The Court in its decision goes through the reasons why such a ban should receive strict scrutiny and be presumed unconstitutional. The decision labels homosexuality as something that you are born with (whether you agree with that or not), while polygamy is clearly a choice. Therefore, the court used Intermediate scrutiny (although the court stated it could also use strict scrutiny, which is a higher bar, but then went on to say it didn’t even pass the lesser bar of intermediate), when evaluating the Iowa law.

Basically, the reason polygamy fails is because of the level of scrutiny a law that discriminates against polygamy would receive when compared to gay marriage. In order to discriminate against gay marriage, the state needs to have a “compelling interest” that the law satisfies. The Iowa court found that the interests put forward did not meet the facts presented, and therefore, it was unconstitutional. With polygamy, all the state needs to put forward is a “rational basis,” which doesn’t need exhaustive facts; all it would need is for rational people to nod their head and agree, irregardless of whether the facts fully comport.

So, I just don’t see polygamy being the logical extension of gay marriage.

That’s basically the problem, Aaron.

The counter-argument basically boils down to “Oh, ick! No court would allow THAT!”

But given what’s gone on already, and given that one or two personnel changes on the Supreme Court could alter it radically, it’s a pretty thin reed on which to bank on a stopping point.

(And, BTW, aren’t we hearing a lot more talk these days from nouveau legal minds in DC (such as Mr. Koh) that we need to take more account of “international standards” and “other countries’ court decisions” in our jurisprudence?)

But even beyond that, it’s interesting that this matter has been moving closer to happening in Canada; in both Canada and the U.K., polygamy is still technically illegal…. but the courts have already ruled that “common benefits” cannot be denied to polygamous men.

As Mark Steyn (and others) have noted, courts in both countries have already ruled that when polygamous men apply for family welfare benefits, full benefits must be provided in total to all wives at the same level that they would be applied to a plain old regular solitary wife.

There was also that matter in the U.K. where a gent committed what should have been an automatic-loss-of-license speeding offense - but argued (SUCCESSFULLY!!) that pulling his license would violate his religious beliefs, since he had two wives in two different cities and needed his license to be able to drive between his two households.

These are court decisions in jurisdictions where polygamy is still technically illegal - but decisions like this amount to a backdoor de facto legalization; it’s essentially impossible to argue otherwise.

Just as many have failed to grasp that a war won’t “stop” just because they’ve lost interest in fighting it, so an “evolving paradigm” won’t cease to “evolve” just because those who wanted to start “evolving” it have decided that’s it’s evolved far enough for their tastes and they want it to stop….

well they wouldn’t be similarly situated, because one would be married, while the other wouldn’t be. But see my post above.

The court simply made up the right to privacy for abortion, that is true. But then wouldn’t the court have been an activist court when it desegregated schools? You have to make the decisions within the political context of the time period. The Dred Scott decision wasn’t seen as activist, while Brown was seen as activist. Today, however, we see the Dred Scott decision as very wrong, and the Brown decision as not activist at all.

Relax guy. All I am saying is that if the majority creates a law, that is unconstitutional, the Court should be able to ban it, just as they did in Brown, because that is literally their job - to interpret the Constitution.

It seems to me that the process that the bill of rights had to go through would be the process that any new “right” would have to go through, a constitutional ammendment. It’s the only safe way to accomplish something of such a critical nature.

Yes, democracy should be democracy. If a majority of a legislature thinks taxes should be at a certain level, or a crime should be punished with a certain amount of years, or parking can’t be on one side of the road, or that spending should be for X, but not Y, then so be it. However, if the majority makes a law that violates the Constitution, then it is the duty of the Court to strike it down. Get away from hot button issues, if the legislature of Virginia passed a law that allowed officials to take your land without pay, or recourse; it would be immediately struck down as violating Due Process. I think that in these instances it should be up to the court to decide, because they are the ones with the expertise. That is why we don’t (or shouldn’t, some states allow it) elect judges, and they stay on the bench for life. They should be politics neutral, but they also need to place their constitutional check on the other branches of government.

I read about that. The Court knew that if it didn’t go all the way then it would simply do no more than force states to update black schools to be exactly equal to white schools. This would have just continued the terrible practice.

“Taking marriage out of government altogether would achieve more of the results that SoCons yearn for than just barring gays from marrying would. I can assure you, it would be much more difficult to get a divorce, a gay marriage, or an incestuous union from a clergyman than it is to get it from the courts”

man, you are on my page tonight, I am starting to see as the only option out of this. Let us burn it all to the ground because I do not want the divorce courts to now be tied up with the nightmares that are sure to come with the current course of action.

not just for unions with sex involved, which is where the argument’s revolving around currently, but also with non-sexual unions, like roommates and the like, and the divide between the two has always seemed artificial to me.

The proponents who insist on defining two of the same sex as a married couple are not changing anyone’s heart and mind on this issue. It is like proponents who insist that 2+2=5. They can insist and shout it from the rooftops, and it is not going to make one bit of difference because 2+2=4.