I think I'll spend some time looking into this a bit further. No real dog in the fight other than intellectual curiosity.

Anyways,here goes:

Are laws making Polygamy illegal,unconstitutional?

Take a stab at it without researching the issue and see if we get there on our own understanding of the constitution.

It two queers can marry, why can't a guy have more than 1 wife if'n he can support them, personally, one is WAY more than enough to me, who could take the incessant bitchin that you would get.

WOW! You earn the title of Supreme Exhalted Pot-Stirrer with Clusters!

Is this being adjudicated somewhere?

Ed

At first blush, I would say "yes".

It like the homo stuff is legitimately a "States Rights" issue, not federal IMHO.

Me too,Sean. That's what made me post it. There was a segment on FOX as to this debate and, while I did not hear the discussion, I saw the question byline on the screen when I came back to my computer. I thought I could quickly come up with a reason or two why the illegality should survived constitutional muster but I got stuck thinking in through.

I'll say I did hear the words due process and gay from the guests.

Of course you would....

Here is your answer and the extent of the reasoning done on the subject. No, it is not unconstitutional because right now, Mormans and other religious whackos are way less popular than queers.

My gut takes me more towards the "equal protection" argument side of things.

Basically there are more women than men so yes a man should have more women. Every woman I know wants a man so why should they be deprived.

A man wanting more than one wife is demonstrably insane and thus is is subject to being made a ward of the State.
So...there is no constitutional question involved.

Astutely noting that you are unable to provide this service?

Then how about two sisters, or brothers, on and on?

Law against in-breeding would certainly withstand constitutional muster,imo.

Or a horse, dog, or rock?

===========

Now you got akhntr's attention.

I'll take the other side. I say they are Constitutional, as long as in application, they're facially neutral.

Good thread opener Isaac.

My first (and layman's) thought to, Are laws making Polygamy illegal,unconstitutional? , would be yes.

Have women ever been defined as "property" in past constitutional cases?

who is government to stand in the way of love? and why draw the line at humans? who are we to say it's wrong for a man to really love his dog?

But, seriously, the fact that all these things were crimes.....some of them capital....at the time of the founding should be a pretty fair indicator that, at best, the founders certainly did not intend the states to be prohibited from outlawing them by any provision of the federal constitution.

homosexual sodomy, incest, polygamy and bestiality were also still all crimes when the 14th amendment was adopted, so that doesn't get you there.

Just a hunch that one would have to be a Florida case....



There were a few felony, and perhaps capital, crimes involving slaves at the time of the Founding as well. Just saying...



So was blacks voting, or women, or women holding office, or property.... Again, just saying.

This involves a whole other argument, but in our country, marriage is both a religious institution, and a legal one, and they are mutually exclusive of each. The government sets out what will be legally recognized as "marriage". As long as, in application, it's applied to all, not just those of certain religions, and it is just that, then I think laws against polygamy withstand Constitutional muster.

From the liberalitarians



[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DWp79jvy9aA[/video]

the point that keeps being brought up is the fact that multiple wives invariably leads to increased participation on the welfare roles.
In so far as it has been ruled Constitutional for Government to step in when the activity involved means a drain on the public purse, I see a case for prohibiting multiple marriage.

About four, a couple a large big Bertha's to cook clean etc. and a couple a cute ones to play with. Might be hard on the constitution but maybe worth it.

those issues were addressed by amendments...the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth for slavery and race discrimination, the nineteenth for women voting.

Nobody tried to say the original document didn't mean what it said, they amended it to fit a differing societal view of the issues.

If the backers of homosexual marriage were honest, that's what they'd do, too.....but every time it gets to a vote of the people they inconveniently vote it down, so they are forced to argue that the Constitution requires states to permit homosexual marriage, which it obviously does not.

Not disagreeing at all.

Still thinking that the case you mentioned would have to be a Florida one, though.

oh, I just made up the "dog love" scenario. is there really a case where somebody pled equal protection as a defense to a bestiality rap?

Give it time.... you know that someone has "The Real Wonderdog" down there somewhere....

I don't see any reference in the Constitution to a right to marry or to regulate marriage. So that would leave the issue to the states. I don't see how the federal government has a dog in the fight.

