Can Three Bisexuals Be Legally Wed Polygamists in California?

Since the judge ruled that gays can marry, then that must mean that bisexuals can marry.

So, can a bisexual man marry another man and a woman, and be legally married in California?

Can a bisexual woman marry another woman and a man and be legally married in Californai?

If gays have the right to marry according to their desires,, then bisexuals should be allowed to be married according to their desires.

So, can three bisexual men be legally married in California?

And can three bisexual women be legally married in California?

If so, then we get into numbers. Can four bisexuals be legally married in California?

For example, can a bisexual man be married to two bisexual men and one bisexual woman?

Do all the partners in a polygamist marriage have to be bisexual? Can some of them be homosexual, or even heterosexual?

The legal questions can go on and one. The Supreme Court can have a lot of fun with all these legal questions......depending on which ones the Supreme Court will agree to hear.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by fred call]

Just because Gay Marriage is or is not legal does not mean in any way that Polygamy should also be. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that no one has the right to marry more than one person. Men have the right to marry a woman, whereas a woman does not have that same right. That is the reason why the equal protection clause protects the right to gay marriage. It restricts a fundamental right that all people have, to people who want to marry someone of their own gender.

None.

Of.

This.

Matters.

Well, in the name of equality they'd have to. Nothing will ever truely be "equal" as it's an impossibility, as it has to be. Where do you draw the line? If indeed a line is ever drawn, you are denying someone their rights and equality...........it's just not rational to ever expect true equality in a situation like this.....no matter how many say they want equality,they do so at the expense of others, you know the ones not deserving equality.

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Just because Gay Marriage is or is not legal does not mean in any way that Polygamy should also be. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that no one has the right to marry more than one person. Men have the right to marry a woman, whereas a woman does not have that same right. That is the reason why the equal protection clause protects the right to gay marriage. It restricts a fundamental right that all people have, to people who want to marry someone of their own gender.

I believe the judge's ruling was that gender legally has nothing to do with marriage.

This is America, right? If gays have their rights, then why can't bisexuals have their rights?

This becomes a legal issue. Not an emotional issue. When writing the law for equality, where does someone draw a line in the sand where equality ends?

That's being prejudicial towards bisexuals? Prejudice is prejudice.

The legal argument goes on and on.

Originally posted by fred call

For example, can a bisexual man be married to two bisexual men and one bisexual woman?

Well I'm no lawyer so don't take my life advice at face value ... but you should do whatever makes you happy.

Originally posted by Canis Lupus
Just because Gay Marriage is or is not legal does not mean in any way that Polygamy should also be. The difference between gay marriage and polygamy is that no one has the right to marry more than one person. Men have the right to marry a woman, whereas a woman does not have that same right. That is the reason why the equal protection clause protects the right to gay marriage. It restricts a fundamental right that all people have, to people who want to marry someone of their own gender.

Yeah, the can of worms is open. There is actually a hell of allot of historical tradition throughout history associated with Polygamy, that is next. Then who knows. Everything goes.

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by fred call

For example, can a bisexual man be married to two bisexual men and one bisexual woman?

Well I'm no lawyer so don't take my life advice at face value ... but you should do whatever makes you happy.

I have a feeling that none of the respondents thus far are attornies.

The answer to your question is no. In Reynolds v. United States, the chief Justice of the US actually made a very good statemen in his decision. The last part has bearing on your question:

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES



Added 'ex' tags for external content

[edit on 5/8/10 by masqua]

[edit on 5/8/10 by masqua]

No Judge ruled that "gays can marry".
The Judge ruled that Prop 8 was an Unconstitutional law, therefore, not legal at all.
Big difference, but only for rational , thinking people.
Knee jerkers don't get it all all!

reply to post by infolurker


No, we haven't gotten into marrying your pet or marrying a dead person yet. But fifty years ago who'd of thought we'd be arguing about gay marriages in the courts of law. And here we are. No telling where it will end.

Maybe it will end with polygamy?

Hard to say at this point in time.

