Can Three Bisexuals Be Legally Wed Polygamists in California?

reply to post by AmosGraber


So you don't mind when laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution get passed?

In the case you provided the government interfered with freedom of religion.

For this to be even remotely legal, by US legal standards, the government would have had to ammend the constitution prior to passing the law.

That never happened, so the law is not really legal.

Does go to show how far back the us government has been bypassing the constitution though.

As for the checks and balances...well they apparently haven't been working since atleast 1862.

Originally posted by peck420

In the case you provided the government interfered with freedom of religion.

Was Mormon a legal recognized religion?

Just curious.

Look for one I already stated I’m no big anti-polygamist. Why are you so bothered by anti-polygamy laws? Are you Mormon?

Originally posted by peck420
So you don't mind when laws that are in direct conflict with the constitution get passed?

This is really a double-edged statement, almost an oxymoronic in nature. The constitution gives the legislature the right to pass bills, which are passed onto the executive to sign into law, if there is legal objection and said objection reaches the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court upholds that objection, then the government is working within the bounds of the constitution. Now don’t get me wrong, our government is riddled with corruption. If you feel on this point they are wrong, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are operating beyond their powers the Constitution entitled them to; maybe what you should do is get involved. Run for Congress, run for President, become a Judge, but just don’t sit there and think the government is circumventing the Constitution because you don’t agree with actions they constitutionally created.

Originally posted by peck420
For this to be even remotely legal, by US legal standards, the government would have had to ammend the constitution prior to passing the law.
That never happened, so the law is not really legal.

Maybe you should do some easy Google research about the Morrill Act and the challenge by Reynolds vs. the United States to help clear up some of your confusion. Reynolds was a member of the Mormon Church he sued the government over his conviction for polygamy. His main argument was he felt the government had no right to convict him, because he stated it was his DUTY, (this is key, because he never stated it was his religious belief) to marry multiply wives in accordance to Mormon doctrine. The Supreme Court ruled that religious duty was not a suitable defense against any criminal prosecutions. Either way the legislature, the executive and the judicial all acted in accordance to their Constitutional authority.

Originally posted by peck420
Does go to show how far back the us government has been bypassing the constitution though.

Dear God I never thought I would be cornered into defending the government, God knows I have many disagreements with TPTB, but regardless I wouldn’t agree with your choice of words “bypassing” the constitution but there is a lot more to the story than that. When President Lincoln signed the Morrill Act many historians believe he wasn’t so much concerned with ending polygamy (although there had been a great outcry against the practice for years), Lincoln used the new law to get Brigham Young to promise to not to take sides in the Civil War, by telling Young he would not enforce the law, as long as the Mormons in Utah stayed out of the War (many feared they would come in on the side of the confederacy, because at the time African-Americans were not allowed to be members of the Mormon Church), eventually the Mormon Church banned polygamy anyways.


[edit on 7-8-2010 by AmosGraber]

Here's my .02$:

As of the judge's ruling, there is no accepted definition of marriage - he effectively threw that out the window.

So now, anything goes, including if you want to marry a pancake or your three brothers Roy.

reply to post by Annee


Mormon was not recognized, infact NO religion is officially recognized by the US government.

The only definition seems to be tax exempt status afforded to religions, of which Mormon's (Church of Latter Day Saints) haven't paid into...so I guess the government recognized them by not having them pay? I can't find any direct records to prove or disprove this, anybody know where to find US tax records circa 1830's?

The closest thing I could find to a recognized current religion list is here.
Link

reply to post by AmosGraber


It's pretty simple.

The US gove didn't tax, therefore they consider it a religion.

Constitution and Bill of Rights supercede federal law.

"Constitution overrides any federal and state law.
Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the law of the land. "

Source

Some modern scholarship suggests the law may be unconstitutional for being in violation of the Free Exercise Clause,[5] although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that neutral laws that happen to impinge on some religious practices are constitutional.``

Source

Bold by me to emphasize how ass backwards your checks and balances are. Unalienable rights, but they can be inpinged upon.

You will never have actual balances and checks in the United States until Supreme Court judges are NOT appointed by the Federal government.

To think otherwise is pretty assinine. Do you think they pick honest people or do you think the president and senate pick the most beneficial to them?

I don't think Mormon's are the best example of polygamy, as I have a strong distaste for this, but I also don't think the federal government should have any power to dictate or regulate what is essentially a religious union.

I don't care what laws they pass in California. I don't live in California.

What I care about is what laws are passed in the state in which I live.

If in my state the majority of voters vote against gay marriage, then that's the law.

If some gay judge tries to change the will of the voters in my state, that is a problem.

California can do what they want. The majority of voters in California have a right to be upset that a gay judge changed their vote.

Of course, last I heard, the judge stayed his decision. So the issue isn't resolved in California.

If you marry in California, soon as you cross the state line into Arizona or Nevada....poof........automtic dissolution of marriage.

That is if the judge's ruling stands nullifying a legal vote.

A decision that is a long way off yet.

I honestly would hate to think that Alex Jones would show prejudice against bisexuals or heterosexuals.........

I honestly hate to think that anyone would give special preference to homosexuals at the expense of heterosexuals.

If we are ALL going to be equal, the let us ALL be equal.

If California is going to be able to make there own laws, then every state should be allowed to make their own laws.

I would hate to think that the Supreme Court would favor ONE state at the expense of the other 49.



