GayPatriot Advertising

ADVERTISE AT GAYPATRIOT!

• Random Thought Without Any Links
• Sure, Why Not?
• Well, Now What?
• The Next Target for the Left’s Cultural Purge?
• More Make-Believe Stuff You Will Be Required to Care About
• Are Millennials Discovering New Genders, or Just Trying to Get Attention?
• A Couple of Defectives
• Ban All The Things!
• The Next Phase of the War on Southern Culture
• When Will the Left Ban T-Shirts Celebrating This Racist?

Sure, Why Not?

Gay marriage is legal mandatory now in all 50 states, so why not polygamy?

Now that we’ve defined that love and devotion and family isn’t driven by gender alone, why should it be limited to just two individuals?” he writes. “The most natural advance next for marriage lies in legalized polygamy—yet many of the same people who pressed for marriage equality for gay couples oppose it.”

DeBoer agrees with Chief Justice John Roberts that the reasoning in Obergefell v. Hodges could just as easily apply to polygamous marriages as gay marriages. He notes that now that child-rearing has been rejected as the rationale for marriage, traditional arguments against polygamy have been weakened.

It’s hard to find fault with his reasoning.

• 6

  Share
• 1

  Share
• 0

  Share
• 0

  Share
• 0

  Share
• 0

  Share
• 0

  Share
• 0

  Share

You may also like:

New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm

New Probiotic Fat Burner Takes GNC by Storm

ProbioSlim

GayPatriot » Of Maggie & Movies

GayPatriot » Of Maggie & Movies

GayPatriot » It’s the deficit, stupid

GayPatriot » It’s the deficit, stupid

New Testosterone Booster Takes GNC by Storm

New Testosterone Booster Takes GNC by Storm

ForceFactor

GayPatriot » Hating & Blacklisting Supporters of Traditional Marriage

GayPatriot » Hating & Blacklisting Supporters of Traditional Marriage

New Sleep Aid Takes Walgreens by Storm

New Sleep Aid Takes Walgreens by Storm

PeakLife.com

Easy Way to Remove Wrinkles

Easy Way to Remove Wrinkles

Fit Mom Daily

GayPatriot » Congressional Republicans should take a page from Democrats’ 2005 playbook

GayPatriot » Congressional Republicans should take a page from Democrats’ 2005 playbook

[ what's this ]