Why are you including the marriage of multiple people to one marriage license?

We aren't changing anything about marriage, were telling it that it will now be gender neutral.

Whether or not 3 people can get married has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.

Gay or bisexual or straight people on average, all want to spend there lives with 1 other person. Considering the legal contract marriage brings, along with the emotional contract, it's not something most people want to do more than once.

The laws still say that you can only marry one person, or one person at a time.

I don't know about where you live, but in Canada, you have to get a divorce in order to legally marry another person.

This issue is not about the institution of marriage. It's about protecting people equally under the law. If marriage wasn't a legal contract which gives you more rights than other people, we would not want to get married.

~Keeper

Originally posted by OldDragger

No Judge ruled that "gays can marry".
The Judge ruled that Prop 8 was an Unconstitutional law, therefore, not legal at all.
Big difference, but only for rational , thinking people.
Knee jerkers don't get it all all!

Hmmm. Are you an attorney or a judge? Are you making a legal ruling on the judge's legal ruling based on legal experience?

Or is that your personal opinion based on secular personal understanding of what went on in the courts of law?

Fred, here you go again night after night you post threads based on untruths and your own personal projections. You jump off on any subject and twist it to where the issue is nearly unrecognizable to fit some extremist reactive agenda, and people let you get away with it night after night. It's to ATS' credit that few people, not even the rightest of righties or conservatives ever S&F you.

Equal rights for gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. I have never seen anyone here advocate for that or bestiality...which will no doubt be your next thread.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Bisexuality is not based on sexual preference? But homosexuality is a sexual preference?

There might be a contradiction in terms there.

Anyway, if gays can argue for their rights in court, then bisexuals can argue for their rights in the courts of law?

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
Fred, here you go again night after night you post threads based on untruths and your own personal projections. You jump off on any subject and twist it to where the issue is nearly unrecognizable to fit some extremist reactive agenda, and people let you get away with it night after night. It's to ATS' credit that few people, not even the rightest of righties or conservatives ever S&F you.

Equal rights for gay marriage has nothing to do with polygamy. I have never seen anyone here advocate for that or bestiality...which will no doubt be your next thread.

There is nothing mandating that you have to include yourself in this discussion. If you are so incensed by the subject, don't get involved.

Don't make it sound like I'm draggging you kicking and screaming into a topic.

Equal rights are equal rights. If you say gays have equal rights, but bisexuals don't have equal rights, there is a contradiction in terms. And there are bound to be legal issues involved.

reply to post by fred call


But the bisexual would end up losing the case, as bigamy is illegale in the US, and those who are in such a relationship, tend to be very low profile and keep very quiet. The court case that I pointed out, goes the the justice opinion on the matter, to explain why bigamy and the taking of more than one spouse was not legal. Most court cases are based on precident and a judge would use a prior one to make a ruling.

reply to post by fred call


One "bisexual" should be free to 'marry' (the legal definition, to be clear...personally, I don't know why anyone would want to for any other reason, except if there's a financial incentive, under prevailing tax laws --- and also survivor's benefits, that sort of thing. RIGHTS!! It's about RIGHTS!!! HUMAN rights...).

That "bisexual", as any other individual, should be limited to just ONE other 'wed' partner, under the law.

Of course, just as with about 99.9% of every human on the planet, ALL of these people will be free to exercise their desires and find pleasures outside of their "wedlock'...that isn't going to change, and THAT is what all the "goody-two-shoes-religious-conservative" types (you can add a few more adjectives, if you wish) keep forgetting about.


NOTE to those who may be "apalled" by the suggestion that virtually every human being "cheats" on their partners....that was an off-the-cuff generalization, for emphasis.

Of course, I realize there are exceptions...and to those, I say "Well done!"

Still, you must admit, it is very, very rare...honorable, but rare....

This is just my opinion... I don't care. Let consenting adults do what they want. To their bliss or detriment.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by intrepid]

reply to post by fred call

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.

edited for spelling




[edit on 5-8-2010 by ChrisCrikey]