In light of Lawrence v. Texas though,how does one wrap themselves around a argument that a law prohibiting a man from marrying more than one woman is constitutional?

someone on here once posted that the penalty for bigamy was having two wives.

if a group of two or more wants to get married, and are sincere, there should be no law against it.

although some are alledgedly taking advantage of the welfare laws, that doesn't have to be. it's happening with lot's of other people who aren't tied with multiple marriage partners.

I believe a man should be able to marry all the misery he can afford.

BTW this only seems to work where women are second class citizens, Mormons included.

an originalist would say.....what words were put in the Constituion by the Framers by which they intended to create a federal right to polygamy? answer to that is none. what words were put there which would prohibit the states from banning the practice? again, none.

did the fourteenth amendment create some equal protection right to polygamy? certainly not as understood when it was ratified.

Lawrence v. Texas is a horrible case, poorly written and badly analyzed. I think the current court would find a way to distinguish polygamy from homosexual sodomy. Give Obama two more appointments, and all bets are off.

I'm really trying to get the constitutional slants from the smart guys here.

I don't know if there is or isn't any Fed. law on polygamy, but the states have them.

How many of you have several women right now willing to move in if you allowed it? I would have to add on if I bowed to them. Their families and such would love to have someone else take them off their hands. This is why so many will support it.

is this the main argument we have laws against polygamy? i know it's been an embedded religious issue for the most part as i understand it.

but, historically it was practiced by the ancient hebrews, and more recently by others.

in other words if we can stoop down to allow homo marriages, why can't we license polygamy. the welfare issue can be dealt with across the board if we are willing to engage.

Two widows can draw SS from the same husband.Actually,more than two.

If a woman is married to a man for at least ten years,she is allowed to draw against his SS account when she becomes 65 even though other wives are drawing against it also.

So,in that sense,the Feds allow multiple wives.

Polygamy and monagamy have the same meaning: At least one wife too many.

What's the age of consent for a pit bull?

Another good reason to get government out of welfare!!!!!

did the fourteenth amendment create some equal protection right to polygamy? certainly not as understood when it was ratified.

Lawrence v. Texas is a horrible case, poorly written and badly analyzed. I think the current court would find a way to distinguish polygamy from homosexual sodomy. Give Obama two more appointments, and all bets are off.
=========

Ok,that I hear,loud and clear. Given that though,how does a law that permits same sex marriage or sodomy survive a challenge to a law prohibiting heterosexual marriage of more than one wife? Do you really feel that a equal protection argument won't be sustained for heterosexual couples that push the limit of the same equal protection reasoning that constitutionally created the permissibilty of rump wranglers to play tonsil hockey with the other's pecker or to marry?

If having two wives is bigamy is having three triganomitry?

No math,Boggy!

Nope, slow suicide.

with you sense of humor, could be quick.....

With his wife's, it won't be.

I wonder just what your posts would look like if you were married to three chemical weapons officers.

What would pit bull alimony be upon a divorce? Say one found a younger pit bull. How long would you be required to pay "puppy support" in dog years?

This is not one of the enumerated powers of the federal government mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, and so is a matter left "to the states, or to the people." As such, it's up to each state to decide if it will allow such things.

I believe the definition of marriage is a State issue, not Federal.

In dog years, or people years?



Thus the need for polygamy....

Depends on the leg length of the owner.


Is that constitutionally relevant?

Breaking News: Federal appeals court rules California's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional.

it is, but that doesn't answer the question. states cannot violate the federal constitutional rights of US citizens.

think McDonald v. Chicago.

so,in order to begin, would someone summate to the rdrshp, what is the argument against polygamy??

is it purely religious in nature, or is there more to it than that??

in other words, what exactly is the difference between monogamy marriage and other types of marriage?? and what difference does it make, if any?

a simple a, b, c, answer might be sufficient.

I'd say, Yes, No, and Maybe, are all valid answers, as there are many levels to consider here.

First, you didn't differ in who made those laws. The Federal Governmnet, or the State Governments. I'd say a Federal law of any sort would be unconstitutional according to the 10th.

