Muslims/Radical Muslims vs. LDS/FLDS

[FMCoug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So you think polygamy should be legal?

I do. And not because I want to practice it or think the Church should go back to it. But outlawing it was/is clearly unconstitutional.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

I do. And not because I want to practice it or think the Church should go back to it. But outlawing it was/is clearly unconstitutional.

I'm inclined to agree, subject to very careful oversight of polygamous relationships to ensure it's not essentially a cover for pedophilia.

[SoonerCoug]

I'm not a lawyer, so this whole issue confuses me.

What makes recognizing marriage between a man and a woman constitutional in the first place? I'd think that recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, but not a woman and a woman, would be unconstitutional. And if polygyny is constitutional, then polyandry has to be constitutional as well. Same goes for all kinds of complex relationships that involve many people. What's to stop someone from entering into a polygamous relationship consisting of 2000 people, so that they can all share buy into one employed person's health insurance?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

I'm not a lawyer, so this whole issue confuses me.

What makes recognizing marriage between a man and a woman constitutional in the first place? I'd think that recognizing marriage between a man and a woman, but not a woman and a woman, would be unconstitutional. And if polygyny is constitutional, then polyandry has to be constitutional as well. Same goes for all kinds of complex relationships that involve many people. What's to stop someone from entering into a polygamous relationship consisting of 2000 people, so that they can all share buy into one employed person's health insurance?

I think the theoretical ability to procreate comes into play.

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I think the theoretical ability to procreate comes into play.

So where does it say in the constitution that theoretical ability to procreate is required in order to enter a legal union between two people?

Based on this logic, people with ambiguous genitalia who cannot procreate shouldn't ever be allowed to get married (e.g. Jamie Lee Curtis).

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So where does it say in the constitution that theoretical ability to procreate is required in order to enter a legal union between two people?

Let's take this from a different angle: what is the traditional purpose of marriage?

[SoonerCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Let's take this from a different angle: what is the traditional purpose of marriage?

I don't think we can take this from a different angle when we're talking about constitutionality. The constitution can't be applied differently to people based on their theoretical reproductive capacity.

[Archaea]

I have not looked at the issue substantively, but my memory seems to point to doctrines with which nonlawyers would be unfamiliar.

It started with the Connecticut case about birth control, where a penumbra of rights under the view of Justice Douglas created certain rights of privacy, including procreative activities. Coupled with substantive due process arguments, we discovered certain protected rights, including perhaps the right to marry whom we wish. It is an unclear and murky area of the law.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by SoonerCoug

So you think polygamy should be legal?

I give it 10-20 years before it is legal. This whole Warren Jeffs issue has caused the normal polygamous communities to start speaking out in an effort to demonstrate the positive aspects of polygamous relationships. Check out "Big Love" sometime. There is no doubt that that show is causing some folks to reconsider their views on polygamy. Polygamy is long indentified with a wacky religious movement, and one in which the religion responsible for Polygamy has worked like hell to dissassociate itself of the practice and or justify its short usefull life. Now that normal folks who are polygamous are stepping up to not only say we are polygamists but speak out to its benefits, I think it has a short shelf life. Folks will begin to advocate it as choice and instant affiliation of it with child brides will begin to dissipate.

Further, as the conflict with militant Islam grows methinks that normal Muslims, many who live Polygamy here in the USA, will also begin to get more and more attention. All these factors will continue to shake up the way most Americans view polygamy. Inevitably the polygamy advocates will form an alliance with the gay marriage folks, and methinks both are legal in two decades.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

I give it 10-20 years before it is legal. This whole Warren Jeffs issue has caused the normal polygamous communities to start speaking out in an effort to demonstrate the positive aspects of polygamous relationships. Check out "Big Love" sometime. There is no doubt that that show is causing some folks to reconsider their views on polygamy. Polygamy is long indentified with a wacky religious movement, and one in which the religion responsible for Polygamy has worked like hell to dissassociate itself of the practice and or justify its short usefull life. Now that normal folks who are polygamous are stepping up to not only say we are polygamists but speak out to its benefits, I think it has a short shelf life. Folks will begin to advocate it as choice and instant affiliation of it with child brides will begin to dissipate.

Further, as the conflict with militant Islam grows methinks that normal Muslims, many who live Polygamy here in the USA, will also begin to get more and more attention. All these factors will continue to shake up the way most Americans view polygamy. Inevitably the polygamy advocates will form an alliance with the gay marriage folks, and methinks both are legal in two decades.

Methinks that your analysis is sound.