General Discussion

prayin4rain

(2,065 posts)

156. Point is the Court determined it was required under the fourteenth

Thu Jul 9, 2015, 02:35 PM

Jul 2015

Last edited Thu Jul 9, 2015, 05:08 PM - Edit history (1)

amendment. You started this by saying it was granted based on the concept of dignity, not equal protection. That's BS. The opinion literally starts: The Fourteenth Amendment requires. ....

Then you started saying, nope, not equal protection because gays are not a suspect class. ...blah, blah

Now you start talking about due process. ...geez, red herrings abound.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

278 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gay people can have multipartner relationships too. [View all] Kurska Jul 2015 OP

Do they want to get married? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #1

Who? Gay people in multi-partner relationships? Kurska Jul 2015 #2

Yes, I'm sorry. I should have been more clear. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #6

Part of why I stress it so much. Kurska Jul 2015 #8

It's that concept of dignity that has Jonathan Turley worried Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #11

Tell us something we don't know. People can set up whatever snagglepuss Jul 2015 #3

Why, because you said so? Kurska Jul 2015 #4

Not every relationship is entitled to equal dignity, for instance the law prevents snagglepuss Jul 2015 #12

Comparing the behavior of consenting adults in relationships based on love to child rape is wrong. Kurska Jul 2015 #14

In many cultures its acceptable. Why are you being ethnocentric? snagglepuss Jul 2015 #16

So you're really making the argument that marrying more than one person is the moral equivalent of Kurska Jul 2015 #18

Cultures that practice don't consider it rape. You are placing snagglepuss Jul 2015 #22

I'm not justifying this with a response anymore. Kurska Jul 2015 #24

Girls aren't abducted as the parents make the arrangements. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #38

So, you are being disingenuous, and Kurska hasn't argued for some stupid, mindless.. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #37

We're assuming that age of consent laws stay in place Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #42

The concept of female having consent is culturally determined. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #48

The concept of females having self-determination and rights is not a cultural determinant. Kurska Jul 2015 #54

The concept of anyone having consent is culturally determined, and has little to do... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #57

India may not consider it rape, but it is indeed, by definition rape. LanternWaste Jul 2015 #134

Looky here. An ad hominen attack. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #29

Looky here. An ad hominen attack. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #31

If the shoe fits, wear it. Kurska Jul 2015 #35

The premise that all behavior of consenting adults is equal is actually debatable kcr Jul 2015 #147

You do realize you are being disingenuous, no one is saying that people should be free... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #153

I'm not saying that anyone is claiming that kcr Jul 2015 #226

The behavior of consenting adults is none of your business. Kurska Jul 2015 #164

Regulating consenting adult behavior is everybody's business. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #167

Consenting sexuality is not something that needs restrictions. Kurska Jul 2015 #170

Nobody is suggesting laws regarding sexuality. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #174

Those studies are examining cultures and religions that are extremely misogynistic and abusive... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #178

But those are all about polyamory. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #180

How does polyamory become bad if the government extends some marital rights.... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #225

Only if you don't believe in or care about community and society. kcr Jul 2015 #227

"Not every relationship is entitled to equal dignity". Quackers Jul 2015 #204

Three man can write out a contract if they want to legalize a snagglepuss Jul 2015 #221

I heard a lot of people pushing that same bullshit line when same sex marriage came up. Quackers Jul 2015 #230

Listen to you. You're the bigot. I support same sex snagglepuss Jul 2015 #231

How nice of you to call me names! Quackers Jul 2015 #236

You are the one who called me bigoted for no reason other than you not snagglepuss Jul 2015 #238

No, not every relationship is entitled to equal dignity. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #27

I don't think the OP was talking about incest Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #30

"two- person marriage are more special, unique and committed" Kurska Jul 2015 #32

It's by definition. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #58

The idea that you can only "truly" love one person or that love is some sort of limited resource Kurska Jul 2015 #64

So my prince charming isn't coming? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #79

Not at all, just be prepared that there might be two of them. Kurska Jul 2015 #80

Now that's an interesting thought! Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #82

This is amusing. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #125

So basically your argument boils down to prejudice. That's nice. n/t Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #39