Now, that moves things to the States. Is a state law prohibiting polygamy unconstitutional? I'd say maybe, depending on what grounds the law is formed. Are we talking a religious union or a civil union? This, in my mind is the heart of the matter. We need to once and for all define terminology reguarding unions. Historically, a religious union is what has always defined the term "marriage", which we get from "Matromony". A religious union (aka marriage) has always been recognized by the State as a "legal union". A civil union is different only in that it is not a religious ceremony that unites the parties involved. It is strictly a "legal union" that is conducted by, and recognized by the State. The difference between a Marriage and a Civil Union, as far as history has held, and the law should recognize, is only in how the union was conducted. Marriage is a religious institution, Civil Unions are a State institution. Each, should carry the same legal weight as to benefits, IMO.

So, if two guy want to tie the knot with each other, the Government cannot constitutionally force Religious institutions to recognize that, as it violates the Separation of Church and State. They also, should not call the union a marriage, as marriage has always been a religious term. That's about like calling the local public swimming pool a "baptismal". Calling it such, doesn't make it such, by definition. Two guys, united before a State Judge, is a Civil Union. A man and a woman, united before a State Judge, is a civil union. A man and a man united in a religious ceremony, is a marriage. A man and a woman united in a religious ceremony, is a marriage. Both Marriages and Civil Unions should be recognized as equal "legal unions".

That's a long ways to go to say that the constitutionality covering polygamy should be held in those above defined terms. If it's done in Religion, then it's a Marriage. If it's done before a Judge, it's a Civil Union.

Here is where it gets sketchy.

Government should have no say as to what is conducted in faith, so far as it's not infringing on anothers Constitutionally protected rights. Keep and maintain the Separation of Church and State. Government, can however determine what is recognized by the State under a "legal union". Or can they? To do so with polygamy, homosexuality, and such (as much as it absolutely repulses and disgusts me personally) violates the Spirit of the Constitution. That is to protect the God given right of "pursuit of happiness."

Personally, I think homosexuality and polygamy fly in the face of God, and are not protected or recognized by Him. If I'm to really bring on the flame from the 'fire, I'd go so far as to say the "pursuit of happiness" is not a God given right, but more a result of the fall of man.

That said, the Founders believed it, and penned it. It's the Spirit of the Law backing the Constitution. So, to answer the question put forth, it has to be taken as the Law of the Land.

Is a law prohibiting polygamy unconstitutional? Given the definitions above, I'd say..... yes

outside those definitions..... yes, no, and maybe all applies....
Flame on!

I do not know if your arguments will hold up in court but I agree with you on every point. I think that is the way is should be.

Never really thought about it but determination of status by a state (and the purpose of conferring status, political question doctrine, and so forth) seems like a possible approach to analyze equal protection of what. Guessing it's been tried and knocked out.

so, just to establish some context in which we find ourselves, how do other countries and Nations handle the polygamy issue?

in other words, we know where we are. but what does the other countries on the Globe do, in order to establish lawful marriages?

remember, we can stop the welfare misuse if and when we decide to do so.

A quick google search shows some "context".

http://www.orato.com/self-help/are-we-naturally-polygamous

Are We Naturally Polygamous?
Polygamy: Is it in our genes? A Sociological Look at Simultaneous Multiple Partnerships

Are humans polygamous by nature? Polygamy is gloriously detailed in Dr. Helen Fisher�s Anatomy of Love: A Natural History of Mating, Marriage, and Why We Stray (1992).Dr. Richard Dawkins also makes a compelling case in his book The Selfish Gene (1976).

The optimum strategy for selecting mates goes something like this: For the male, the optimum strategy is to impregnate as many females as he can. For the female, the optimum strategy is to select a strong male for food and protection, and to cheat a little on the side, in case her choice is sterile.

In the world of mammals, a common implementation of the mating strategy is the harem. The bigger the male, the larger the harem. In fact, if you graph mammals logarithmically, with the size ratio of males to females on one axis and the harem size on the other, it forms a straight line. We humans have a natural harem size of 1.2 women per man, so for every five men, one of them could be expected to have a harem of two women.

The Perspective of Sociology on Polygamy

Sociologically speaking, polygamy has been practiced since ancient times. Polygamy was accepted by the Jews until 1000 CE when, under pressure from the Christians, it was prohibited for a thousand years. The Catholic church didn�t prohibit polygamy until the Council of Trent in 1563. In the Muslim world, polygamy is still very much an option.

The Mormons (Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints) practiced polygamy until it was disavowed in 1890. There are an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 Fundamentalist Mormons (FLDS) still practicing polygamy. When the pilgrims arrived in America, they mingled with the richly polygamous American Indians. Many took additional Indian wives.

