When a muslim immigrates to this country with his 2-4 wives, what is the rational argument against accepting their marriage if they are of age and consenting. Would it not be discrimination to force the family to disband, to prosecute?

Then what is the argument against Christians who practice the old testament value of having multiple wives (Mormons anyone). Is the state going to impinge on the right of a man and women of due age and consent from living their religious prerogative?

How about a woman, shouldn't then she be able to have multiple husbands? How about if I marry 7 Brazilian men and women and have them come to the states, never have sex with any of them (or do with all of them) and have them bring what income they can to the family unit living in a single family residential unit.

You say not now but dammit I will have my right to two foreign women as wives. You have no argument logical, legal, moral, or religious against my rights to marry as I will. Thank you California!!!

You can't stop me now.

The only thing gay marriage and polygamy have in common is that social conservatives use the same, weak, "tradition" argument against both. As the CA SSC ruled, that is an insufficient basis to deny the right, and in the case of gay marriage, there was no additional rational argument or basis for banning it.

If, like gay marriage, the "tradition" argument was all we had against polygamy, then bans against it too might be deemed unconstitutional. However, I think there are rational bases for prohibiting polygamy that do not apply to gay marriage.

Marriage laws in this country grant exclusive rights and responsibilities between the two spouses which cannot be sensibly granted to multiple people. For example, the right to make end-of-life decisions cannot be sensibly given to multiple people under the law. The laws are simply not written to contemplate or handle multiple partners. In contrast, the laws are gender-neutral; any marriage laws that gave unequal rights or responsibilities based on gender would be overturned as unconstitutional.

In other words, multiplicity (2 and not 3) but not gender is embedded deeply into the structure of marriage law.

This is because our society has deeply ingrained the notion of equality between the spouses in a marriage. Any remnants within the law of a husband's privileges or a wife's duties have been erased, and any lingering on the books recognized as unconstitutional and non-operable. In a very real sense, marriage equality for women laid the foundation for marriage equality for gays by making the law gender-neutral.

Societies practicing polygamy have one thing in common: marriage laws and customs are NOT gender-neutral. Men and women live under vastly different norms and laws, extending into their marriage systems.

The US generally recognizes foreign marriages, but isn't obligated to. Practically speaking, for polygamists we're talking about ruling class Saudis and the like, and practically speaking they aren't much in the business of submitting to US law when it comes to family matters. The wives are generally left at home, so its been a moot issue.

As for splinter Mormons and other domestic polygamists, they are essentially practicing polygamy without having state recognized marriages, and the state doesn't really have much standing for interfering with what people do "off the books". But such non-state recognized unions do not bring the privileges, rights and responsibilities of marriage granted by the state. And since their cultures and marriages are gender-biased, they don't tend to want mainstream marriage with its equal protection for the wives. Thus they seal themselves away from the rest of the country and culture in their creepy inbred enclaves. But the important thing to note is that when the government does get around to busting them, it is NOT for polygamy but for child abuse and exploitation, as well as welfare fraud.

LMoE

"But the important thing to note is that when the government does get around to busting them, it is NOT for polygamy but for child abuse and exploitation, as well as welfare fraud. "

This is true. You pretty much have to own an oil field these days to support 50 children and 20 wives...otherwise you're bleeding Utah and Texas taxpayers dry with welfare fraud.

All these arguments are specious. I've never heard of this invented idea that the state exerts control over the gender dynamics of married couples and that this state prerogative naturally invalidates polygamy. That is just bad logic.

Why is it bad for gay unions to be kept in a closet but not for polygamy to be kept in the closet. By your arguments it would be best to acknowledge polygamy. Bring it out into the open air to better keep abuses from happening.

Sure there will be issues that have to be worked out when the state acknowledge polygamy. Maybe marriage seniority will determine who pulls the plug. Or a majority vote when odd number of spouses are involved. Simple contracts could determine all these issues. Nothing that can't be figured out.

No, your every argument against polygamy is not logical, legal, or religious in the context of legalized gay marriage.

I'm looking forward to bring 2 or 3 little asian, mail order brides back here. Nah, I think I like the Ukranians more. Or maybe I'll mix and match them.

I'm so happy. :0)

But legalize polygamy and many of these abuses will attenuate. You can't deny that.

"I'm looking forward to bring 2 or 3 little asian, mail order brides back here. Nah, I think I like the Ukranians more. Or maybe I'll mix and match them."

Even if polygamous marriage were legal, human trafficking would still be a crime. Sorry dude.

You haven't a clue. There are internet sites full of women willingly looking to marry an American. I have my choice of seond and third world beauties. Just have to convince some that polygamy is cool.

Wow, I'm thinking of some Indian women I've seen. Just gorgeous. Hmmm. What to google, what to google. I'm so excited I just can't stand it.

WEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee­eee

I realize that you are throwing a bit of tantrum and are being facetious about the polygamy thing, but beyond your own moralistic objection to both, they really are fundamentally different.

I can't help it if you simply refuse to acknowledge two very basic facts:

1. Laws related to marriage are gender neutral. This doesn't mean that the state gets involved with what goes on privately within the marriage, but when the marriage interacts publically with the law, the state makes no notice of either spouse's gender.

2. The number of spouses in a marriage is deeply embedded into the structure of the law. All those issues that would have to be "worked out" for polygamy (but not for gay marriage) reflect this. If you view legal marriage as a contract, that contract is written for two. The state has no justifiable basis for offering and recognizing this contract for some couples (opposite sex, same race) but not others (same sex, different races). It does not follow that it must offer a fundamentally different contract for polygamists.

LMoE

1. Laws related to marriage are gender neutral. This doesn't mean that the state gets involved with what goes on privately within the marriage, but when the marriage interacts publically with the law, the state makes no notice of either spouse's gender.

So this is simply an argument of legal facility for including gay marriage? Because it can't possibly mean that gay marriage has been state sanctioned all along and we just didn't know it.

2. The number of spouses in a marriage is deeply embedded into the structure of the law.

So has been the implied gender of participants in marriage.

All those issues that would have to be "worked out" for polygamy (but not for gay marriage) reflect this. If you view legal marriage as a contract, that contract is written for two.

Contracts can include many parties not just necessarily two.

The state has no justifiable basis for offering and recognizing this contract for some couples (opposite sex, same race) but not others (same sex, different races).

Yes, it does. This country is founded on the idea of religious freedom. Even some "Christians" have practiced polygamy. They too are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Why do you deny Mormons or Muslims their human rights? Are you a hipocrite?

It does not follow that it must offer a fundamentally different contract for polygamists.

Yes, it does. Stop being so disingenous.

At this point you are just being willing obtuse, or an actual fool. I'm not sure which.

My point is that structurally, legal marriage is a state sanctioned contract between two adults.

The key words are two and adults. Once you get into the body of the law, there is no reference to the gender or race (or relative genders or races) of the spouses, but the number of spouses is fundamental. The meaning of a law is the same regardless of the genders or races of the spouses, but can change substantially or become meaningless or ambiguous if a given person has more than one spouse.

The fact that some contracts can be written to accomodate multiple parties does not change the fact that the existing marriage laws are NOT written this way. If you or various polygamists would like to fundamentally overhaul all the laws related to marriage in order to make them compatible with multiple spouses, by all means get to work, but it will be an uphill battle. Until then, the state does not offer a legal marriage contract for polygamists.

But the state DOES offer a legal marriage contract for two adults, and has no legal justification for discriminating against particular pairs of adults based on gender or race.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to religious freedom, but it certainly does NOT follow that the state is then obligated to validate, recognize or otherwise make special accomodation for the individual's religious practices. One's religion might involve human sacrifice, drug usage, polygamy, rest on Sundays, or special garments. The state's guarantee of religious freedom does not imply that it must accomodate or facilitate any of these, and in fact it may legally prohibit any of these IF it can demonstrate it has sufficient reason.

So, if a polygamist wishes to be "married" within their religious tradition, the state has no basis to interfere. But it does NOT follow that it must construct and offer them polygamist versions of marriage laws, and an individual cannot be legally married to more than one spouse. Religious freedom cuts both ways: the state can/should neither interfere nor facilitiate an individual's religious practice (beyond the state's interest in equal protection, etc.).

LMoE

Your argument against polygamy is only about legal facility. Discrimination based on sexual orientation or religious belief is discrimination plain and simple. Ask Mormons or Muslims if they think their marriages should be acknowledged by state. All my wives should be able to enjoy the legal protections that you and your spouse enjoy.

The obtuse one is you.

Spiker, I'm starting to wonder about you. I have seen nearly a dozen of your posts crowing about your desire to marry and enslave several women from third world nations....are you having a hard time convincing American women to give you the time of day? Do they not enjoy listening to your semi-coherent diatribes? What exactly is the problem you are trying to solve? Where does your need to have a wife or wives you can dominate and control come from?

Where did I say enslave?

Are you saying polygamy is only about enslavement? I think that is prejudiced. I think you want to discriminate against me because of my beliefs regarding marriage. I want my rights equal to monogamous marriage. I don't want the FBI to have a cultural bias to raid my home and take my children away.

I thought so. My advice is that you work hard at developing yourself into a respectful, likeable person. Then perhaps you can attract a woman and move on from this mail order bride fantasy where you can continue to be a fruit loop loser and she will still have to do what you say.

I thought so, no real ability to debate the finer points of this argument of where to draw the line and why.