|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 21:59:44 GMT -5
Vene...I am not moving goalposts. I said polygamy was mostly a cultural phenomenon, you provided statistics showing that some cultures are monogamous, some cultures are polygamous. And I pointed out that one of those predominately monogamous cultures is the United States.
As for marriage being unnatural or natural, it is not germane to the argument at hand because the government is not compelled to recognize something due to its naturalness. I do not agree that civil marriage contracts are "natural," but it's not worth arguing it because it is distracting from the debate at hand.
The notion of different tiers of judicial scrutiny come from the Supreme Court case United States v. Carolene Products Co. (304 U.S. 144) and the definitions as to what constitutes a suspect class and strict scrutiny derive from a variety of Supreme Court rulings (e.g. Yick Wo v. Hopkins 118 U.S. 356). A suspect class must meet four criteria:
1. It must have limited political power.
2. It must have suffered a history of discrimination.
3. It must have an immutable characteristic.
4. It must form a discrete group.
The link you provided gives a perfect summary of everything I've been saying and more. It talks about people must be in "similar conditions and circumstances" (the "similarly situated" test I was talking about). A very important point it makes is that the courts do not concern themselves with an outcome of a law, only its *application*. Only the equal application of the law has importance.
The burden of proof is on the complainant (you in this case) to prove what level of scrutiny is appropriate. To do some of your homework for you, strict scrutiny is applicable when a law burdens members of a suspect class or when it infringes on a fundamental right (such as marriage).
While marriage is a fundamental right, this does not mean that the government is forbidden from imposing any restriction on it. If you were a complainant demanding polygamous marriage, this means that you have already been married and are seeking an additional marriage. Your fundamental right to marry is not infringed because you are married. Furthermore, you are free to dissolve your union and re-marry with no infringement by the government. Therefore, the triggering of strict scrutiny would rest on whether or not people who are in polygamous relationships constitute a suspect class. I have explained previously why they are not. Your reply brief in this court case would have to address all of this.
---
Thanks erictheblue for clarifying that distinction. I think what I meant to write was that religion is not a suspect class. But because religious expression is embodied in the First Amendment, it is a fundamental right.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 22:19:58 GMT -5
You are the one who brought up the naturality of marriage, you twit. That is why you are being accused of moving goalposts. And with poly relationships being so widespread that is strong evidence that it is a part of human nature, especially when they exist within a climate that seeks to oppress such behavior.
Also, a Supreme Court case is an interpretation of the Constitution, not the Constitution itself. Shit gets reinterpreted all the time.
One more thing, with the Mormon case in the OP, they aren't trying to get an additional marriage, they don't have to have an additional marriage for them to be felons. They want to live in the same home, with a single marriage between two individuals of legal age. This is a different situation than polygamy being a civil rights issue (due to marriage being a civil right, not just the ability to marry somebody, but who you love), one that can be tackled with a change to the laws; something you seem to be ignoring. The distinction between poly marriage's future legality and the Mormons in the OP is very important.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 22:44:00 GMT -5
You are the one who brought up "polygamy is natural" as an argument. And I said right from the get-go that "Just because it's natural to be attracted to more than one person simultaneously does not necessitate that the government recognize it in marriage. Marriage itself is unnatural: it seeks to create stability and order in our chaotic natural system." That second sentence was superfluous and not worth defending. I've been saying right from the beginning that whether or not something is or is not natural does not compel the government to recognize it.
Like I said before, everyone has the capacity to be sexually attracted to more than one person at the same time. Some cultures allow for people to channel this sexual attraction into more than one recognized relationship, some do not. Even if most societies allow for polygamy, this has no bearing on United States case law, one of those societies that is predominately monogamous.
We are a common law country, so our case law has just as much importance as the statutory law itself. The official interpretation of our Constitution is the binding authority on the extent and nature of its powers. While Supreme Court cases do get overturned, you have to provide a cogent legal argument as to why a reversal is appropriate.