The Perspective of Demographics on Polygamy

In the roughly two million years since we�ve discovered tools and fire, there have been more women in the world than men. Men too often die in skirmishes, wars, and hunting accidents. Until about age 40, there are more men than women in the United States.

For those older than 45, there are significantly more women than men. This gap is projected to widen by 2010, and almost doubles as we live to be 85. Assuming that everyone is paired up in monogamous relationships, there are 6 extra single women for every 100 couples. By 2031, there will be about three million more women than men.

Who cares, unless you're Ginsburg.

heh, thanks for the post. you said it better than i ever could (could ever).

sometimes,context turns out to be nearly everything.

my past history understanding as related to how did polygamy ever begin related to wars, endless wars. the males were decimated in intertribal warfare.

the few remaining males who returned home were met with lot's of widows. some of which had never beared a child, and never would without a male partner.

so, there we have it. lot's of females of child-bearing age, needing a male consort, and only a few remaining available, because most were kilt in war.

voila~! a solution was found, a male with several potential wives. each could bear children, and life goes on.

illegal polymaists using child bearing as an excuse to rob the US Treasury is another story. to the extent that it occurs, it should be stopped dead center.

I guess AK doesnt have trouble with lesbos running with his whores?

So you deny the possibility that jealousy could have a positive influence in a triganomitrous relationship?

Regardless, you're not pawnin' 'em off on me! >grin<

Is that the one that invalidated laws for heteros?

I thought that marriage laws are up to the states; it's not a Federal issue.

That being said, I think Utah was coerced into adopting some anti-polygamy laws back around 1890 in order to become a state.

I think that is true about Utah.

so, once again with feeling. what is wrong with polygamy?

monagmy, bigamy, and polygamy... so, if folks are willing to engage in such an adventure, what is wrong with it?

why not try it, and see what happens next? so, what does happen next, anyone know for sure??

Where's the "smiley," ya' prick?

BTW I believe polygamy is not prohibited by the Constitution.
The state's prohibition is never enforced against foreigners no matter how many wives they bring with them. Begs the question, if a Mormon married multiple wives in, say Saudi Arabia or Kenya for that matter, would he be prosecutable?
Ask the smart guys that, pal.

Do you REALLY think TRH is gonna give you an answer for free?

So if Utah Renigged (damn I hate that word) and allowed it, could they renig on statehood? Can Texas do that?

Every post seems to assume that this polygamy is 1 man and any number of women. That won't fly. It has to be both ways so 1 woman can have plural husbands. Now THAT should make for an interesting home life. Besides, a woman is equipped to satisfy plural spouses much more than is a man.

At any rate, the US Supreme court has already ruled on it, unanimously. In Reynolds v USA in 1879, they ruled that the constitution does not allow polygamy. This was part of the outlawing of Mormon polygamy.

Jealousy among the wives has got to be intense, and it must be a miserable way of life for everyone except the alpha males. Even if polygamy was legal would anyone want to deal with more than one wife???

2 working, 1 cooking, and 2 digging on the septic. Imagine the possibilities.

There are federal laws on the subject, and there is Supreme Court precedent.

The Morrill Act of 1862 was designed "to punish and prevent the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the United States" [read that as Utah]. Bigamy was punishable by a $500 fine and imprisonment not exceeding five years. All acts passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah "pertaining to polygamy and spiritual marriage" were annulled. A limit of $50,000 of real property that a religious or charitable organization could hold in a territory of the United States was set. Any amount exceeding the value of $50,000 was to be forfeited and escheated to the United States.

In 1879, the Supreme Court upheld that law.

In 1882, the Edmunds Act was passed, strengthening the Morrill Act. It created a religious test for public office and for voting. If you believed polygamy was OK, you were disqualified for office and disenfranchised at the voting booth. You were also barred from jury duty....no court order required.

So let's see what happens when the Supremes get Prop 8 from the 9th Circuit. Will stare decisis be respected? If so, the federal government claims authority to regulate marriage.

SO, for the benefit of the rdrshp, what is wrong with polgamy?

we've waited and waited for such an answer. so, what is it?

what is oh so wrong with polgymamy? just spell it out, so we all know. that way we can defend against it.

Let your wife marry a couple more husbands and you'll find out.

And what happens when you combine the question with freedom of religion?

