Polygamists Challenge Utah's Anti-Polygamy Law

[lighthorseman]

Jul 24, 2011 12:04:23 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

You want people to give you impossible explanations as to how people have inherent rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

All I want is for people to point to United States case law that could be interpreted that polygamous couples have the right to marry.

Here is an example of a legal brief: ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/ (click on document #1: "COMPLAINT for Declaratory, Injunctive, or other Relief"). It is a legal brief that argues why California's prohibition on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution. You can also read the final opinion in that case (Perry v. Schwarzenegger), which found in favor of the complainants. The judge does not use his personal consideration of what he would like to see as a matter of civil rights, but relies extensively on U.S. case law.

Where the hell did anyone say any such case law exists?

I see lots of people saying the legislature needs to step in and MAKE such a law... but you seem determined to address this issue by saying "there is no precedent, therefore, it cannot be done".

Forgive me if I misunderstand your position, but that is what I'm taking you to mean.

[cestlefun17]

Where the hell did anyone say any such case law exists?

The whole reason for me chiming in started several several pages ago when some poster said that polygamous groups were due the right to marry just like gay groups. I offered legal arguments as to why this wasn't the case.

I see lots of people saying the legislature needs to step in and MAKE such a law... but you seem determined to address this issue by saying "there is no precedent, therefore, it cannot be done".

It cannot be done through the courts as a matter of constitutional rights. It can be done through the legislature as a matter of public policy. But I'm not interested in debating the merits and demerits of legalizing polygamous marriage through the legislature.

[erictheblue]

Jul 24, 2011 10:52:15 GMT -5 Vene said:

I know you're restricting yourself to a set of very silly parameters, it's easier that way then to look at the total effects of such logic.

Cestle is explaining how US law currently works. He has said before that changing the laws is a valid way to legalize poly marriage.

Marriage has been declared a fundamental right. That said, statutory restrictions on marriage are valid. (That's why some states can say first cousins cannot marry.)

The USSC has already said (over 100 years ago) that barring poly marriage is within the power of Congress. It was challenged on the grounds of Free Expression of religion (another fundamental, constitutional right). Therefore, legalizing poly marriage through the courts is, for all practical purposes, a dead end.

Going through legislative process would be a valid method, but it would have to start with Congress, not the states, since federal law currently bans poly marriage.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 24, 2011 12:27:08 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Where the hell did anyone say any such case law exists?

The whole reason for me chiming in started several several pages ago when some poster said that polygamous groups were due the right to marry just like gay groups. I offered legal arguments as to why this wasn't the case.

Were they making a legal argument, or expressing an opinion?

I see lots of people saying the legislature needs to step in and MAKE such a law... but you seem determined to address this issue by saying "there is no precedent, therefore, it cannot be done".

It cannot be done through the courts as a matter of constitutional rights. It can be done through the legislature as a matter of public policy. But I'm not interested in debating the merits and demerits of legalizing polygamous marriage through the legislature.[/quote]*head against a brick wall* I don't give a rats if it can be done through the courts. i never mentioned anything about courts, you seem to be the one with the court fixation... because everyone else here DOES seem to be discussing whether or not it should be implemented through the legislature. If you don't want to talk about that, then thats cool, but why keep dragging court decisions and precedent into a discussion any way?

[cestlefun17]

i never mentioned anything about courts, you seem to be the one with the court fixation... because everyone else here DOES seem to be discussing whether or not it should be implemented through the legislature. If you don't want to talk about that, then thats cool, but why keep dragging court decisions and precedent into a discussion any way?

Because people keep responding to my posts. If there is nothing to object to in my posts, then why respond to them?

I just wanted to nip all the comparisons with gay marriage in the bud. A compelling legal argument can be made to show that the U.S. Constitution mandates recognition of gay marriage. However, there is no such compelling legal argument for polygamous marriage.

[Amaranth]

Jul 24, 2011 8:42:06 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

Yes I am intentionally omitting the "harmlessness" aspect because it has no bearing on whether or not something is a civil right, according to United States case law.

So you're selectively stripping an argument based on legal ramifications not part of said argument, but then trying to criticise the makers of the argument as a whole?

That is totally dishonest. Bravo man...Just...*applause*

Also, I'd like to know how you can reconcile comparing yourself to the supreme court, then ignoring part of the argument when a good chunk of the free speech debate did come down to whether or not my right to swing my fist ended at the other guy's nose.

I'm like the supreme court. When it suits me, bitches!