I do understand this distinction; it's just that the conversation has drifted to recognition of polygamous marriages. I am fully with the complainants in this case, but the important thing to note is that this case will most likely be decided on 4th Amendment right-to-privacy grounds, not 14th Amendment equal-protection grounds.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 16, 2011 22:52:43 GMT -5
I'm tired of talking to somebody who doesn't actually address the points I make, especially when said person is a boring twit. At least be interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Jul 16, 2011 22:56:14 GMT -5
Argument is over. Thread is now about explosions.  |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 16, 2011 23:10:23 GMT -5
Apparently the Supreme Court decides civil rights matters based on whose side is more fun and interesting. Hopefully the complainants in this case will appear before the court in a clown costume.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 17, 2011 7:43:53 GMT -5
Argument is over. Thread is now about explosions. ...Can I marry it? |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 17, 2011 8:10:46 GMT -5
While marriage is a fundamental right, this does not mean that the government is forbidden from imposing any restriction on it. If you were a complainant demanding polygamous marriage, this means that you have already been married and are seeking an additional marriage. Your fundamental right to marry is not infringed because you are married. Furthermore, you are free to dissolve your union and re-marry with no infringement by the government. Therefore, the triggering of strict scrutiny would rest on whether or not people who are in polygamous relationships constitute a suspect class. I have explained previously why they are not. Your reply brief in this court case would have to address all of this. This argument reads like a rebranding of the idea that a homosexual couple's marriage rights aren't being infringed because they are legally allowed to go and marry someone of the opposite gender... |
|
|
|
Post by malicious_bloke on Jul 17, 2011 8:12:06 GMT -5
Also,  |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 17, 2011 8:33:42 GMT -5
How so? A gay couple coming into court would not be married, whereas a polygamist coming into court (in order to have standing) must be married.
Being married is a status: either you are married or you are not married. A polygamist would have attained the status of being married whereas a gay person would not.
|
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 17, 2011 9:15:59 GMT -5
I'm tired of talking to somebody who doesn't actually address the points I make, especially when said person is a boring twit. At least be interesting. Which points were missed? I don't mean that to be sarcastic - I honestly got lost in some of this discussion, as it kept going different directions. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 17, 2011 9:28:46 GMT -5
e: I like this video better.
|
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Jul 17, 2011 22:16:57 GMT -5
How so? A gay couple coming into court would not be married, whereas a polygamist coming into court (in order to have standing) must be married. Being married is a status: either you are married or you are not married. A polygamist would have attained the status of being married whereas a gay person would not. Why would they have to? Why would a non-married trio who wants to marry have to be married to be considered polygamous? |
|
|
|
Post by sylvana on Jul 18, 2011 3:49:46 GMT -5
Why would they have to? Why would a non-married trio who wants to marry have to be married to be considered polygamous? I think part of the issue is that those 3 people would be attempting to attain marriage rights all equally which is completely unsupported at this point in time in American law. In most polygamous societies that I know of, first a single couple gets married and then additional partners are appended after that with the initial couple having preference in all legal matters. Of course this is also only in a one to many relationship scenario with a single focal person. This kind of law would be completely incompatible with 3 people getting married at the same time, or a many to many marriage scenario. I also understand a bit where cestlefun17 is coming from. By a couple being married already and then challenging the system for polygamous marriage proves that their fundamental right of marriage is not being violated just the scope of such a marriage. In a given 3 person scenario any combination of marriage between the any two of the persons involved is possible (assuming gay marriage is legal here), but the scope of the marriage is insufficient as the final option of all 3 is currently not possible. This is not quite comparable with gay rights because gays are actively being denied marriage. Further, for polygamous marriage to actually be legal gay marriage would have to be legal first, as in any 3 person marriage at least one link will be a same sex marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Jul 18, 2011 8:00:45 GMT -5
You're right, this is a scenario I didn't consider. I was only considering the "traditional" form of polygamy as an sylvana pointed out. But still, the trio could leave city hall with a marriage in some form (with one person excluded) because their fundamental right to marry is being denied based solely on the number of people. "Number of people" is not a biological or immutable barrier to getting married, like sex or sexual orientation.
That last sentence sparked the question: in a 3-person marriage, if A married B and C, would B also necessarily be married to C? Or could A and B marry without B being married to C (this is actually the "traditional" polygamous set-up). Imagine the permutations possible with A, B, C, D, and E! A is married to all but E and B is only married to A, C and D whereas C is married to A and B. D is married to A, B, and E, and E is married only to D.
And what if A later wants to marry F? Does he need permission from the other people he's married to (B, C, and D)? Or if A just marries F can he do it without anyone else's permission? What if F has a viral STD? Does he also need permission from E, because E is married to D who is married to A?
NOW does everyone see why this set-up is COMPLETELY different from gay couples getting married??
|
|
