- Joined
- Dec 6, 2010
- Messages
- 33,427
- Reaction score
- 5,689
"One immediate question invited by the majority’s position is whether States may retain the definition of marriage as a union of two people. 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. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-polygamy-is-the-next-gay-marriage-debate/
It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability,” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships?"
Chief Justice John Roberts
Supreme Court of the United States.
Supreme Court of the United States.
---
Is polygamy next in the marriage debate?
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey | July 10, 2015
Self-styled Montana polygamist Nathan Collier poses with his wives Christine (R) and Vicki in this undated handout photo courtesy of Collier. Collier, 46, said his bid to make his marriage to his second wife “legitimate” was influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court decision last week that legalized same-sex marriages in the United States.
Is polygamy next in the marriage debate?
By Sarah Pulliam Bailey | July 10, 2015
Self-styled Montana polygamist Nathan Collier poses with his wives Christine (R) and Vicki in this undated handout photo courtesy of Collier. Collier, 46, said his bid to make his marriage to his second wife “legitimate” was influenced by the U.S. Supreme Court decision last week that legalized same-sex marriages in the United States.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...her-polygamy-is-the-next-gay-marriage-debate/
Last edited:
