Justice Sonia Sotomayor: If Gay Marriage Is Legal, What About Polygamy?

Why wouldnt they have discussed it, homosexuality is common in many species as we're told, im sure they were fully aware of it. Unless there were'nt many back then, are there more gays (%wise) now? If so what caused the increase if not surely they didnt exclude them by accident.

 

Probably to protect G Washington, whose written communications with Joseph Reed, his closest and most loyal staffer, bordered on love letters.

Homos!!!!!

 

They didn't discuss it because the concept had not yet been invented

 

The only other category of couples currently denied marriage are those deemed too closely related. Personally, I have no objection to lifting that restriction as well, but the current cases before the Court, no matter how they rule, will not do so. A separate political or legal movement will be required. While I have no objection to it, and would support it, I'm not going to start that movement myself. You are free to do so if you like.

 

No one should be denied the right to marry, to include polygamy and incest. Leave it to God to sort out the good guys and the sinners; he is quite capable of taking care of the sinners.

 

There is no biological or other logical reason to think that homosexuality exists in greater numbers (other than absolute because of population growth) today then they would have in the late 1700's. But, between the ever increasing acceptance of it, as well as technological advances allowing much greater abilities to communicate, it could certainly create that illusion. A homosexual person in the 1700's would have to be quite cautious about finding a partner, as we humans don't have hetero/homo/bi lights on our foreheads, even the simple act of flirting with a perceived prospect could have been quite deleterious if said prospect was in fact heterosexual. Today, one can go to establishments that cater to such individuals and be relatively assured that a potential love interest shares their sexuality, not to mention the ability to do so online.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with one minor linguistic nit. "Polygamy" is one husband, many wives. That would violate equal protection. "Polyamory" is 3 or more of any combination. That is what ought be legal.

 

Of course, Dix. You're right!! But it was invented soon after, as I recall from history classes in Texas, when in circa 1778, them fudge-packin' Romans in the Senate (Roman Senate, and not ours of course, who instead just solicit gay sex in DC public restrooms, when not denouncing SODOMITES!!!) started buggering each other, bringing that empire to its knees -- and to its knees!!! (if ya get the drift. snicker, snicker) Then later, I think early 1800s, them Trojans sure as heck were up to some man on boy shenanigans.

But anyway, I digress. You're absolutely right, Dix. Thanks for learnin' us dumb *******s!!!

 

I find it amusing that polygamy and incest were used as strawmen to destroy support for same sex marriage, and it seems, when people take the time to actually think about it and consider it, more and more they're actually saying, "You know what, you're right, those ought to be legal, too."

Not what the anti's were hoping for when they first brought it up lol...

 

I don't give responsive answers to personal attacks and flamebaiting. You're ignored.

 

In other words, are you claiming that in any conflict of State laws, a civil Person in our republic has no recourse to Article 4, Section 2 regarding their privileges and immunities and how the judicature of the United States must interpret it?

 

A plain reading of that Article clearly provides that specifically enumerated supreme law of the land, as a choice in any conflict of laws arising under the United States.

You have not demonstrated by what mechanism recourse to Article 4, Section 2 is limited to your special pleading definition of a plain reading that claims otherwise.

 

The slippery slope is the worst argument.

 

There is no slippery slope regarding individual liberty.

- - - Updated - - -

Article 4, Section 2 is clearly a limitation on governments in the US.

 

From one perspective and in that alternative, denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States is no longer a States' right since the ratification of our federal Constitution.

The judicature of the United States can only go by what is specifically enumerated.

 

Sure I have. I just cant disprove your delusion in your own mind.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1, also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a discriminatory manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause

"It was not intended by the provision to give to the laws of one State any operation in other States. They can have no such operation, except by the permission, express or implied, of those States." http://www.sou.edu/history/PaulvVirginia.docx

"Some distinctions between residents and nonresidents merely reflect the fact that this is a Nation composed of individual States, and are permitted; other distinctions are prohibited because they hinder the formation, the purpose, or the development of a single Union of those States. Only with respect to those `privileges' and `immunities' bearing upon the vitality of the Nation as a single entity must the State treat all citizens, resident and nonresident, equally."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=465&page=208

Nor did it profess to control the power of the State governments over the rights of its own citizens. Its sole purpose was to declare to the several States, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more nor less, shall be the measure of the rights of citizens of other States within your jurisdiction.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0083_0036_ZO.html

 

That misses the point I am presenting with Article 4, Section 2 as a valid choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the United States.

 

It directly contradicts your point so I dont know what it is you think it misses.

 

That you are resorting to special pleading by excluding the plain meaning of the terms in Article 4, Section 2. The political conditions that existed then no longer exist today and our legal infrastructure should be modernized as well.

 

And how does gay marriage threaten individual liberty?

 

I never said it did; marriage is a private Act and natural right.

 

The above is the plain meaning. Why dont you post even one published source with your interpretation. I can present dozens with mine that directly refute yours. And educate yourself to avoid making a fool of yourself

I have the "generally accepted rule, principle" as evidenced by the multiple linked to sources while YOU are the one who cant justify the exemption created in your own mind.

 

All you have "parroted" is an obsolete line of reasoning that was not very sound when it was "created". Why do You believe Article 4, Section 2 is not a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws?

In other words, in any conflict of State laws, why would someone not be able to appeal to the general government regarding those privileges and immunities in question?

 

Your fist clue should have been the complete absence of even a single word expressing any relation whatsoever to either conflict or choice of law

 

Simply enumerating it in Article 4, Section 2 creates that choice of our supreme law of the land in any conflict of even State laws; it is that simple, otherwise, why enumerate it at all.

In any Case, it is not enumerated in Article 1, Sections 9 or 10; and, it does present that choice of law in any conflict of laws arising under the United States as clearly enumerated in Article 4, Section 2.

 

It enumerates that citizens of states are entitled to the rights of citizens of other state, when they are in those states. No supreme law, you imagined that part. No conflict or choice of law. You imagined that as well.