"I don't like it, don't allow it" Kurska Jul 2015 #47

Even worse, they are using the exact same arguments against same sex marriage to criticize... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #49

It really is amazing isn't it? Kurska Jul 2015 #68

Not really all that amazing The2ndWheel Jul 2015 #133

Well spoken Hydra Jul 2015 #5

Polyamory has been legal for quite some time. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #7

Are you gay? Are you familiar with things like denied hospital visitation and a host of other issues Kurska Jul 2015 #9

Simple solution: pick your favorite and marry that one. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #17

Would it really be so horrible to you if they had basic things like HOSPITAL VISITATION. Kurska Jul 2015 #21

Lobby for it. Seems like something a person could stip to. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #23

I'm asking if you are opposed to that. Kurska Jul 2015 #26

Not opposed to people being able to designate hospital geek tragedy Jul 2015 #51

Gay people had a hell of a hard time with that for decades. Kurska Jul 2015 #53

I'm aware. People should be able to designate their own geek tragedy Jul 2015 #60

And you should be aware there are a host of other legal rights that come with marriage. Kurska Jul 2015 #61

There is no liberty interest at stake. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #126

I actually would like to see us able to legally create our families from our friends Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #55

Free association under whatever terms consenting adults decide. Kurska Jul 2015 #59

For people who have "normal" lives that work, they just don't get it. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #62

Exactly, family is who you choose. It is the people most dear to you. Kurska Jul 2015 #65

Yes yes yes yes yes! Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #66

I can't speak as an expert on aids history. Kurska Jul 2015 #67

So they would fight the AIDS victim's will? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #69

Yup, not just with aids. Kurska Jul 2015 #70

And the family had nothing to do with them, I'll bet Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #71

Yup, kick someone out when they are a teenager Kurska Jul 2015 #72

This is why you should be able to divorce your abusive parents Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #73

Bingo Kurska Jul 2015 #90

We'd be in affinity groups? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #92

Immediate dissocation or association with individuals based on simple legal work. Kurska Jul 2015 #93

Maybe. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #96

What kind of hospital visitation problems are you talking about? muriel_volestrangler Jul 2015 #121

Think, what if it is the partner outside of the marriage that is in the hospital. Kurska Jul 2015 #122

Bold statement there Greek! TM99 Jul 2015 #36

... Kurska Jul 2015 #45

I say everyone in the US gets married in one giant ceremony to each other The Straight Story Jul 2015 #10

I don't want to be married to Donald Trump Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #13

LOL You just me me snort my Radler. snagglepuss Jul 2015 #15

Facebook could add a "marry" button. nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #19

Word salad. romanic Jul 2015 #20

This response reminds me of a quote Kurska Jul 2015 #25

Is this some attempt at a comeback? romanic Jul 2015 #28

You got anything in your bag of tricks besides "You fail" or "You don't make sense." Kurska Jul 2015 #33

Considering romanic Jul 2015 #41

I'm gay, it is my victory to. Kurska Jul 2015 #43

Polygamy romanic Jul 2015 #52

Keep saying that over and over again. Kurska Jul 2015 #56

Tide? romanic Jul 2015 #100

Huh, I had no problem understanding it. uppityperson Jul 2015 #46

Was concise and easy to read LittleBlue Jul 2015 #75

Please define any and all limits to what you propose...the we can discuss. pkdu Jul 2015 #34

I think the tax code is a special issue. Kurska Jul 2015 #40

Tax code, social security spousal/survivor benefits, JustABozoOnThisBus Jul 2015 #262

I would say that reasonable restrictions would be similar to those allowed for two person marriages. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #44

Yup, people who don't understand marriage always throw that out Kurska Jul 2015 #50

Exactly, marriage is a contract with certain expectations, indeed, there are some that... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #63

You still haven't said what you consider should be the maximum number of spouses pnwmom Jul 2015 #101

I think polygamist marriage wouldn't be so common that it would represent a huge burden. Kurska Jul 2015 #106

Except they would have the legal argument that their marriages shouldn't be subject pnwmom Jul 2015 #108

Same way you justify them for marriage to non-citizens. Kurska Jul 2015 #111

I had a friend who married a man from overseas Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #113

