Hmmm, obviously, I support gay marriage, but I'm somewhat ambivalent about this as a Supreme Court decision. It's always a tug-of-war between interpreting the exact 'letter' of the law vs. the 'spirit' of the law. I suppose waiting for Congress to make the change would've prolonged this issue significantly (understated), but I still feel uncomfortable about this decision. It sets a problematic precedent, like the Supreme Court can pull whatever meaning they want out of constitutional amendments except for what is very explicitly denied. 

Maybe this is just too vague? Lol.

I sort of agree with this...

  Speaking as a conservative with libertarian leanings, it pisses me off how the vast majority of religious right-wingers are trying to defend her and act like her continued fornications are really no big deal...as long as she doesn't abort.

In a perfect world it would have struck down the institution of marriage altogether. That not being an option, this is the best possible second choice. I don't see how it could possibly be viewed as contravening the constitution if one accepts that marriage in general doesn't contravene the constitution. Because there are uncontitutional laws supporting the institution of marriage in the first place, anything but equal rights for gays is even more uncontitutional.

Do you feel that way because you think that government shouldn't be in the business of marriage at all? Or is it something else? 

I think it is a legal slam dunk that states have the authority to regulate marriage. Marriage is not a fundamental right, it is a government recognized relationship and ultimately it boils down to taxation and benefit policy. Getting married is a positive action that you choose to take, and currently the government provides certain conditional benefits if you choose to do so. 

Taxation and benefits policy can and does discriminate based of thousands of factors including age, race, gender, religion and other protected categories.  I don't think it should, but legally, it can and does. These changes can and should be made at the local level, where we already have all sorts of arbitrary rules about who can get married. If you don't like it, we have a system in place that allows you to change the laws by persuading your fellow citizens. A system in which gay marriage supporters have been gaining victories. Peaceful persuasion is always preferable to brute force, especially when it comes to significant cultural changes. Using the court system to find a right that was never there before puts our social policy in the hands of five old geezers, that isn't how our country was set up. It is increasingly disturbing that our court has made 5 to 4 decisions routine, and who votes for what depends more on the justices political leanings than any interpretation of the law. The Court is supposed to be a referee, not a political decision maker.

The Brits are not exactly a country to look up to these days. They have their population under heavier surveillance than even the Americans. Even parliamentary systems can be corrupted with a party in majority. Harper has ruined Canada in just a few years with his majority government.

well, in all fairness, britain has a much smaller population and landmass to work with. also, britain is a unitive rather than a federal state, so while london might throw the scots or the irish a bone with "devolution," they don't really have to worry about pesky things like autonomy, like the US government has to with the state governments. i'm sure if the american feds had those advantages, we'd all be in a fuck-ton of trouble.

Why shouldn't it be on the table? Where is the logical distinction between gay marriage and poly marriages that makes one a fundamental right but the other not?

So it isn't a fallacy then, it is a relevent question because as soon as you declare something a fundamental right, it goes from something that can arbitrarily be regulated, to something that requires a logical argument to prevent unless you can show a "compelling goverment interest" for it not applying in a particular case. There is absolutely no doubt that this case will be used to argue for poly marriages. And the words the Justice Kennedy wrote will be a strong influence on how future courts rule on those cases. The anti's argument was that the Court shouldn't go down that road because there wasn't a logical place to draw the line. Which in the Supreme Court is an extremely common argument for cases ranging from the mundane things to the media grabbing ones. You can guarantee at some point during oral arguments both sides will be asked where they think the justices should define the line. After all, their main purpose is to create rules and tests that lower courts can look to and apply to the individual cases they face to attempt to have some sort of consistency.

Ironically, it was the lawyers arguing for gay marriage who threw poly marriages under the bus, arguing that the Court could draw a distinct line at two people- USING THE SAME FUCKING ARGUMENTS WORD FOR FUCKING WORD AS THE MOST BIGOTED DUMB ASS XTIANS! (Sorry, in case you couldn't tell, it sort of pissed me off. Here the polyamory community as small, as it is, has backed homosexuality to the hilt since before it was cool and got thrown under the bus for expediency. I think that is pretty damned rude) In this opinion, Kennedy neglected to draw a line or create a test to determine what marriages are required, probably because the Court couldn't agree. We probably have Sotomayer to thank for the neutral language, so despite his best efforts, Bama did something useful. While the opinion doesn't open the door for poly marriages, it did leave it open a crack, which should speed up the process. 

I totally understand that crack in the logic opening the door for poly's. Believe me, I know.

The fallacy comes from their argument of not sticking to the argument. The argument was gays have rights to be recognized by the federal government. The poly's too. Yes and both poly relationships. Polyandry and Polygyny. They should have rights too.

Do the people who want to marry horses have rights? No. That's fucking bullshit. It isn't a fucking human relationship. Don't start with me. Having a marriage with your fucking dog isn't logical. That is where the line is drawn.