If Gay Marriage is Legal, Then.....
.......So is Bisexual Polygamy

The Bisexual Polygamist Opening Credits
www.youtube.com...


[edit on 7-8-2010 by earl call]

Oh well - - its only a matter of time before it is declared (by some legal means) a marriage must be recognized in all states.

It might take all states a little longer then that to grant Equal Rights Marriage - - but it will happen.

Just like women got the vote.
Just like inter-racial marriage.
Just like race equality.

Enjoy your paranoia while you can.

Just like bisexual polygamy will become a law.



First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
www.brusselsjournal.com...

Originally posted by earl call
Just like bisexual polygamy will become a law.



First Trio "Married" in The Netherlands
www.brusselsjournal.com...

I have no problem with polygamy or bisexual polygamy or polyamory or any other multiple marriage.

As long as all involved are consenting adults.

How is it any of my business.

Originally posted by Annee

I have no problem with polygamy or bisexual polygamy or polyamory or any other multiple marriage.

Gay Marriage, then Polygamy
www.youtube.com...

Bottom line for me is the issue of the protection of privacy. I don’t care a rat’s behind what people do behind closed doors as long as they are not abusing another person. I like the old saying your right to privacy ends at the tip of my nose. If a same sex couple wants to be married. I don’t care. If a burner wants to fry his head with pot, I don’t care. If a person wants to own 10 Uzi’s, a bazooka, or many machine guns, as long as he isn’t blowing his families heads off, I don’t care. I despise governmental authorities in the name of security. Mr. Franklin once said, “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” I suppose this issue of same sex marriage just resounds with me as being an issue of freedom, liberty and the protection of privacy. And whenever the religious zealot freaks come out of the woodwork in spouting the evils of someone else’s freedoms, liberties, privacy and equal protections under the law in the name of traditional moralities and social norms while keeping them suppressed, well, historically they eventually are always shown to be wrong, out of touch, and eventually wrong in their predisposed traditional beliefs. Segregation, miscegenation, Jim Crow laws, disallowing women to own property, disallowing women to vote, the suppression of labor to organize, equal civil rights for all; were all historical suppressions by the so-called majorities of their times who ALL used the same dang arguments which are now spouted against the idea of allowing same-sex couples to marry in a Church of their own choosing. What do they have in common? Eventually after many years of sacrifices, protest, and often bloodshed, they eventually won their freedom and liberty. Some may think I am way off by making this statement, but eventually same-sex marriage will become a reality, and soon afterwards when society sees the buildings are not falling down, people are not running amok in the streets and the sun is still rising every morning maybe then we can get along to the real important issues like ending poverty, ending crime, ending war, giving every child a good education, etcetera. I am so sick of simple issues of freedom and liberty becoming divisive issues in the modern world. If I could make one wish this is what it would be; that all 24/7 yellow journalistic commentators would be held liable for their inflammatory lies to draw up their ratings while pumping hot air into issues which should of never become forefront into the American debate in the first place!

Originally posted by earl call

Originally posted by Annee

I have no problem with polygamy or bisexual polygamy or polyamory or any other multiple marriage.

Gay Marriage, then Polygamy
www.youtube.com...

Now really - why would I be interested in a video of your choosing - - considering your opinion on the matter.

1 rule - - CONSENTING ADULTS. If abuse or force enters in to it - - - that is a completely different matter.

I personally feel the single mono family is the downfall of society today. At one time people lived in extended families - - they learned to get along - to share space - to be patient with others - to put up with each others idiosyncrasies - to help each other - etc.

Today everyone has their own room - own computer - both parents working - leaving kids to raise themselves or be raised by someone other then parent. They live for "self". They rarely have to share anything - they often live in isolation - only socializing with same kind. Its become an every person for themselves world.

The Mormons had it right. They should have been left alone. Of course they weren't - more for political reasons then anything else.

Mormons have the greatest organizational skills I've ever encountered. There focus on family is untouchable by any other group.

Too bad they are patriarchal and fundamental Christians. If only they were a positive thought metaphysical group - - I might have stayed.

Some people prefer rough sex. If they want rough and painful sex, that's their right. Whether it's behind closed doors or not.

S&Mers have the right to wear dog collars in public if that's their thing.

Originally posted by rimshot
Some people prefer rough sex. If they want rough and painful sex, that's their right. Whether it's behind closed doors or not.

S&Mers have the right to wear dog collars in public if that's their thing.

Ah - there is a difference between clothing attire and action.

No one wants to see "tonsil hockey" in public - straight or gay.

But I think its adorable watching 2 loving people walking holding hands - straight or gay. Dog collar optional.

If people want dogs with their dog collars, that's their constitutional right.

Dogs are legal in all fifty states and Hawaii.

What people do with obedient dogs who smile a lot, that's their business. I don't care how many people own that dog.

Power to the people is the only freedom S&M couples can have.

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
[
Say, Troll. Bisexuals are not by definition polygamous but surely you know that already. Most who I've known are in fact just like the rest of us - they tend to prefer one monogamous relationship at a time.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by ChrisCrikey]

Since you are the expert definier on sexual proclivities, give us your infromative take on lesbians.

I live in Ca. and as far as I'm concerned the whole thing is a travisshammockery. I voted for prop 8 and find myself, along with the rest of the majority, being slapped down by an openly gay judge. From where I'm standing, there is something very wrong with that picture. I think the only way we in Ca. could have gotten a fair hearing would have been if an openly homophobic judge would have heard the case, then we would have truly unbiased relief