But people trying to immigrate here have a reason for possible fraud -- to obtain citizenship. pnwmom Jul 2015 #116

A marriage between 3 people maybe, but a marriage of 10,000 people would certainly draw additional Kurska Jul 2015 #117

Again, the law would have to define a limit. How would you justify a particular number of marriages pnwmom Jul 2015 #118

Why? Some marriages to foreign spouses draw less or more scrutiny based on circumstances. Kurska Jul 2015 #120

Because laws have to have a rational basis. There is a rational basis, based on a multitude of pnwmom Jul 2015 #123

They could go with Biblical precedent. That would be 701 total spouses max per marriage. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #130

Thanks for at least trying pkdu Jul 2015 #243

People looking for polygamous relationships are rare mythology Jul 2015 #74

Rights are not something that is doled out on a practical basis. Kurska Jul 2015 #76

Why do you say the religious 'cults' are 'bad behavior'? If it is bad, then how would you prevent Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #135

The same way you do for monogamous relationships, domestic abuse and exploitation is not... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #154

But it is a problem in polygamy. bravenak Jul 2015 #229

Wrong it is associated with Polgyny Kurska Jul 2015 #260

No. It is because they are right there and noticeable. bravenak Jul 2015 #265

How is homosexual polygamy associated with any of those? Kurska Jul 2015 #266

Prove to us that we should allow you to marry a bunch of people. bravenak Jul 2015 #267

Of course they can. And if they want, they can select one person to marry, pnwmom Jul 2015 #77

"Gay men have the same rights that straight men have, they are free to marry any woman of their Kurska Jul 2015 #78

There is a key difference. No one is born polygamous. It actually IS a "lifestyle" choice, pnwmom Jul 2015 #81

You contradicted yourself Kurska Jul 2015 #83

No I didn't. Polygamy refers to a marriage relationship, specifically. pnwmom Jul 2015 #84

How is someone being nautrally gay and wanting a gay marriage Kurska Jul 2015 #85

Because being naturally polyamorous is just being human. pnwmom Jul 2015 #87

I think if we are predicating the right to marriage inborn sexuality (which I do not do). Kurska Jul 2015 #89

How would that work on a practical basis? Would you set any limit on the number of spouses? pnwmom Jul 2015 #94

May I refer you to the sub-thread that started with post 34. Kurska Jul 2015 #97

All my THIS. JackInGreen Jul 2015 #109

You know, the way I read the Washington Post article Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #86

It really does amaze me. Kurska Jul 2015 #88

I think Justice Kennedy may agree Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #91

Tatiana La Belle-Posting Privileges Revoked 7-10, just fyi. Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #270

Good riddance. bravenak Jul 2015 #272

But note the OP, chatting away with the big fake and carrying on as if they had some big Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #274

I very much did notice they had a rapport. bravenak Jul 2015 #275

It's not, that Titiana was also Wella who started it all. Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #277

True. bravenak Jul 2015 #278

Ugh, what a waste of time. Wtf is wrong with people? prayin4rain Jul 2015 #273

I don't want to step over any line here, but Kennedy's decision seems to not be concerned with Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #95

And the polyamorous do have the right to marriage. And to any other additional relationship pnwmom Jul 2015 #98

Well not yet. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #99

Oh, you mean they have the right to marry one person. I don't think that's what Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #102

Yeah, that's Turley's opinion. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #103

Well, Turley actually analyzed the decision in a professional capacity here Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #105

Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg disagreed with Roberts's dissent, pnwmom Jul 2015 #119

Er, you are posting Constitutional analysis from Utah's Attorney General--posted on fox13now.com? Romulox Jul 2015 #128

Turley never mentions Roberts Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #183

He doesn't but he parrots Roberts's arguments. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #189

Maybe Turley just read the text and came to similar conclusions Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #190

Seriously? You're seriously arguing that Turley, who's preparing for an important legal case, pnwmom Jul 2015 #195

No, I'm arguing that Kennedy's own words would be enough for Turley's argument Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #201

Well, Turley's argument is just a rehash of Roberts', and that point of view pnwmom Jul 2015 #203

Turley, I am sure, came to his own conclusions Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #205

