And you're making a policy argument about the wisdom of plural marriage. But a reviewing court would not consider whether a state's decision to ban polygamy was wise; rather they would seek to determine if the state had a legitimate interest in doing so, and whether that interest would outweigh the liberty interest of the putative married partners. Given the decision last week, I'm not confident in what the Court's answer would be.
Actually I am arguing that the state's interest is not as compelling as you seem to believe. So I am wondering, what would be so awful?
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
And to rehash, your reasons came with assumptions.
It isn't something I worry about. But then again I believe privacy is implicit in the Bill of Rights. You have stated that it needs to be explicit to be valid. Which I find interesting because one of the arguments I have heard against the Bill of Rights is that someday someone would say that these are our only rights.
You know sometimes the courts job is to protect citizens from undue intrusions from the government into our personal lives. I believe telling someone who they can or cannot marry is one of those intrusions. I also think I should be able to touch my winky without worrying about being arrested.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
It isn't something I worry about. But then again I believe privacy is implicit in the Bill of Rights. You have stated that it needs to be explicit to be valid. Which I find interesting because one of the arguments I have heard against the Bill of Rights is that someday someone would say that these are our only rights.
This was a concern of the Framers as well. Which is why they added the 9th amendment.
You know sometimes the courts job is to protect citizens from undue intrusions from the government into our personal lives. I believe telling someone who they can or cannot marry is one of those intrusions. I also think I should be able to touch my winky without worrying about being arrested.
Its a long way from polygamy to winky-touching. Your winky-touching neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (love that phrase. Thanks TJ). Your reducing the supply of available mates might very well have that effect and more, from increased crime and economic inequality to the subjugation of women. You see, in a polygamous society, women become a precious commodity, rather than citizens with agency.
0
fishingcomicSenior MemberPosts: 23,389Senior Member
Women are usually thought of as the primary victims of polygynous marriages, but as cultural anthropologist Joe Henrich documents, the institution also causes problems for the young, low-status males denied wives by older, wealthy men who have hoarded all the women. And those young men create problems for everybody.
Those societies also treat women like chattel and the reason why those young men are denied wives has more to do with the fact that marriages in those communities are arranged on not based on people marrying for love.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
0
fishingcomicSenior MemberPosts: 23,389Senior Member
And you have argued that privacy is not a right retained by the people. So I am curious how you and Justice Bork arrive at this without maintaining that it does not exist because it is not specified.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
0
fishingcomicSenior MemberPosts: 23,389Senior Member
Assumptions borne out by the available historical evidence.
This was a concern of the Framers as well. Which is why they added the 9th amendment.
Its a long way from polygamy to winky-touching. Your winky-touching neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (love that phrase. Thanks TJ). Your reducing the supply of available mates might very well have that effect and more, from increased crime and economic inequality to the subjugation of women. You see, in a polygamous society, women become a precious commodity, rather than citizens with agency.
One of you articles argues that the state should be able to regulate masturbation. So it is not that far off. By the way two homosexuals getting married neither picks your pocket not breaks your leg.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
And you have argued that privacy is not a right retained by the people. So I am curious how you and Justice Bork arrive at this without maintaining that it does not exist because it is not specified.
well, I think Bork's point (and mine) is that a general right of privacy is not an enumerated right. Prior to the opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, it didn't exist at all. And that opinion is generally considered to be a result in search of a rationale rather than an opinion on which viable precedents could be based.
The funny thing about Griswold is that it was written by William O Douglas, who as a rule was allergic to substantive due process claims, because he rightly saw that they could be used to invalidate economic legislation, as was common in Supreme Court decisions prior to the New Deal. Most legal commentators agree that Douglas was really stretching.
But I'm flattered to be compared to Judge Bork, who was probably the smartest person to ever be nominated for a Supreme Court position. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.
Those societies also treat women like chattel and the reason why those young men are denied wives has more to do with the fact that marriages in those communities are arranged on not based on people marrying for love.
People marrying for love? Where did you get the idea that the purpose of marriage is love? Anthony Kennedy?
