The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Serious Q: Why does the reasoning in Obergefell v.Hodges not extend to polygamy?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:47 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office The more philosophical portion of the opinion runs from page 12 to page 18. It says, roughly, that there are four main reasons marriage is a fundamental right, and these apply equally to same-sex marriages. (from p.12: "The four principles and traditions to be discussed demonstrate that the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.")
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.
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:48 AM Author: Sooty pit halford Date: June 25th, 2015 1:04 PM 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)
|
 |
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:12 PM Author: elite ultramarine stag film (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204318) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:48 AM Author: narrow-minded macaca it will. this is the start of a very dangerous path. Lest today brings a new country "The Federal Government of America" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203583) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:50 AM Author: Floppy bbw "The ancient origins of marriage confirm its centrality, but it has not stood in isolation from developments in law and society..." (page 6)
It's just a matter of time.
|
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:52 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office Many ancient societies were polygamous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203623) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:54 AM Author: Floppy bbw All the better. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203647) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:54 AM Author: lascivious shivering menage degenerate Seriously. Gay marriage was never recognized in society until recent time. Polygamy goes back to the beginning. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203650) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:17 AM Author: Self-centered fat ankles Polygamy IS traditional marriage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203878) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:21 PM Author: Razzle green indirect expression corner Exactly. All the more reason polygamy should be legal. There is no historical or cultural precedent for fag marriage, however |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:52 AM Author: aggressive ivory library new version There is none, because there is no principle here, just arbitrary feelings. If SJW pick up the cause of polygamy, perhaps for Muslims or someone SJW appropriate, no reason it can't be legal - if 5 justices feel like it's fair. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203622) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:00 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office 2025: Constitutional right to polygamous marriage found in Muhammad vs. Florida. Kagan reads the majority opinion. Scalia reads his dissent from the bench, which consists in its entirety of, "I told you so, motherfuckers," before producing a Ragu jar from under his robes, smashing it on the floor of the Court, and walking out with his middle finger raised.
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. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:02 AM Author: hateful temple You think it will take until 2025? LOL at you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203722) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:07 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office The first state Supreme Court ruling on this was about a half-dozen years ago, right? Seems about the right timeline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203760) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:09 AM Author: hateful temple The pace is accelerating. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203779) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:11 AM Author: Sooty pit halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203804) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:04 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse "Constitutional right to polygamous marriage found in Muhammad vs. Florida"
you missppelled "Thundercock v. Florida" |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:11 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office short for Muhammad Thundercock Perez-Gallo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204312) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 12:29 AM Author: Cerise cruel-hearted associate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28209371) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:04 PM Author: Out-of-control multi-colored national 180 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208468) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:22 PM Author: painfully honest hilarious digit ratio theater stage (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208546) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:49 PM Author: Duck-like step-uncle's house lettuce This is beyond 180. My wife stopped what she was doing to ask my why I was laughing so hard. This is scholarship of the first order. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208703) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:54 AM Author: Jade international law enforcement agency dingle berry SSM ban is not rationally related to an important government interest
Banning polygamy is, because we have a strong interest in protecting children and all too often women from these arrangements
|
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:00 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office So the right to SSM is contingent on the empirical question of whether such arrangements harm children and the participants?
Further, if it was shown polygamous marriages were no more harmful than usual ones, would you support legalizing them? |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:04 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse "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 |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:06 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office "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" "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) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:09 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office WELCOME TO LIBTOPIA EVERYONE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204298) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:10 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse LOL I'm not a lib. I'm a Bible thumping conservative. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204302) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:15 PM Author: elite ultramarine stag film No wonder you support polygamy (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204338) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:16 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse I ASSUMED HE WAS ON ONE SIDE OF THE POLITICAL AISLE AND HE SAID HE'S ON THE OTHER, WELL NOW IT'S OBVIOUS THAT IS THE CASE!!!1!!1!ONE (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204348) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:09 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse i don't - it's historical, it's well-supported by all major religions, it's supported by the genetic record of humanity, polygamy is more responsible for the success of humanity than monogamy is
|
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:10 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office Thank you for going on record to confirm what we all suspected. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204306) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:11 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse that the most sexually and religiously conservative poaster on xo has no problem with polygamous marriage? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204313) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:16 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office Interesting.
