This is different

Post #379,613 by pwhysall 8/20/13 12:29:07 PM Reply	This is different The legal doin's are not altered by the gender of the people in the marriage. They are, however, totally altered by having more than two people involved. I would be totally in favour of letting people be legally polyamorously married, but the legal stuff - i.e. all the privileges and defaults that currently go to a single spouse - would be, I think, decidedly non-trivial. Pop quiz: Four people in a marriage, one dies. Who gets their stuff? Better yet, who gets to decide when to turn off the machine that goes 'ping'? What about taxes and all that stuff? Yeah, it makes the head go hurty.
Post #379,619 by mmoffitt 8/20/13 1:21:10 PM Reply	Yes, it does make the head go hurty. But it is the logical extension of the USSC decision. The reasoning in Windsor was that the definition of "marriage" is exclusively a State matter. DOMAÂs unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of alaw having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. The history of DOMAÂs enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence. http://www.google.co...593,d.aWc&cad=rja So, if a State (any State) decides to issue a marriage license to N number of people as a group, according to our highest court, that "marriage" is equal to all others.
Post #379,622 by pwhysall 8/20/13 3:04:14 PM Reply	It's not the logical extension at all. Multimarriage is different, as I described. Letting The Gays get married doesn't change any existing law at all other than the daft bit that constrains the gender of people getting married. Everything else is the same - dying, next-of-kin-ness, automatic stuff that happens on death, etc etc etc. All that law exists and is well-understood. It simply doesn't exist for multimarriage. Your "logical extension" is nothing of the sort, and is indeed akin to the "oh em gee, they'll be getting married to their pets and their motor vehicles, next!" stuff.
Post #379,661 by CRConrad 8/21/13 8:25:53 AM Reply	Pets,motor vehicles,etc: The Berlin Wall and Eiffel Tower... ...are already taken, I think, but if marriage can be extended to polygamy, that problem would be moot. -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #379,667 by mmoffitt 8/21/13 9:42:54 AM Reply	Not my point at all. My point is that the USSC said in its ruling that if a State decides to issue a marriage certificate then the federal government must recognize the equality of that marriage with all others. Polygamy could be legal again in Utah (http://www.inquisitr...be-legal-in-utah/) and if it is, then the USSC has already said that sort of marriage is equal in the eyes of the law to any other. Windor's "logic" [SIC] set the precedent: any state can define "marriage" in any way it sees fit and there is nothing the federal government can do about it. Moreover, the federal government must treat all marriages equally. It'd be awfully difficult (even for this court!) to rule that a state cannot pass a law that awards marriage licenses to polygamists at this point. It's not just the Mormons, either. We have a large and growing population of Muslims here and some of them already live in polygamist families. I think governments being forced to equate polygamist marriage with all other marriages not only logically follows from the Windsor decision, but given our demographics, it is highly likely that polygamy will soon be legal here.
Post #379,675 by Another Scott 8/21/13 10:49:06 AM Reply	If you think logic determines SCOTUS, well, ... ;-)
Post #379,698 by Ashton 8/21/13 4:22:50 PM Reply	Holy Cthulhu.. wtf DO they use??..dare we wonder.
Post #379,684 by boxley 8/21/13 12:29:32 PM Reply	as it should be Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #379,692 by mmoffitt 8/21/13 1:24:52 PM Reply	You're nuts. One wife is more than sufficient. I am unanimous in that. ;0)
Post #379,710 by boxley 8/21/13 6:31:39 PM Reply	not for me either, watched one episode of big love and thought in his place I would just shoot myself Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep

Welcome to IWETHEY!