Far as I'm concerned, government should not be in the marriage business to begin with--at least not the Fed government.

And my county probably has more jack Mormans then any other place in the USA--this is where a LOT of them moved when polgamy was outlawed following Smith's "vision"........


Casey

Imagine if you could marry the moon or the sun, or a cloud.

Unconstitutional IMO.

But then I think progressive income taxes, government mandated insurance and Affirmative Action are unconstitutional as well.

The Feds don't seem to agree with me.

Constitutional, but I oppose it.

That is almost exactly the way I thought he would look.

Gays don't hurt me, I just leave them alone.

Not far from how he looks now.

True.....

Well, let's see, there's certainly no power delegated in the US Constitution to regulate marriage, so it's clearly a state matter. Now the question becomes: Is there a right being violated by such a state law that's protected by the Bill of Rights, and if so, what level of protection does it have by way of the Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, if so, what standard of scrutiny should be applied. Were it claimed as a religious practice, then we can see how the First Amendment Free Exercise clause would come into play, in which case the highest level of scrutiny would apply, i.e., strict scrutiny, in which case the burden would be on the government to demonstrate a compelling state interest in enforcing the law. Generally speaking, no law passes the strict scrutiny test, so were this the standard, the law would likely be struck down.

I assume, however, that this has already been to the Supreme Court, and such laws were found not to conflict with the US Constitution.

If you'd paid attention in Con.Law, you'd not have to assume.

Hint: Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)

Bingo.

The federal government claims it has the power to regulate who may marry whom.

Personally, I think it's about as bad a decision as they could have made, but you'd be surprised at how seldom they call and check these things with me.

It is a poor decision, and very poorly reasoned. It was also dead in the "Substantive Due Process" era, and many of those decisions have been ridiculed and overturned subsequently.

So we may be about to see the federal government relinquish a power that it claimed. I think I need to double up on my heart medications, lest I die of surprise.

Reynolds is on very shaky ground, post-1A cases dealing with religious freedoms and post-Loving v. Virginia.

I'd not be surprised to see the SCOTUS take this kind of a case up again, simply to clarify the matter (one way or another) in a modern era with those cases in consideration of the question.

That was a long time ago, my friend.

It is up to the States. The Federal .Gov has nothing to do with it, according to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Ernie

It might by way of Fourteenth Amendment incorporation doctrine.

Per Loving and various religious freedom cases, it would be a 14th Amendment incorporation case.

Haven't you been paying attention Steve? It's a "living breathing document". Heck Ginsburg hardly thinks it's worth consideration today.
To answer the OP, IF making 'homosexual marriage' illegal is unconstitutional then ANY limits on marriage are unconstitutional.

The United States Congress is empowered to promote the general welfare. I believe monogamous marriages do just that, compared to the free for all that would ensue otherwise.

Are wives/women interpreted (even loosely) as property/chattel under the constitution or any historical, new country law precedent?

Ricky, morally I agree 100% but legally I am not so sure. I like what Ed said above. He lined the Christian views vs the states issues nicely in my mind.

We skipped that in Con Law for more relevant matters. Heck, Reynolds only appears as a reference in another decision in the casebook.

I can't imagine a more wrongheaded understanding of the Constitution than that, Ricky. There is no power in the Constitution, delegated to Congress, to "provide for the general welfare of the United States." That would constitute the formation of a central government of unlimited and undefined powers, quite the opposite of what the Framers clearly believed they had accomplished, and quite the opposite of what the ratifying states understood had been established. No, that phrase merely sets the stage for the ways in which Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution provides for the general welfare, i.e., by delegating to Congress the following limited powers, e.g., to borrow money, to regulate commerce, to establish uniform rules on naturalization and bankruptcy, to coin money, etc. Were it otherwise, there would be no need for any words beyond those to which you refer in Article 8. It would just have ended there. But quite evidently that was not the intention, since it doesn't stop there, but goes on to specify the particular powers delegated.

When the Constitution was drafted, I don't think that protecting people from themselves was even a thought.

The Preamble of the Constitution enumerates the ends of the Constitution as "to secure the blessings of liberty". A "blessing", in the proper meaning of term, is that which is good in the eyes of God; something God would want you to have. The Constitution does not protect behavior which is intrinsically immoral. Sodomite marriage is not a liberty which is a blessing. It has ever been regarded by the greatest moral legislators of Athens and Jerusalem as a vicious sexual perversion.

