Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage To Be Law Of The Land

This doesnt have to do with sexual discrimination anymore, so it's not anywhere near as contestable as gay marraige was.

pokermind wrote:Polygamy suit based on Gay marriage case:

http://wearechange.org/polyagamous-trio-applies-for-wedding-license-claiming-protection-under-supreme-court-marriage-ruling/

The flood gates open, as predicted, Poker

Spacekiwi wrote:This doesnt have to do with sexual discrimination anymore, so it's not anywhere near as contestable as gay marraige was.

Sure it does. It´s even quite normal to be polyamorous, the maojrity of people don´t act upon it and those who do only very rarely act upon it openly. In part because of how badly it´s frowned upon.

Of course there´s the downside that some people will try to exploit it, but OTOH, that´s already true anyway so might as well try to figure out a legal structure that is workable before it ends up really troublesome somehow.

Tenshinai wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:This doesnt have to do with sexual discrimination anymore, so it's not anywhere near as contestable as gay marraige was.

Sure it does. It´s even quite normal to be polyamorous, the maojrity of people don´t act upon it and those who do only very rarely act upon it openly. In part because of how badly it´s frowned upon.

Being polyamorous and not being able to be legally wed to multiple partners are actually not nearly as directly related to each other as being gay and being able to be in a legal marriage *at all* to *anyone* you love.


A poly amorous person is being denied none of the civil or legal rights or privileges marriage confers on the partnerships of other people. They can still enter into marriage, and the person they enter into it with can be someone they love. If a third or fourth party in a polyamorous relationship also wants to enjoy those benefits they can get married too to someone else, and no problem right? (If, of course, they're *actually* poly amorous... since polyamorous relationships are, by definition, non exclusive... and thus an inability to engage in multiple-partner marriages does not interfere with it...)


They are simply not allowed to extend that legal marriage status, which the state has a legitimate interest in regulating, to more than one other person just like everyone else.

Well, yeah, but i meant in terms of the laws as they were written, such as the defense of marriage act defining a marriage as between a man and a woman. A law that bans multiple marriages/legal polyamory probably isnt discriminatory, as long as it is applied across the whole population, and does not discriminate who it targets.

sorry for any confusion tenshinai.

Tenshinai wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:This doesnt have to do with sexual discrimination anymore, so it's not anywhere near as contestable as gay marraige was.

Sure it does. It´s even quite normal to be polyamorous, the maojrity of people don´t act upon it and those who do only very rarely act upon it openly. In part because of how badly it´s frowned upon.

Of course there´s the downside that some people will try to exploit it, but OTOH, that´s already true anyway so might as well try to figure out a legal structure that is workable before it ends up really troublesome somehow.

gcomeau wrote:Being polyamorous and not being able to be legally wed to multiple partners are actually not nearly as directly related to each other as being gay and being able to be in a legal marriage *at all* to *anyone* you love.


A poly amorous person is being denied none of the civil or legal rights or privileges marriage confers on the partnerships of other people.

Incorrect. About the best and most obvious example i can provide is a real case of a single male getting together with triplet girls, later on there was a fair share of legal troubles because he could only legally marry one of the three, while he had multiple children with all three.

All 4 had to write extremely complicated wills to have any chance of all children being properly included regardless of circumstances, and there was quite a mess about surname, legal status of those not married etc etc...

Spacekiwi wrote:...

sorry for any confusion tenshinai.

No worries.

Tenshinai wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Being polyamorous and not being able to be legally wed to multiple partners are actually not nearly as directly related to each other as being gay and being able to be in a legal marriage *at all* to *anyone* you love.


A poly amorous person is being denied none of the civil or legal rights or privileges marriage confers on the partnerships of other people.

Incorrect. About the best and most obvious example i can provide is a real case of a single male getting together with triplet girls, later on there was a fair share of legal troubles because he could only legally marry one of the three, while he had multiple children with all three.

All 4 had to write extremely complicated wills to have any chance of all children being properly included regardless of circumstances, and there was quite a mess about surname, legal status of those not married etc etc...

You are not describing polyamory. You are describing some guy living out most regular hetero guys sexual fantasy and then dealing with the consequences of not taking precautions.

There is no compelling legal civil rights argument that the marriage laws need to be modified to deal with that situation any more than if some guy knocked up his mistresses.

If he had relationships with all 3 girls at the same time, they all knew about each other, and all consented to the multiple relationships, and they all stayed together, then actually it would be polyamory: Consensual intimate relationships with multiple partners.

gcomeau wrote:You are not describing polyamory. You are describing some guy living out most regular hetero guys sexual fantasy and then dealing with the consequences of not taking precautions.

There is no compelling legal civil rights argument that the marriage laws need to be modified to deal with that situation any more than if some guy knocked up his mistresses.

Aparantly, Australian aboriginal marriage practices included a rule that you couldn't speak directly with your mother in law.
That sounds like a damn fine idea.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Spacekiwi wrote:If he had relationships with all 3 girls at the same time, they all knew about each other, and all consented to the multiple relationships, and they all stayed together, then actually it would be polyamory: Consensual intimate relationships with multiple partners.

And that was exactly the case, which is of course why i used it as an example.