incorrect.

It was mentioned in that written dissent.

It most certainly was NOT "one of the biggest" anti-marriage equality arguments.

I think you just made that up.

Made it up? You've got to be kidding. It has been one of the main objections against changing the definition of traditional marriage for years and it will not be long until it becomes legal after this ruling. . Pandora"s box is open now.

As deBoer writes on his blog, he starts not from the position that polygamy makes sense in a vacuum, but that there exists a “natural moral right to group marriage,” and he proceeds with gusto from there. “If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners,” he asks puckishly at Politico, “how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420614/polygamy-gay-marriage-supreme-court

If you're one of those rare people who think one spouse is not enough, your prayers may be answered. After the Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage, conservative critics spotted sister wives on the horizon. "Polygamy, here we come!" tweeted Weekly Standard editor William Kristol.

Some members of the Supreme Court agree. Dissenting Chief Justice John Roberts argued that "much of the majority's reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage." In 1996, Justice Antonin Scalia claimed the court had put itself on the path to upholding the rights of polygamists.

http://my.chicagotribune.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83909208/

Edited July 4, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[JDGRUEN]

Good riddance.

IF the topic of legalizing multiple partner marriage ever becomes a national issue, that would be the time for debate about that.

Don't hold your breath.

The comments by the Supreme Chief Justice Roberts are not sufficient for comment I suppose? Rather the comments of a Chief Justice are just to be dismissed by a lofty member of TVF with the flick of a hand... Delusional self importance of the part of the TVF member it would seem...

[attrayant]

A TVF member who is in good company, as the Chief Justice's comments were dismissed by a majority of the court, as well.

[Chicog]

Why wasn't polygamy an issue before this ruling?

It WAS. It has been one of the biggest arguments against changing the definition of traditional marriage since this all began and was specifically brought op in the SCOTUS dissent. You must not have been paying much attention.

I haven't heard it mentioned once until the ruling was issued.

Sounds more like fearmongering to me.

Although I'm not necessarily against polygamy as long as it's all between consenting adults.

Not as if it's unheard of across the planet, or even in the US.

Anyway, as was said, I doubt there is enough interest in it to even make the Supreme Court unless the Mormons chance their arm.

Does anyone have any serious objection to polygamy that doesn't involve "God saying so"?

Edited July 4, 2015 by Chicog