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. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:16 PM Author: elite ultramarine stag film TBF he's pretty accurate
Also, we're all products of rape, so maybe the court will legalize that too. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:12 AM Author: aggressive ivory library new version "We have a strong interest" means whatever SJW & libs say it means. Today it probably doesn't mean polygamy, but Progress! We are in agreement with what this decision means. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203817) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:14 AM Author: Sooty pit halford (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203835) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 12:30 AM Author: Cerise cruel-hearted associate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28209378) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:59 AM Author: Hairraiser Queen Of The Night Half-breed we have an interest in protecting children from fag marriage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355194/U-S-Australian-citizen-sentenced-40-years-buying-boy-sole-purpose-exploitation.html |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:17 PM Author: Doobsian range if you truly believe this and aren't just playing devil's advocate then low IQ.
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.
|
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:55 AM Author: Confused saffron mother Kennedy opinion repeatedly and consistently states that marriage is between "two" people
only fearmongering reptards keep bringing up slippery slope polygamy arguments in a desperate attempt for attention. even Roberts says it, which is disappointing. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:01 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office You're ignoring the OP. What principled reason do we have to exclude polygamous lovers from the institution of marriage? All the reasons he gave apply with equal force. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203718) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:02 AM Author: Sooty pit halford But why is two people any more of a bedrock, fundamental requirement than man and woman? As pointed out above, polygamy has a much greater historical basis than SSM. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203723) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:03 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203733) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:03 AM Author: Floppy bbw You're flame, right?
|
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:14 AM Author: aggressive ivory library new version Progress!
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 |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:16 AM Author: Confused saffron mother someone needs to build a series of giant billboards that can be seen from space about twenty yards north of the Mason Dixon line that say "YOU LOST" and point to them again and again and again every time a white guy wearing Croakies cries about his persecution (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203867) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:21 AM Author: aggressive ivory library new version (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203926) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:53 AM Author: charismatic purple ticket booth Literally every Kennedy opinion leading to this one had similar qualifying language to the effect of "this doesn't mean there's a right to gay marriage!" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204201) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:01 PM Author: aggressive ivory library new version I bet he smiled when he wrote that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204239) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 12:30 AM Author: Cerise cruel-hearted associate kennedy also said in lawrence that lawrence would have absolutely no effect on domestic relations laws. FAGGGOT. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28209382) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:01 AM Author: poppy point background story bc there aren't 5 people who say it extends to polygamy duh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203710) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:10 AM Author: Self-centered fat ankles Well polygamy is certainly traditional so why would the dissenters oppose legalizing it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203796) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:15 AM Author: aggressive ivory library new version How dare we try to impose our culture on other people? muslimmarriagematters. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203842) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:15 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office #legalizelove (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203862) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:16 AM Author: aggressive ivory library new version how could you be against love? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203870) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:18 AM Author: Self-centered fat ankles Well that's definitely a problem for the traditional marriage folks. Have fun with that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203886) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:16 AM Author: Self-centered fat ankles No society has ever EVER changed its definition of marriage! (Has never heard of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203865) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:06 PM Author: Appetizing travel guidebook filthpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204277) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:19 AM Author: Coiffed Maize Electric Furnace non-lawyer bro here, reading the decision now. how would the dissenters distinguish the loving/interracial marriage case? or would they say that case was wrongly decided? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203904) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:39 AM Author: Supple aquamarine factory reset button Roberts explains that in his dissent (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204112) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:12 PM Author: Coiffed Maize Electric Furnace got there, ty brother. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204320) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:51 AM Author: charismatic purple ticket booth I think Roberts was open to that argument. But the majority basically just said "yeah, EPC supports us too." Roberts called them out for not applying any kind of analysis or scrutiny. He made some comments at oral argument that suggested he was open to the idea. Honestly, I was expecting that he would write a concurrence finding the states laws were gender discrimination violating the EPC.
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. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:15 PM Author: beady-eyed fishy house It would get RBR with bite, since there is evidence of animus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204693) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 12:32 AM Author: Cerise cruel-hearted associate oh shut the FUCK up you shitlib fuccking fagogt (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28209385) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:28 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office Still waiting for an answer. It seems lib logic inexorably pushes us toward legalizing polygamy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28203998) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:48 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204171) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:33 PM Author: Doobsian range there is no logic here. just legislating from the bench and appeasing the libtards.
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. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:30 AM Author: Nofapping Peach Dilemma Fanboi THIPPERY THLOPE IS A LOGICAL FALLACY he lisped as he filed a lawsuit arguing gay pedophilia is a civil right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204018) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:30 PM Author: elite ultramarine stag film 190 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204436) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:39 AM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204110) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:03 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse It fails on #4, specifically here: "There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to [the] principle [that marriage is a keystone of our social order]." 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 |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:09 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office We're in a pretty enlightened society now with lots of legal protections for women, etc. It seems plausible there would be little if any utilitarian harm from legalizing polygamy. If this is the case, should we legalize it?