33 Comments »

1. Honestly if you accept the premise handed down today, there is no legal reasoning why polygamy or incest should not be included. If the states cannot regulate marriage; then they can’t, and if marriage is under an equal protection standard, then that applies to those couples as well. I am an experienced family law paralegal, and the next decades are really going to suck to muddle through this “constitutional” mess.
   Comment by melle1228 — June 26, 2015 @ 8:14 pm - June 26, 2015
2. VtheK,
   If you are reluctant to support the legalization of gay marriage, why did you get gay-married?
   Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 26, 2015 @ 8:22 pm - June 26, 2015
3. CCP,
   I don’t want to speak to V the K, and I am straight, BUT I didn’t have a problem with today’s outcome. I had a problem with the legal precedent it set, and the fact that people think that suddenly all the devisiveness will end because 5 people who don’t remember how to pump their own gas made a decision for the rest of us.
   Comment by melle1228 — June 26, 2015 @ 8:30 pm - June 26, 2015
4. Bingo, Melle.
   Comment by V the K — June 26, 2015 @ 8:32 pm - June 26, 2015
5. If the Supreme Court had ruled to strike down ObamaCare in its entirety, I doubt very people here would have a problem with any legal precedent being sent.
   But, I am curious why someone who was gay-married would be bothered by the precedent being sent by the Supreme Court ruling that such marriages are now legal in any state, and federal benefits will now be granted and protected.
   It seems that such a person would have managed to arrange a legally bound agreement between him and his partner, and not have gotten gay-married in the first place.
   Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 26, 2015 @ 9:08 pm - June 26, 2015
6. How long before the first discrimination lawsuit against properties owned by Catholic and other religious institutions gets filed?… The maniacal Left will only intensify its persecution now that 5 judges have weakened the restraining power of the Law, therefore, freedom and unleashed the power of the Will which always seeks to coerce, dominate and control, and kill.
   Comment by epb — June 26, 2015 @ 9:12 pm - June 26, 2015
7. CCP, you are missing the whole constitutional principle involved with BOTH decisions. Both decisions involved the Court making extra-judicial interpretations that are in direct opposition of the Constitution. They took a law that specifically listed “the states” and said, “oh but the legislation must have met the federal government.” And they took marriage which requires a license, and made it a right; taking away state’s rights to regulate marriage. BOTH decisions have more in common than not. BTW, striking down a law that violates the Constitution is totally different than creating a law wholesale that never existed.
   Comment by melle1228 — June 26, 2015 @ 9:13 pm - June 26, 2015
8. Personally I’m shocked at the tectonic-change in not the law, but in public opinion.
   When the SCOTUS handed-down the Lawrence Decision, I thought it wold take 50-100 years before we got to this point with regards to “gay marriage”. I would have posited that nationwide ENDA protections, adotion and open military service would have come at-least a generation before Federal Civil Unions. And that it would be several generation later after-that before “marriage” was the socially-accepted solution for same-sex couples.
   And it’s not just happening in the United States.
   Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — June 26, 2015 @ 9:16 pm - June 26, 2015
9. I don’t understand why someone who is going to benefit from the ruling would express sour grapes over it. Hence my original post.
   Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 26, 2015 @ 9:28 pm - June 26, 2015
10. CCP, Again, I am straight and have no dog in this fight, but clearly you don’t understand the legal and constitutional ramifications of EVERY SCOTUS decision. For every decision that bennies you, this kind of case sets a precedent that SCOTUS can legislate from the bench. So even if a case may give you a bennie, the precedent can be used against you later on, capice? Given 9 robed men and women ultimate power over laws in this country is not smart. You may love today’s decision, but the next one based on this precedent may be one you hate.
    Comment by melle1228 — June 26, 2015 @ 9:38 pm - June 26, 2015
11. If I had to take a bunch of bureaucrats or 9 black robed lawyers, I’d take the lawyers in dresses any day of the week plus Sunday.
    Comment by Paul — June 26, 2015 @ 9:44 pm - June 26, 2015
12. Melle >> hasn’t TSCOTUS been legislating from the bench for decades?
    I mean … Roe Vs. Wade for starters.
    How is this any different?
    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 26, 2015 @ 10:01 pm - June 26, 2015
13. I think some Texan should strap on his gun and go visit the state with the harshest gun control laws, get arrested, and argue his license be recognized by pointing to this case.
    Comment by Christina — June 26, 2015 @ 10:13 pm - June 26, 2015
14. CCP,
    People who would benefit from Affirmative Action can still think it’s bad policy. People who would benefit from the CA high speed rail project (work with me on this!) can still think it’s a bad idea.
    Comment by exhelodrvr — June 26, 2015 @ 10:15 pm - June 26, 2015
15. alas, the “supporters” have no clue as to what they have left THEMSELVES open to with these rulings. King means, literally, the Gov’t can do illegal things, and continue to do those illegal things, even though the COURT believes those illegal things are illegal and unconstitutional. Now, everywhere I typed “Illegal things” with anything you’d not like happening, and realize you are in full support of allowing those things you do not like (and are unconstitutional) to be done to you by the Gov’t and know your appeal to the limiting factor will be ignored.
