Polygamy precedes gay marriage by over 2 centuries. It has been practiced from biblical times to the present and is legal today in almost half the countries of the world. No US state allows more than 2 people to marry. If you want to promote polygamy you have a very high bar to reach. Good luck.
It is broader than that. Heterosexuals will also beable to marry someone of the same sex as well. Friends who want to could take advantage of the benefits and advantageous inheritance laws.
I doubt that. I bet it wouldn’t be too hard to get a single state to repeal their bigamy laws. Maybe Utah would like a little payback for not allowing it when they first wanted to join the Union.
Of course I’m right. I’m always right. (Well…except when I’m wrong.
)
The clause must always be extended and it is up to the State to provide, at minimum, a rational basis to exempt them from it in a particular case. They have one in a substantial burden argument when it comes to polygamy. For example, domestic law is structured only for single-spouse households. The State would have to rewrite it from the ground up to account for the legal complexities of multi-spouse households. There is no substantial burden here because all that is required is gender neutral language in existing law.
The only thing that distinguishes homosexuals from others is with whom and the manner in which they engage in sex.
So it is all right to deny someone equal protection of the law because it would cause a substantial burden to do so? Is that written down in the Constitution somewhere?
Natural law is not a religious belief. It is a philosophical framework. There is a difference.
They can already do that as long as they are of the opposite sex. (Yes, men and women are sometimes friends!)
Or they could “marry” themselves off to a rich single man who wants a nanny and a maid.
You apparently, missed the point. SSM is not reserved to just homosexuals. It is also open to hetersexuals. And of course, there have probably been opposite sex couples who have married for reasons other than being in love. Heck, history is rife with marriages as political mergers. And there is the marriages so that foreigners can remain in the country.They can already do that as long as they are of the opposite sex. (Yes, men and women are sometimes friends!)
That is legal discrimination based on sex, and needs justification.
For that matter, since no sex is involved, why is a same sex sham marriage worse than an opposite sex one?
Further, how many cases of opposite sex friends marrying just for the benefits do you think there are?
Or they could “marry” themselves off to a rich single man who wants a nanny and a maid.
(It was however the argument that won over the Iowa Supreme Court.) Win the battle just in time to lose the war.Government support for families benefits society. So it is not likely that government will get out of marriage.My personal opinion is that the push to get government out of marriage all together will grow and homosexuals will have been fighting for nothing in the end.
Government support of families does support families and society. But by making marriage meaningless, the government may be forced to rethink that position. If any two people (or more) – and that’s what the equality argument comes down to – can be married, then there is and will be no distinction between families and non-families. Any two people can and ought to be able to marry under the equality argument, and if one wishes the government benefits, there is no reason for two elderly sisters not to marry, or a group of senior citizens, or a mother and son. Anyone at all. Marriage becomes meaningless as a protected institution. And that’s what Masha Gessen had in mind when she said that while she supports gay marriage, marriage itself ought not to exist. That’s the final step.
Well society doesn’t seem to think so anymore. Hence, the huge number of children born outside of marriage. Unless something seriously changes, civil marriage is going the way of the dodo.
Or you did.
Who said otherwise? Guess what - opposite sex marriage is also open to homosexuals. So what? :ehh:
I was responding to another post. Do keep up.None of the rights named or implied in the Constitution have ever been considered to be absolute. The Supreme Court examines laws and the application of laws to determine if there is sufficient justification for narrowing an existing right and whether or not the State has the Constitutional authority to do so. The bar the State must meet in its justification varies based on the nature of the right being narrowed. Sometimes it only requires a rational basis and substantial burden does provide that.
sometimes I do so because someone else has it at their easier reach at the time, like right now, I predicted it might happen, and it did.
and so how would govenrment verify proof that any two men (or women) are indeed a gay couple, when it comes down to all the benefits the would be getting?
So don’t make a second evil true when the first one is already.
Not sure. Perhaps Ed Snowden would know. A guess would be to put a tap on their computers and cell phones? I heard that a cell phone can be tapped even when the subscriber turns it off.