*puts on sunglasses and struts*

Clearly, the issue of harm does come into te arguments of freedom and self-determination. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a constitutional standpoint. If one invokes the Supreme Court and civil rights, one cannot simply hide behind "legislation!" Because the supreme court no longer suits them.

[lighthorseman]

Jul 24, 2011 13:16:29 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

i never mentioned anything about courts, you seem to be the one with the court fixation... because everyone else here DOES seem to be discussing whether or not it should be implemented through the legislature. If you don't want to talk about that, then thats cool, but why keep dragging court decisions and precedent into a discussion any way?

Because people keep responding to my posts. If there is nothing to object to in my posts, then why respond to them?

I just wanted to nip all the comparisons with gay marriage in the bud. A compelling legal argument can be made to show that the U.S. Constitution mandates recognition of gay marriage. However, there is no such compelling legal argument for polygamous marriage.

Of course there is, if the underlying philosophies of the constitution and the bill of rights apply. Just because such a legal argument has not been made before, doesn't mean none exists.

Frankly, I think its right there in the freedom of religious expression, and free to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness bits, myself.

[cestlefun17]

So you're selectively stripping an argument based on legal ramifications not part of said argument, but then trying to criticise the makers of the argument as a whole?

I am only concerning myself with U.S. case law. There is nothing in U.S. case law that says that just because something isn't harming anybody means that it is automatically a right. If you can point me to U.S. case law that suggests otherwise, I'd be more than happy to re-consider my position.

Clearly, the issue of harm does come into te arguments of freedom and self-determination. If not from a legal standpoint, then from a constitutional standpoint. If one invokes the Supreme Court and civil rights, one cannot simply hide behind "legislation!" Because the supreme court no longer suits them.

You are looking at the quotation "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" far too literally. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was not literally referring to people's right to swing their fist ending when they physically hurt someone. The meaning of that quotation is that the exercise of one's rights ends when they begin to interfere with other people's rights. We have not yet established that polygamous marriage is a right, so just because it may not hurt anyone or interfere with other people's rights makes no difference: you have to prove it fits into this paradigm by first proving it is a right.

The question at hand is: Does a law restricting marriage to couples deny equal protection of the law to polygamous groups? This is dependent fully on what "equal protection of the law" means and is not for me or you to define: it has been defined extensively in United States case law and I have talked about that at much length in previous posts.

Of course there is, if the underlying philosophies of the constitution and the bill of rights apply. Just because such a legal argument has not been made before, doesn't mean none exists.

Good! Wonderful! What is this legal argument?

Frankly, I think its right there in the freedom of religious expression, and free to pursue life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness bits, myself.

The courts aren't interested in what you personally think. It's not a legal argument. Please back these statements up using U.S. case law. Thank you.

[Amaranth]

Jul 24, 2011 14:09:15 GMT -5 cestlefun17 said:

I am only concerning myself with U.S. case law. There is nothing in U.S. case law that says that just because something isn't harming anybody means that it is automatically a right. If you can point me to U.S. case law that suggests otherwise, I'd be more than happy to re-consider my position.

RULES LAWYERING! Gotcha. I'm narrowly defining things NOW, because those other things I mentioned are detrimental.

Or, let me go about this a different way, Oh mighty min-maxer....If that was your argument, why bring up the concept of consenting adults in the first place, since there is no real "case law" to suggest that, either? You brought up half an argument with no real bearing in case law to shoot it down because it was convenient to misinterpret it, it seems. Now it looks like you're trying to argue the part you deliberately omited had no bearing, when really, none of this should particularly have bearing on case law in the first place.

You are looking at the quotation "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" far too literally. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was not literally referring to people's right to swing their fist ending when they physically hurt someone.

Not only was that the question placed before him (granted, as a thought experiment) that made that line, it had to do with the rights of free speech to do things like shout "fire" in a crowded theater. This does come back to the issue of harm.

Perhaps you should consider you are taking my interpretation too literally.

We have not yet established that polygamous marriage is a right

But that's not honestly your issue, or you wouldn't be trying to mix and match.

The question at hand is: Does a law restricting marriage to couples deny equal protection of the law to polygamous groups? This is dependent fully on what "equal protection of the law" means and is not for me or you to define: it has been defined extensively in United States case law and I have talked about that at much length in previous posts.

ir the same rules lawyering that allowed us to treat niggers as animals and womynz as properteez.

The concept that seemed to get you so offended in the first place.

The courts aren't interested in what you personally think.[/quote]

Which is totally relevant, because this is a court.