Social norms don't exist in a vacuum. Its a classic push-pull. Domestic relations drive the law and undergird the legitimacy of the state. Marital arrangements reflect the ends of a given society's social arrangements and vice versa. There's some doubt whether liberal democracy and its attendant social norms are compatible with an institution like polygamy. I would submit that its not. The nuclear family is the democratic family. You can't have traditional patriarchal social norms in a political regime dedicated to the principle of equality.
The funny thing about Griswold is that it was written by William O Douglas, who as a rule was allergic to substantive due process claims, because he rightly saw that they could be used to invalidate economic legislation, as was common in Supreme Court decisions prior to the New Deal. Most legal commentators agree that Douglas was really stretching.
I thought it was much funnier when he tied Grandma to the roof.
0
fishingcomicSenior MemberPosts: 23,389Senior Member
well, I think Bork's point (and mine) is that a general right of privacy is not an enumerated right. Prior to the opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, it didn't exist at all. And that opinion is generally considered to be a result in search of a rationale rather than an opinion on which viable precedents could be based.
The funny thing about Griswold is that it was written by William O Douglas, who as a rule was allergic to substantive due process claims, because he rightly saw that they could be used to invalidate economic legislation, as was common in Supreme Court decisions prior to the New Deal. Most legal commentators agree that Douglas was really stretching.
But I'm flattered to be compared to Judge Bork, who was probably the smartest person to ever be nominated for a Supreme Court position. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.
Well in fairness it is because he is the only other person I know of that is making that argument.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
0
fishingcomicSenior MemberPosts: 23,389Senior Member
People marrying for love? Where did you get the idea that the purpose of marriage is love? Anthony Kennedy?
Social norms don't exist in a vacuum. Its a classic push-pull. Domestic relations drive the law and undergird the legitimacy of the state. Marital arrangements reflect the ends of a given society's social arrangements and vice versa. There's some doubt whether liberal democracy and its attendant social norms are compatible with an institution like polygamy. I would submit that its not. The nuclear family is the democratic family. You can't have a traditional patriarchal social norms in a political regime dedicated to the principle of equality.
How many people do you know that are in arranged marriages?
Look I am not going to argue for polygamy. Especially since I haven't even been married once. I just don't think it would be that big of an issue as most people would not participate.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
Well in fairness it is because he is the only other person I know of that is making that argument.
its actually common in conservative legal thought. But then the Bork debacle is what basically got the nascent conservative legal movement off the ground to begin with.
And when Bork's nomination failed, who did we get in his place? Thanks a lot St. Ronnie. Two centuries in purgatory for you.
How many people do you know that are in arranged marriages?
None.
That doesn't mean that romantic love is the end-all-be-all of marriage. We may have deemed it so, but that's not its purpose, and I'd submit that a lot of our current malaise over the sorry state of marriage stems from the fact that marriage is no longer about its primary purpose. The purpose of marriage has shifted from the rearing and civilizing of children to the fulfillment and self-actualization of adults, which is yet another thing that Kennedy gets wrong. Marriage is not about an individual's personal happiness. Or least it wasn't, until practically yesterday. But we know better now.
That doesn't mean that romantic love is the end-all-be-all of marriage. We may have deemed it so, but that's not its purpose, and I'd submit that a lot of our current malaise over the sorry state of marriage stems from the fact that marriage is no longer about its primary purpose. The purpose of marriage has shifted from the rearing and civilizing of children to the fulfillment and self-actualization of adults, which is yet another thing that Kennedy gets wrong. Marriage is not about an individual's personal happiness. Or least it wasn't, until practically yesterday. But we know better now.
So then you agree with him that the definition has evolved.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
I know I am trying to be a nicer guy, but some set-ups are impossible to ignore.
'I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'" Ronald Reagan
COOKIE POLICY We use cookies to improve your browsing experience and help us improve our websites. For more information, please click here. By continuing to use our website, you agree to our use of such cookies.
PRIVACY POLICY Our Privacy Policy has changed. For more information, please click here. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the changes.
TERMS OF USE Our Terms of Use have changed. For more information, please click here. By continuing to use our website, you agree to the changes.
Replies
Who needs that tsurris?
Oh hell no. One is MORE than enough.