This nation was founded free and independent on an appeal to "the laws of nature and of nature's God". Nature and reason tells us that a man is not a woman (and that sexual relations are properly between members of the opposite sex) as surely as they tell us that a man is not a horse, or an ox or a cow. Homosexuality is wrong for the same reason slavery is wrong, it is against nature.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Throw in some wacko religious rite wingers and 2 bits and you have what we have today

Bill, homosexuality is wrong independent of what any religion says. It is wrong because it is against nature and this nation was founded on an appeal to the law of nature.

The Republican Party was founded upon opposition to the "twin relics of barbarism"---chattel slavery and polygamy. Polygamy and slavery are wrong for the same reason.

So Solomon and Abraham are going to hell?

Good one Denton.

Now the fun begins.

With all due respect Denton, that's a pretty silly rejoinder. The morality of the Constitution and of our founding was not intended to decide who goes to hell and who doesn't. We are not a theocracy. However, we do have a non-sectarian moral law and Polygamy and slavery are both regarded as immoral behaviors under that law (contra naturam---against nature). In the case of polygamy, the sexual passion is naturally a jealous one. Men want to be assured that their off-spring are their own. Revealed religion (the law of nature's God) and unassisted human reason (the law of nature) are in agreement on the essential moral questions. It is no accident that in the moral understanding of the Constitution which animated the founding of the Republican Party that chattel slavery and polygamy were regarded equally as the twin relics of barbarism. This opinion says nothing about whether anyone is going to hell and it is absolutely silly to conflate someone's narrow sectarian morality with the non-sectarian morality which underlies the founding.

But perhaps you can tell us Denton, if polygamy is Constitutionally acceptable, why not Sodomite marriage? And why not slavery in that case?

Bad News for Gay Marriage? Polygamy Case Relies on Lawrence v. Texas
July 15, 2011
by Bruce Hausknecht

Could the issue of polygamy derail the same-sex marriage litigation that�s headed to the Supreme Court? It just might.

For years, conservatives have been laughed at for arguing that if the courts declare a constitutional �right� to same-sex marriage, the same logic will lead another court to find a similar �right� in the U.S. Constitution to polygamy, incestuous marriage or even group marriage .

Well, here we are. We�ve arrived at those gates a lot sooner than anyone would have predicted. Jonathan Turley, a noted constitutional law professor, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the polygamous family that appeared in The Learning Channel�s cable series �Sister Wives.�

Turley says he�s relying on the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas Supreme Court case in which Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held the Texas criminal statute against homosexual sodomy to be unconstitutional as an impermissible government intrusion on personal, private intimacy. Turley argues that polygamous marriage and/or cohabitation ought to be treated the same way, i.e., as personal intimate conduct protected as a �privacy� interest. (Note that only one of the �wives� in this polygamous family is legally married to the �husband� � the rest are cohabiting. My understanding is that Utah law prohibits both polygamous marriage as well as polygamous cohabitation.)

However, Turley�s case might not be welcome news for gay activist groups currently attacking the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and California�s marriage amendment, Prop 8, in the federal courts. Why?

My theory: If Justice Kennedy is indeed the speculated �swing vote� on same-sex marriage (which is not really a �given� at this point), then Kennedy�s pride � and this polygamy case � will keep him home on traditional one man, one woman marriage.

How�s that work, you ask?

Answer: Lawrence v. Texas, and Justice Scalia�s dissent in that case, will force Kennedy (assuming he�s already not so disposed) to uphold the traditional definition of marriage.

To get to the Scalia connection, stay with me while I lay some further foundation.

When asked if he was asserting that there is a constitutional right to polygamy, Turley told reporters he is only seeking to have polygamy �de-criminalized,� not to have it declared legal.

Where have we heard that before?

De-criminalization is all that Lawrence supposedly did for homosexual sodomy, and yet that same year (2003) the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, relying heavily on Lawrence�s reasoning (written by Justice Kennedy), found a constitutional �right� to same-sex marriage. In fact, every court decision to date mandating gay marriage in a state (MA, CT, IA and CA) has also explicitly relied on Lawrence to get there.