    Fools.
    Comment by JP Kalishek — June 26, 2015 @ 10:19 pm - June 26, 2015
16. ExHelo >> Okay, I understand now, since you put it that way.
    But, I don’t understand why the uproar over something the SCOTUS has been doing for an extremely long time (legislating from the bench). This is nothing new.
    I don’t believe they’re going to start allowing polygamy and incest because of this ruling.
    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 26, 2015 @ 10:24 pm - June 26, 2015
17. *Or cats and dogs marrying.
    Though, the picture VtheK included with this post makes a pretty strong argument.
    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 26, 2015 @ 10:25 pm - June 26, 2015
18. edit:
    Now, everywhere I typed “Illegal things” Replace It with anything you’d not like happening, and realize you are in full support of allowing those things you do not like (and are unconstitutional) to be done to you by the Gov’t and know your appeal to the limiting factor will be ignored.
    Feeling a bit of the fool meself
    Comment by JP Kalishek — June 26, 2015 @ 10:28 pm - June 26, 2015
19. I’m interested to see what hoops Kennedy jumps through when the polygamy and incest cases come before the court if he intends to dang them marriage.
    I also am pretty sure he’s set the stage for churches to lose if/when they deny same sex couples marriage ceremonies and/or use of the building. You just know the gay left already has a list of churches to target and couples willing to be the test cases. The gay left wants to destroy institution of the church and Kennedy will help them do it.
    Comment by Just Me — June 26, 2015 @ 11:27 pm - June 26, 2015
20. If marriage is love, can you make the case that you are legally divorced if you no longer love your spouse?
    Comment by Karen — June 26, 2015 @ 11:28 pm - June 26, 2015
21. Let’s throw this in as well. Since the Court invoked reciprocity, we should also quickly see similar arguments that if you’re licensed to carry in one state, you’re licensed to carry in ALL states.
    Comment by Southern Man — June 26, 2015 @ 11:53 pm - June 26, 2015
22. Southern man it would be a hoot if the left lost concealed carry and other fun restrictions based on arguments from the SSM case.
    It would definitely be a case of being hoisted on your own petard.
    Comment by Just Me — June 27, 2015 @ 12:06 am - June 27, 2015
23. Hey, I welcome the recognition of concealed carry in all states. Add that to other sorts of licenses too.
    Comment by Paul — June 27, 2015 @ 12:10 am - June 27, 2015
24. “He notes that now that child-rearing has been rejected as the rationale for marriage, traditional arguments against polygamy have been weakened.”
    If sociopathic 2-3%er national socialists/communists within the federal judiciary and the APAs can arbitrarily declare the immutability of race equates to the neurotic behavior of 2-3% of the population without any replicable, empirical data to support their position, why not polygamy” Pedophilia? Bestiality?
    Comment by rjligier — June 27, 2015 @ 2:19 am - June 27, 2015
25. I have said before, and I will continue to say, that this ruling comes on the heels of a very long history of heterosexual acceptance of extraneous behavior beyond marriage being the foundation for a family that included the bearing and raising of children (BTW, go back and read the Loving v. Virginia ruling. It flies in the face of today’s ruling).
    Go back 150 years. No more than that. Civil War times. What was a marriage. Did states issue marriage licenses? Most did not. Churches performed marriages, the state recognized them. If you were not religious, you could go to a Justice of the Peace then get the state to recognize them.
    Incorporated with the marriage was the understanding that the marriage would produce children. If it did not it was considered a tragedy. If it became known that the couple was taking steps to ensure that they would not have children, that was considered a scandal and an abuse of the institution of marriage. Like getting the rewards without the accompanying responsibilities.
    Enter effective birth control and Margaret Sanger. In the 50′s, it became okay to get married and not have kids. Why? Because you could without going to extreme measures. That event was, without their knowing it, the death knell of marriage.
    Not long after, people began to wonder if whether marriage was needed at all. They didn’t bother in the sixties, and had kids anyway, or didn’t, but they didn’t need the legal document to commit to each other.
    Interestingly enough, that is what the gay rights activists should have realized. They don’t need the legal document to commit to each other.
    But no. See, they wanted acceptance. And they felt that the key to acceptance was marriage. So, they sought marriage.
    And here we are. Guess what? Legal marriage does not include acceptance. Legal marriage does not mean you automatically feel good about yourself.
    See, to entirely too many of the gay activists, they thing self-acceptance requires others to accept them, so, if they force others to accept them (an absurd proposition. You cannot force acceptance) then they will be able to accept themselves. But, as I already said, you cannot force acceptance. It comes from within, not without.
    Sooner or later, these poor creatures will realize that forcing someone else to accept them will not make themselves feel better.
    And then what will they do?
    Comment by Craig Smith — June 27, 2015 @ 3:35 am - June 27, 2015