Actually I am arguing that the state's interest is not as compelling as you seem to believe. So I am wondering, what would be so awful?
Holy crap talk about cruel and unusual punishment....
Hell yeah I'd cite that in the opinion...$hit is definitely banned by Constitution already.
I already gave you my reasons, which I thought were sufficiently compelling. I guess not.
http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/01/the_problem_with_polygamy.html
It isn't something I worry about. But then again I believe privacy is implicit in the Bill of Rights. You have stated that it needs to be explicit to be valid. Which I find interesting because one of the arguments I have heard against the Bill of Rights is that someday someone would say that these are our only rights.
You know sometimes the courts job is to protect citizens from undue intrusions from the government into our personal lives. I believe telling someone who they can or cannot marry is one of those intrusions. I also think I should be able to touch my winky without worrying about being arrested.
Assumptions borne out by the available historical evidence.
This was a concern of the Framers as well. Which is why they added the 9th amendment.
Its a long way from polygamy to winky-touching. Your winky-touching neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg (love that phrase. Thanks TJ). Your reducing the supply of available mates might very well have that effect and more, from increased crime and economic inequality to the subjugation of women. You see, in a polygamous society, women become a precious commodity, rather than citizens with agency.
Those societies also treat women like chattel and the reason why those young men are denied wives has more to do with the fact that marriages in those communities are arranged on not based on people marrying for love.
One of you articles argues that the state should be able to regulate masturbation. So it is not that far off. By the way two homosexuals getting married neither picks your pocket not breaks your leg.
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/article25777396.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/06/29/paxton-state-workers-can-deny-marriage-licenses-same-sex-couples/29456745/
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/06/27/3674802/states-resisting-same-sex-marriage/
well, I think Bork's point (and mine) is that a general right of privacy is not an enumerated right. Prior to the opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut, it didn't exist at all. And that opinion is generally considered to be a result in search of a rationale rather than an opinion on which viable precedents could be based.
The funny thing about Griswold is that it was written by William O Douglas, who as a rule was allergic to substantive due process claims, because he rightly saw that they could be used to invalidate economic legislation, as was common in Supreme Court decisions prior to the New Deal. Most legal commentators agree that Douglas was really stretching.
But I'm flattered to be compared to Judge Bork, who was probably the smartest person to ever be nominated for a Supreme Court position. That's the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.
People marrying for love? Where did you get the idea that the purpose of marriage is love? Anthony Kennedy?
Social norms don't exist in a vacuum. Its a classic push-pull. Domestic relations drive the law and undergird the legitimacy of the state. Marital arrangements reflect the ends of a given society's social arrangements and vice versa. There's some doubt whether liberal democracy and its attendant social norms are compatible with an institution like polygamy. I would submit that its not. The nuclear family is the democratic family. You can't have traditional patriarchal social norms in a political regime dedicated to the principle of equality.
I thought it was much funnier when he tied Grandma to the roof.
Well in fairness it is because he is the only other person I know of that is making that argument.
How many people do you know that are in arranged marriages?
Look I am not going to argue for polygamy. Especially since I haven't even been married once. I just don't think it would be that big of an issue as most people would not participate.
its actually common in conservative legal thought. But then the Bork debacle is what basically got the nascent conservative legal movement off the ground to begin with.
And when Bork's nomination failed, who did we get in his place? Thanks a lot St. Ronnie. Two centuries in purgatory for you.
None.
That doesn't mean that romantic love is the end-all-be-all of marriage. We may have deemed it so, but that's not its purpose, and I'd submit that a lot of our current malaise over the sorry state of marriage stems from the fact that marriage is no longer about its primary purpose. The purpose of marriage has shifted from the rearing and civilizing of children to the fulfillment and self-actualization of adults, which is yet another thing that Kennedy gets wrong. Marriage is not about an individual's personal happiness. Or least it wasn't, until practically yesterday. But we know better now.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122210/anthony-kennedys-same-sex-marriage-opinion-was-logical-disaster?utm_content=bufferbfe3c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
So then you agree with him that the definition has evolved.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420614/polygamy-gay-marriage-supreme-court