This is correct. Kennedy's opinion sounded in "Dignity", not "Equal Protection". Romulox Jul 2015 #127

WHAT?? The court LITERALLY stated: prayin4rain Jul 2015 #136

The Court specifically did not make Lesbians and Gays a Protected Class. That's what a Romulox Jul 2015 #139

The Fourteenth Amendment does not just protect prayin4rain Jul 2015 #145

The word "just" didn't appear in my post. nt Romulox Jul 2015 #150

Good. So, you agree that the Court held that States must prayin4rain Jul 2015 #151

Fourteenth encompasses Due Process as well as Equal Protection. Romulox Jul 2015 #152

Point is the Court determined it was required under the fourteenth prayin4rain Jul 2015 #156

That's because "due process" was in the Kennedy decision, not protection of gays as a class Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #192

Well, I disagree. The court, in my opinion, makes it clear that prayin4rain Jul 2015 #196

Actually, Turley is very clear that it is due process, and not a protection of gays as a class Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #200

It doesn't take a protected class to invoke the prayin4rain Jul 2015 #208

But that's not what the decision says. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #211

I am, actually. Lawyers argue over what opinions mean prayin4rain Jul 2015 #212

That is very helpful then. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #215

Sure, I can, but it will take time and I'm currently typing prayin4rain Jul 2015 #217

OK. Thank you. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #218

Not at all! prayin4rain Jul 2015 #219

Ok, so how do you do that wavy smilie guy? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #224

I've finally prayin4rain Jul 2015 #232

Thank you for the link. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #233

Turley is saying that not relying on civil rights legislation makes the future unclear Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #234

Yes, he's prayin4rain Jul 2015 #235

OK. So that's the basis of Turley's argument Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #237

Well, kinda. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #240

I'm going through this very slowly Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #241

I think that's where Turley's article prayin4rain Jul 2015 #242

I see. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #245

So to make it possible for "marriage" to be the actual term used Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #244

Sorry, prayin4rain Jul 2015 #246

OK, so it was really procreation that was the fundamental right? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #247

I want to take prayin4rain Jul 2015 #248

So my difficulty in understanding it is not unusual? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #249

No, it's not unusual prayin4rain Jul 2015 #250

Thank you. It's been very confusing with a number of articles giving opinions. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #251

Yep, that's what I think. prayin4rain Jul 2015 #252

Thank you for your time. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #254

Yeah, of course, thank you for your time. :) n/t prayin4rain Jul 2015 #256

Just trying to understand. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #257

OH! You already have a smilie. See, I am tired. :) n/t prayin4rain Jul 2015 #253

I was using a colon and parentheses Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #255

That's what Turley is saying. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #184

Turley is John Boehner's lawyer nt geek tragedy Jul 2015 #140

Turley is also Kody Brown's lawyer Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #185

the Utah ban on cohabitation is pretty clearly unconstitutional. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #186

Except that Turley has a case and a client that could push the envelope Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #187

Lol, no, Kody Brown doesn't get to have his harem subsidized geek tragedy Jul 2015 #188

If Turley can make an effective argument based on Kennedy's concept of dignity Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #191

he can't, and he won't. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #193

"Have not" is past tense. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #198

And rich people can't sleep under bridges, just like poor people! Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #131

Monogamy isn't an "orientation," it's a practice. pnwmom Jul 2015 #137

marriage is not an orientation, it's a practice. nt Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #141

Exactly. And practices can be regulated. pnwmom Jul 2015 #142

So then what is the 'rationale' for telling three consenting adults who love each other Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #143

If a majority of people wanted to support expanding legal marriage to include polygamous groupings, pnwmom Jul 2015 #146

There's just as much harm to women and children in monogamous relationships. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #149

That isn't what the research shows. n/t pnwmom Jul 2015 #157

There are a thousand Ray Rices out there for every Warren Jeffs. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #158

Your opinion on that won't be useful to the courts, but the research studies pnwmom Jul 2015 #159

Apples and oranges. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #162

Modern egalitarian cultures evolved AWAY FROM polygamy, and that helped them become pnwmom Jul 2015 #163