26. See, they wanted acceptance. And they felt that the key to acceptance was marriage. So, they sought marriage.

    Does that apply to those here who have gotten gay-married?
    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 27, 2015 @ 7:44 am - June 27, 2015
27. I’m trying to work my way through the decision. God, this is a travesty of logic and history.
    There is no mention of any type of historical same-sex union. No mention of the Christian adelphopoiesis ritual, no reference to pagan Scandinavian blood-brotherhood ceremonies… heck, even the shenanigans that some Roman emperors got up to doesn’t get a mention! It just talks about marriage as a male-female institution, and then basically says, “Marriage has been understood to be a male-female institution, but now we’re going to okay same-sex marriage under the 14th Amendment because some gay people are having a hissy-fit.”
    We’re all going to be expected to marry now, aren’t we? Crap, gay culture’s going to evaporate if every Mary’s expected to join the PTA and stuff. At this rate, being a queer who refuses to marry is going to be the counterculture. Can I just refuse? Or will the Justice Department make me get married, since I obviously have internalized homophobia or some applesauce which I need to be cured of.
    I think if somebody asks me if I intend to get married, I’m going to say, “No, I don’t plan on getting “married” as such, because I think it’s heterosexist to expect gay people to engage in an institution created by straight people. I also don’t appreciate some fool liberals telling me what to call my life-long relationship with another man. Besides, I don’t think a lot of us who want to get married are 100% committed to the whole monogamy thing.”
    That should be a good way to grill potential boyfriends: the ones who aren’t worth my time will just leave right then and there. The ones who really aren’t worth my time will throw a drink in my face or call me self-loathing beforehand. The potential keepers will engage me in a debate (points gained/lost if their arguments are more sophisticated than slogans). The real keepers will agree with me!
    Comment by Sean L — June 27, 2015 @ 8:09 am - June 27, 2015

28. The real keepers will agree with me!

    Then shouldn’t you be permitted to marry them all?
    “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two a whole bus load of people become something greater than they once were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from on civilizations’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
    The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
    It is so ordered.
    Notice this wording: “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.” This makes Charles Manson’s coven OK to marry and he could have added a boy-toy or three to the crowd.
    Strike up the band, a new Constitutional right has been found lurking in the penumbra emanating from the 14th Amendment: Equal dignity in the eyes of the law.
    If you bugger little boys, I suggest you use the Constitutional right of equal dignity in the eyes of the law defense.
    To pick up on Scalia’s metaphor, I think this fortune cookie decision is going to provide us with a lot of aftershocks.
    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2015 @ 9:34 am - June 27, 2015
29. now that all this gay marriage is settled; I can now marry my true love;
    Billy the Goat.
    Comment by Bill Nola — June 27, 2015 @ 10:11 am - June 27, 2015
30. I think Dr Venckman warned us of the consequences.
    And isn’t it interesting how true those words in jest.
    Comment by formwiz — June 27, 2015 @ 11:15 am - June 27, 2015

31. … disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from on civilizations’s oldest institutions. …ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.

    The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.

    It is so ordered.

    Anybody besides me have a problem with the fact that a justice on the Supreme Court thinks the Constitution GRANTS RIGHTS?
    Comment by Bastiat Fan (@Bastiat_Admirer) — June 27, 2015 @ 11:58 am - June 27, 2015
32. Well, Bastiat Fan, if you skip over the 11th Amendment and the 12th Amendment you can make it up as you go. And remember that the Bill of Rights was limited to the 1st Amendment through the 10th Amendment so everything beyond those ten is presumably up for sleuthing out hidden rights lurking in the penumbra emanating from the Constitution and thence through the crystal ball of a prescient SCOTUS.
    This is not “judicial activism” per se. It is unctuous judicial flummery. Women claim the same chattel right over the mass of cells in their womb that SCOTUS discovered in the Dred Scott decision. But it was bad in slavery, but OK in killing a fetus. Using the hidden meanings stuck into the crevices of the words in the Constitution is a means to the end you are seeking. Justice Kennedy went into this whole charade with the dedicated will to reach the conclusion he sought and he “found” the road he built to get there. The other four did not let the Constitution interfere with their determination to write the chapter on gay marriage they long planned to write and had long been determined to write. They didn’t need no stinkin’ Constitution or justification.
    Comment by Heliotrope — June 27, 2015 @ 12:31 pm - June 27, 2015
33. My OPINION only, and yes I’m entitled to one. I don’t have a problem with gay marriage at all, I never thought government should have a say in it. Religion is completely different. If a religious organization doesn’t believe in it, they shouldn’t be forced to by the government. I’m Catholic and didn’t get married in the Catholic Church because my husband was divorced. I didn’t sue, I didn’t think anything except we’ll go elsewhere, it really doesn’t matter.
    However, I think it’s highly offensive for the colored lights on the people’s house, that house is supposed to represent ALL Americans, not just group du jour.
    Comment by Tilly — June 27, 2015 @ 12:43 pm - June 27, 2015

Leave a comment

Live preview of comment