Seems stupid to deny someone their love based on speculative claims about possible welfare fraud. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:10 PM Author: aggressive ivory library new version Never one reported cases of polygamy being used for welfare fraud! Also, welfare fraud is code for anti-black, you bigot racists. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204305) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:12 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse yeah i actually agree with your argument, and you can see above in another subthread that i don't actually oppose polygamy, and my position is formed on the basis of a plaintext reading of the Bible and the genetic record of humanity (sexual dimorphism in size like we see in humans is strongly correlated with a history of polygamy - although technically in this case polygyny) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204322) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:13 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office I mean yeah, if we accept the Court's reasoning it seems we're also bound to accept that polygamy should be legalized. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204331) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:15 PM Author: Sienna Judgmental Crackhouse tv shows like big love and sisterwives are made by the jews to normalize polygamy in advance of the SCOTUS cases to come in a decade or so (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204341) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:13 PM Author: pink effete puppy stain in 10 years that comment will literally get you loaded onto a train as a bigoted monster (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204324) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:40 PM Author: Doobsian range the subjugation of women was not a product of polygamy but women's relative bargaining power in the marriage contract. historically, women did not work and thus were entirely dependent on men for their financial well-being. the same can't be said now though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204504) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 12:29 PM Author: Doobsian range Even Hilary fought for polygamous marriage as First Lady under her "It Takes a Village" campaign. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204429) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:13 PM Author: beady-eyed fishy house I see two. The first and major limiting principle is that polygamy is still weird and extremely minority in the United States. If that ever changed then the principle could be extended.
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. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:16 PM Author: anal ebony pisswyrm Good thing gays were never a weird minority! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204700) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:17 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204703) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:16 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office Rights are still rights, even if they apply only to a small minority.
And "ugh we would have to change some laws" is also not a good reason to deny people rights. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:19 PM Author: beady-eyed fishy house Those are all good points to be vigorously discussed in 1L con law. This case will be in textbooks fast because I think the inability to limit the civil right is a flaw in the decision. It doesn't apply to polygamy because it doesn't. But if 30+ states decided to introduce legal polygamous marriage then this decision would not stand for the proposition that polgamy is not a civil right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204723) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:18 PM Author: burgundy sexy lodge windowlicker To be fair,
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. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:19 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204724) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:20 PM Author: beady-eyed fishy house Yes. I mean in a sense the majority is practicing originalism using 2015 as a baseline.
The shorter answer to OP's question is that there is no legal principle, only practical ones. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:23 PM Author: Comical Impressive Principal's Office see you in 2025 with my harem of wives (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28204749) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:28 PM Author: beady-eyed fishy house Society has changed and people have changed is a "legal principle" if you subscribe to the living document theory. You can also use countermajoritarianism as a legal principle here.
I think the conservative position asks for far more judicial firepower than the constitution has ever provided any justice on questions like this. |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 1:31 PM Author: burgundy sexy lodge windowlicker To be fair,
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." |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 4:00 PM Author: aggressive ivory library new version I was thinking it, you said it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28206268) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 12:33 AM Author: Cerise cruel-hearted associate literally slit your own throat you simpleton fucktard. you can read all the dahlia lithwick columns in the world and you still wont have a fucking clue (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28209391) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:06 PM Author: bronze pungent turdskin it fucks kids up is why (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208480) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:18 PM Author: Milky Jet-lagged Hall I remember when people said that about teh gays. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208530) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 12:32 AM Author: Cerise cruel-hearted associate if you dare suggest that now youre basically a confederate flag manufacturer (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28209388) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:18 PM Author: Milky Jet-lagged Hall Remember when this was a law bort? D. Utah already gutted utah's polygamy laws under Windsor. It's on appeal now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208529) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 10:25 PM Author: Insane Tan Kitty Cat There should and will be a constitutional right to plural marriage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208559) |
|
Date: June 26th, 2015 11:10 PM Author: Twinkling rehab This is how it would go. It would be under the guise of some polyamorous bs like Ali wanting to be with Mike, but also recognize her relationship with Darnell, her children's father. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28208842) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2015 12:40 AM Author: racy school regret It will depend on whether or not the undesirable effects corresponding to polygamy, intra-familial marriages, etc. constitute a compelling state interest. Is the fraud associated with polygamy a compelling state interest? It's definitely a rational basis to exclude polygamy from the definition of marriage, but this case wasn't decided on equal protection grounds (as it should have been). So, at the end of the day, we're back to what 5 Justices think constitutes a compelling state interest. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#28209427) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2025 1:21 PM Author: Crawly home juggernaut (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2919723&forum_id=2E#49056294) |