Going back to the fallacy, I consider it a strawman. They didn't stick to the argument so they bring up some other bullshit which is off in the distance. Fucking christians. Stick to the story. You don't want gays to be married. We aren't talking about one wife and three husbands, etc.

This isn't necessarily an argument against poly-marriages, but perhaps a note? An important part of marriage, (the most important part, imo) is the legal and financial benefits. If you have more than two people, there needs to be additional laws and regulations determining what benefits people can receive and how they claim those benefits. 

        Everyone, check your watches   ...( tick tock, tick tock )

I know it is coming. As Beyond said, the people out in Utah and the surrounding area who are poly's are going to be gathering up their lawyers and going to the supreme court.

You are arguing in front of the Supreme Court, they aren't considering the specific case, they are considering the principle. So how that principle would apply to any realistic hypothetical is certainly relevant to the argument. Not only is it something the defense had to bring up, if they didn't it certainly would have been brought up by the Court since it is such an obvious continuation. Actually, if I remember correctly, in oral arguments it was brought up by Justice Kennedy, the one who wrote the opinion. A good 80% of oral arguments in the Supreme Court do nothing but deal with hypothetical situations and how the principle being claimed would be applied in those situations.

Why? Because you said so? 

get the government out of the marriage business and all these "problems" disappear like so much mist.

And that is the question. If you allow three, why not four? I personally know a group of four that consider themselves married. They share their resources and raise their kids together. When you are there, why not five? More rare, but I'm sure it is out there. How do you draw a line in a sensible place? If a commune of 50 people are already sharing resources and raising their kids together, why shouldn't they get married and enjoy the legal benefits? Certainly, many sci fi authors have conceived many different variations of marriages that might be potentially better from a resource/child raising point of view.

If you don't draw a line, then marriage essentially becomes a corporation (I can have a corporation of just me, or I can have a corporation of a million people) I could even name my dog part owner of the corporation if I was so inclined (not directly since animals can't legally own property, but I could set up a trust with specific instructions to operate for the benefit of the dog). It would certainly benefit me greatly if I could "marry" my business partners. Right now, in the event one of us dies, only spouses can take ownership of their stake tax free. How sweet would it be if we could just divvy it up and avoid taxes all together? One of my partners is going to be retiring next year, so the rest of us are buying him out. If we were just "married", we could simply "get divorced" and transfer an agreed amount of cash and keep the business interest tax free. Currently, we have to buy him out causing a taxable event for him. There are many reasons why small or even large business partnerships might decide to get "married" in order to get the tax benefits. Certainly, the government will never allow that to happen, but how do you draw the line? I don't see how you can if you follow the principle that marriage is a fundamental right and the government can't discriminate. When it gets to that point (which I'm sure will take many decades), perhaps the only viable solution will be for government to end the financial encouragements it offers for marriage now. 

  Sorry.  It dealt with two pieces of federal legislation that were anti-polygamy in nature and were passed during the Buchanan and Lincoln adminstrations.  They both centered around Mormons, "plural marriages" and the terms for allowing Utah ( then a territory ) into the Union.

They should allow the same rights for the moroms also.

I know of the decision and the comments by the pro and the con of the decision. However those who wrote the dissent weren't any better in their wording. Did you see this shit they spewed?

Gays are born gay, it is not a belief which is learned. Poly's are a learned belief, they are not born poly.

Shut your pie hole. If you are going to argue the point then present some logic to the discussion.

Adultry and getting married to five women is different.

In case you don't know I don't believe in free will so technically every thing that is happening is happening because it is supposed to happen.

However at this current time and with the information I have, gays are not gays by choice.

Humans are certainly not a monogamous species. Being monogamous is a cultural thing, not a biological thing. Biologically we are like all other apes, and apes aren't monogamous.

Maybe monogamy is better for human society or something? Other primates fight over partners all the time, don't they? Lol.

Nothing is a choice even though it seems like you are making one.

Gays deserve to have the same rights as non-gays.

What of the person who wishes to marry one of each gender and is attracted to both? Must a non-repressed JLY choose between a wife or a husband if he has found a heterosexual woman and a gay man both consenting? I suspect that a situation like that is more common than the Mormon with a line of wives, though perhaps that is a skewed perspective based on the type of people I associate with. 

I also reject the idea that people are generally gay or straight and that sexual preference is static or even that sexual preference should be the sole variable in determining who to marry. I think invariably, these discussions become based in a number of assumptions from personal experience that may not apply universally. A sexless marriage can be a very good and strong marriage. Many people engage in sexual activities with people who are not the gender of their preference, and I daresay they generally enjoy it (assuming it is consenting).

Yes, there is no free will. Yes, gays deserve the same rights. I understand your position on free will. I understand because I think I have the same position. It is still irrelevant in the context of this discussion. If you're too stuck on the word "choice," then you can think of it as "agency" or "a conscious decision" or "an apparent choice" or whatever you want. Regardless, homosexuality has a basis in genetics and so does polyamory. Do you agree or disagree?