You're confusing polygamy with polygyny Kurska Jul 2015 #171

I'm abandoning the term polygamy because most of these posters refuse to make distinctions. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #175

No, I'm not. If group marriages were legalized, pnwmom Jul 2015 #181

But what about legalizing or recognizing polyamorous relationships? Since polygamy is a loaded term. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #172

What would the upper limit be on the number of spouses? pnwmom Jul 2015 #182

But that's not legal argument. Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #194

What isn't legal argument? Research is often provided to the Courts pnwmom Jul 2015 #197

"If a majority of people wanted to support expanding legal marriage to include polygamous groupings" Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #199

This is a Democracy and that's how it usually works. pnwmom Jul 2015 #202

The court is not elected and constitutional issues are not decided by ballot measures Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #206

When deciding on a "rational basis" for a law, the Court relies on research provided to it by the parties. pnwmom Jul 2015 #209

Research is the key word: academic journals, amicus briefs from interested parties Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #210

Yes, and the published, peer-reviewed, academic research agrees on the negative effects of polygamy. pnwmom Jul 2015 #213

So you're conceding the point about popularity? Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #214

I never argued that popularity was the sole basis for approving laws. It's just one basis. pnwmom Jul 2015 #220

OK. I can see you're not a person of integrity Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #222

Tatiana La Belle-Posting Privileges Revoked 7-10 Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #269

the same as any other non-discriminatory legislation--that the recognition and encouragement geek tragedy Jul 2015 #148

Do you really not see how you arguements are recyled word for word from gay marriage opponents? Kurska Jul 2015 #173

If one adopts the glibertarian approach to this issue, sure. geek tragedy Jul 2015 #176

" Polygamy advocates want to destroy the institution of monogamous marriage" Kurska Jul 2015 #259

No, I am stating facts. The rightwing talking point is that offered by yourself and Samuel geek tragedy Jul 2015 #263

You're stating opinions. Kurska Jul 2015 #264

Your glibertarian bent has caused you to confuse the liberty interest geek tragedy Jul 2015 #268

Who said they can't? ibegurpard Jul 2015 #104

It was even more specific JackInGreen Jul 2015 #107

Thank you Kurska JackInGreen Jul 2015 #110

Part of why supporting this is so great is you get to stick it to people like Scalia Kurska Jul 2015 #112

Me too, Kurska. Chan790 Jul 2015 #258

Post removed Post removed Jul 2015 #114

Enjoy your free pizza. EOM Kurska Jul 2015 #115

Crap. Now I have to trash "multi-partner" ismnotwasm Jul 2015 #124

I'm shocked, SHOCKED by people who not only auto-trash, but tell everyone they are auto-trashing. Kurska Jul 2015 #261

We are feeding the trolls again get the red out Jul 2015 #129

Actually I've been making a several year sustained argument in favor of sexuality liberty. Kurska Jul 2015 #165

Congratulations get the red out Jul 2015 #179

Good luck. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jul 2015 #132

So I've read the thread and here are my questions and comments to the OP. First, you mention Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #138

I guess it was too much to expect people to celebrate SSM now being legal. Rex Jul 2015 #144

Its a reaction to the anti-poly posts, look at geek tragedy as an example of this. Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #155

Yes it does. If shitty people exploit my community as a device to insult another I will stand with Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #160

So you are saying that all the poly members of DU and their allies should just sit back... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #161

Is that what I said? No, it's not. Any poly members of DU should speak for themselves and Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #216

I'm not the one throwing out wild accusations and generalizations here. n/t Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #223

That's what the author of this post was doing I think Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #228

Ah the PPR'd sock puppet... Bluenorthwest Jul 2015 #271

I was confused by Kurska and motives. Not sure what is going on here. randys1 Jul 2015 #276

I've been vocally in favor of same sex marriage for years on here. Kurska Jul 2015 #166

Doesn't matter, you are advocating for legal recognition of poly relationships, that makes you an... Humanist_Activist Jul 2015 #168

Why does the world remind me so much of a video games sometimes. Kurska Jul 2015 #169

Video games are based on human psychology Tatiana La Belle Jul 2015 #207

Amusingly... Blue_Adept Jul 2015 #177

I am not surprised, though TM99 Jul 2015 #239