Oh, right, you rephrased the discussion to those terms, we didn't. You're trying to hold things to a standard frequently not held by the people expressing opinions. Regardless, you have already established it is not for you or me to decide, which kind of renders your own critique moot. So don't tell someone else the courts don't care. I'm pretty sure most of us don't really care whether the courts think it's right or not. Just as the courts are not influenced by public opinion, public opinion is not influenced directly by the court.

Again, we could take this back to "the courts have spoken. Blacks are property."

No amount of LE defense of that statement is really going to curb statements of what should or should not be.

I can't speak for LHM, but it appears he is speaking of what should be, not what the courts determine. The courts used to determine that the rights enumerated in ths US COnstitution applied only to white males. I seriously doubt you would argue it was right of them to do so, but then, taking the discussion back down this path verges dangerously on an honest assessment of what was originally being said.

[erictheblue]

Jul 24, 2011 14:55:29 GMT -5 Amaranth said:

Again, we could take this back to "the courts have spoken. Blacks are property."

No amount of LE defense of that statement is really going to curb statements of what should or should not be.

You just reinforced his point. That was changed because the constitution was changed, not because public opinion changed. (You can say that the constitution changed because public opinion changed, but the end result is that court opinions were changed because of changes to the constitution, not changes in public opinion.)

Cestle has conceded several times that legislative changes are a valid way to recognized poly marriage, but changes through the courts would not work.

I can't speak for LHM, but it appears he is speaking of what should be, not what the courts determine. The courts used to determine that the rights enumerated in ths US COnstitution applied only to white males.

Yup, which changed because of the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments. Again, legislative process...

[cestlefun17]

RULES LAWYERING! Gotcha. I'm narrowly defining things NOW, because those other things I mentioned are detrimental.

I've said right from the get-go that I'm only interested in the constitutional aspect of polygamous marriage: that the mitigating circumstances surrounding same-sex marriage are not at all similar to polygamous marriage, at least from a purely legal perspective. Everyone is free is discuss anything else. If you're not interested in the constitutional aspect though, then don't reply to my posts. It's just that simple.

Not only was that the question placed before him (granted, as a thought experiment) that made that line, it had to do with the rights of free speech to do things like shout "fire" in a crowded theater. This does come back to the issue of harm.

Perhaps you should consider you are taking my interpretation too literally.

Regardless, if "swinging your fist" is analogous to polygamous marriage, then you haven't yet proven that you have a right to "swing your fist" to begin with (i.e. enter into a polygamous marriage). Whether Holmes was considering actual physical harm or not, he was still referring to the extent that we may exercise our rights. Is polygamous marriage a right? Please explain.

Or, let me go about this a different way, Oh mighty min-maxer....If that was your argument, why bring up the concept of consenting adults in the first place, since there is no real "case law" to suggest that, either? You brought up half an argument with no real bearing in case law to shoot it down because it was convenient to misinterpret it, it seems. Now it looks like you're trying to argue the part you deliberately omited had no bearing, when really, none of this should particularly have bearing on case law in the first place.

I've said right from the beginning that just because something involves consenting adults does not make it a civil right. I really don't understand what you're saying here.

Oh, right, you rephrased the discussion to those terms, we didn't. You're trying to hold things to a standard frequently not held by the people expressing opinions. Regardless, you have already established it is not for you or me to decide, which kind of renders your own critique moot. So don't tell someone else the courts don't care. I'm pretty sure most of us don't really care whether the courts think it's right or not. Just as the courts are not influenced by public opinion, public opinion is not influenced directly by the court.

If you want to talk about your opinions outside the scope of law, that's perfectly fine. Just don't respond to my posts then because it's not the conversation I'm interested in having.

I can't speak for LHM, but it appears he is speaking of what should be, not what the courts determine. The courts used to determine that the rights enumerated in ths US Constitution applied only to white males.

And now we have the 13th and 14th Amendments, and the case law deriving from them. Before these amendments, no, black slaves were 3/5 of a person and had no rights. Thankfully we amended the Constitution to correct this.

The Constitutional question a law limiting marriage to two people would present is: Does a law limiting marriage to two people violate the 14th Amendment's right to equal protection of the law for polygamous groups? Don't try to distract with mindless gibberish. Just answer the question calmly and rationally.

---

Thank you, erictheblue! Just out of curiosity: are you a lawyer? You humorously mentioned in another post that you would "switch to family law" if polygamous marriage became legal because the need for family lawyers would skyrocket.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Okay, so now we don't have to deal with anybody responding to anybody in this thread any more. Cestle's argument boils down to "It's a matter of legislation, not courts." As does pretty much everyone else.

Wasn't that simple?