Polygamy would follow the same legal path. With the correct (read: activist) judge, you can expect the same result on the subject of polygamy as with same-sex marriage. Turley�s case could lead to the de-criminalization of polygamy, and even if his case doesn�t end with a declaration that polygamy is a constitutional right, then the next case could close that loop.

Kennedy, you�ll recall, wrote in Lawrence that �The present case�does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.� Meaning, his majority opinion had nothing to do with the institution of marriage.

Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Lawrence, was incredulous:

�This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws [against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity] can survive rational-basis review.�

and

�Today�s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned.�

It strikes me that Turley�s pending polygamy case puts Justice Kennedy under the rather uncomfortable but possible spotlight of being the Supreme Court justice that history records caused both same-sex marriage and polygamy to be legitimized in the nation�s courts. I have my doubts that Kennedy would feel comfortable with that legacy, and he most certainly would like to avoid the embarrassment of proving Justice Scalia correct and being told so in another scathing Scalia dissent.

Kennedy is intelligent enough to see all these unpopular marriage dominoes falling in his direction, and he is a traditionalist in much of his jurisprudence, even if disappointing on several issues. To avoid the stigma his Lawrence opinion is suddenly creating for him on the marriage front, he just might turn out to be the swing vote against the challenges to DOMA and California�s Prop 8 currently percolating their way up to the Supreme Court.

And that is not at all what gay activists and the anti-Prop 8 lawyer tag team of Ted Olson and David Boies are hoping for.

Where's the "smiley," ya' prick?

BTW I believe polygamy is not prohibited by the Constitution.
The state's prohibition is never enforced against foreigners no matter how many wives they bring with them. Begs the question, if a Mormon married multiple wives in, say Saudi Arabia or Kenya for that matter, would he be prosecutable?
Ask the smart guys that, pal. [/quote
===========

You misunderstood me. You were one of the folks whose take I wanted to read.

If the framers of the Constitution ever dreamed that there would be people in this country stupid enough to want a bunch of wives, or marry somebody of the same sex, they'd have never bothered.

This is where we differ.

Slavery is involuntary. It takes away a person's freedom and appropriates the fruits of his work. Of course, it is deeply wrong.

I don't think you can make the same case for polygamy. Those are voluntary arrangements that people are free to get into and free to leave. The Old Testament prophets were often polygamous. I think it is more a case of it offending our modern sensibilities than anything else. There are practices in the Old Testament that would seem very strange today. For example, if a man died it was the responsibility of his brother to impregnate his widow so she could have children to help support her.

So I don't think you can make the case that polygamy is wrong on its face because it offends your notion of what is proper and what is not. The key issue is whether the arrangement harms others, not whether we like it or not. But where do you draw the line?

All that said, I find the present issue very troubling. Personally, I don't understand how two people of the same sex can marry each other. I think the definition of marriage includes the concept of creating a male + female family. I don't see how two people of the same sex can marry, any more than I can see how two trees can marry. If to men want to take up some sort of intimate sexual relationship, I guess they can. It's none of my business. But I don't see how the arrangement can be a marriage.

Of course, the other thing that bothers me is that marriage antedates government, and very often takes place where there is no government. So I regard government as a latecomer to the issue.

I aways thought mama grizzly bears were hot.

but slavery is the only way to get those that won't work to work.

That depends. Sometimes slavery is a moral good, and an act of charity. For example, a horde of pirates lands on your seaside village and proceeds to kill, rape, and pillage, but then the local lord's garrison arrives and after a long struggle kills most of them, capturing the remainder. They are left with two options, 1) executing them, or 2) reducing them to slavery. In this case, slavery is a charitable act. Lots of slaves in the old days became slaves in just this sort of way, i.e., it was an alternative punishment for a crime, the other being execution.

Well I am going to go out on a limb here and agree with Denton.

Marriage is a religious issue. The Government has no right to interfere. Is it OK for the government to tell the church what it can and cannot do? If so the the precious separation of church and state is only one way and the government could then have a say in everyday church affairs.

As Ed stated above, if the government is the originator of the union of two or more people that is a civil union but if it is a religious thing done by the church that is a marriage.

Seems to me this is one case where the state has placed it's boot squarely in church business.

Let the flames begin!

Interesting argument. In essence, the pirates are condemned to slavery to make restitution for the harm they have caused.

Right.

