To that, I would just say that you have to have a constitutional reason to alter the default position of marriage. Valid arguments can be mustered against polygamy. Primarily it would be the much increased likelihood of negative results, including state support, foreseeable issues resulting from divorce, states having to raise kids, etc. All the Court needs is convincing argument against. I think that is much easier to make against polygamy than it is same sex marriage.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by SquatchDawg

Cohutta Wilderness

Member since Sep 2012

14257 posts

Posted on 6/30/15 at 2:30 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou

Very reasoned post...thanks for the insight.

I personally agree that gays should be able to marry. But also agree with the dissents on this case for many of the reasons they cover - no need to repeat that here - but I will offer the following by Roberts:

quote:
But a Justice’s commission does not confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of “due process.” There is indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort—the democratic process. Respecting that understanding requires the Court to be guided by law, not any particularschool of social thought.

Also there's the fear of unintended consequences. Let's hope that legislation is crafted (what a novel thought) after this ruling to cover some of the fears mentioned in this thread (plural marriage, churches being compelled to comply, etc.).

0 ...

Report Post

Georgia Sports Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board