Slavery isn't wrong merely because it takes someone's freedom without their consent. The state takes away the freedom of some people every day and almost never with their consent (people usually don't go to prison willingly, for example) and we do not regard that as wrong. In fact, as more than one philosopher has pointed out, slavery relies upon the tacit consent of the slaves, even if that consent is, at some level, forcibly extracted. But in the morality of the Declaration of Independence only the "just" laws are derived from the consent of the governed. This means that consent as such cannot justify anything which is in and of itself, intrinsically immoral. So, consent or the lack thereof is not the reason for the immorality of slavery. Chattel slavery is wrong because it violates the law of nature (and of nature's God). Recall that chattel slavery in ante-bellum America denied that blacks were human beings. Indeed, the Constitution at one and the same time referred to slaves as "chattels" (property) and "humans". This contradiction represented a compromise of the Constitution with its genuine principles. The compromise was not necessarily a bad thing because it allowed for the adoption of a Constitution (as opposed to weak Articles of Confederation) and therewith the formation of a Union of sufficient strength to (as the father of the Republican Party said) "place slavery in the course of ultimate extinction". Slavery is wrong because it violates natural law and it violates natural law by denying any moral authority to the distinction in nature between the human and the non-human. Nature and reason tell us that a black man is not an ox or a horse or a dog, but a human being entitled to the same inalienable rights as his putative white master. Chattel slavery purports to treat him as a beast of burden and as a chattel with no free will of his own. Homosexuality, by the way, partakes of the same logical and legal positivism as does the justification for slavery. Like slavery, the sodomy rights movement denies any moral authority to the distinction in nature between maleness and femaleness---notwithstanding that it is this distinction upon and by which the whole of nature is constituted. In fact,it has been said that the distinction between maleness and femaleness is more fundamental even than the distinction between the human and non-human because nature itself is constituted by the generative distinction betweent he sexes.

Now, with regard to polygamy, the reason it is wrong (by way of natural law analysis---not for the purposes of someone's theology) is because the sexual passion is, by nature, a jealous passion. It is so because men seem, by nature, to want the security of knowing that the children they sire are indeed their own and women seem, by nature, to want and desire the sexual faithfulness of their husbands. In that vein, it is no accident that men and women who live chaste lives, whether in or out of marriage, rarely suffer venereal disease. Nature seems to have an interest in that morality which is conducive to the family.

In summary, men like monogamy and so do women, plus it doesn't spread "venereal disease" [These days it's STD]. So doing something else must be morally wrong.

How can you rationally defend a sweeping, unsupported statement like that?

Your conclusion might be right, but not your reasoning.

Not all men and women like monogamy, and what men and women like has nothing to do with morality or the rule of law.

I find the prospect of the Supreme Court sustaining the 9th Circuit more than a little troubling. But, like a lot of people, I'm grappling with just what is right/wrong vs. what is my attitude. Besides, they never call to get my review on the issues anyway.

Maybe so, but section 8 enumerates the duties of the congress, among those being to provide for the general welfare of the United States. The preamble also states one of the specific purposes of the Constitution is to provide for the general welfare of the United States and then in Article 1 Section 1 says congress has all legislative power.

No. That is not what it says. You leave out the first, foremost, and most importantly contentious Power: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay.....for providing for the general welfare" among other things.

Claim it doesn't say that or it was not meant as penned but that's the way it's written.

Sorry, my friend, but you don't have a leg to stand on with this one. Find me one Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the general welfare clause that goes your way. Hint: There aren't any, because any reasonable student of the history and meaning of the Constitution understands that it enumerates specific and limited powers, all others belonging to the States and the people. Clearly the framers of the Tenth Amendment never heard of your interpretation of that clause, or else said amendment would be entirely meaningless.

Great modern day Constitutional question, only to be decided by black robes and "the real intelligent" people.

Of course it wasn't a question at the Founding, which might be the answer.

"Sorry, my friend, but you don't have a leg to stand on with this one. Find me one Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the general welfare clause that goes your way. Hint: There aren't any, because any reasonable student of the history and meaning of the Constitution understands that it enumerates specific and limited powers, all others belonging to the States and the people. Clearly the framers of the Tenth Amendment never heard of your interpretation of that clause, or else said amendment would be entirely meaningless."

The "general welfare clause" is in use every day, contrary to the states and the people, unless you think Congress hasn't neglected any duties or violated oaths.