Should polygamy be illegal?

[flash9286]

Its illegal in my state to sell mature games to children.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by flash9286
Its illegal in my state to sell mature games to children.

And it is illegal for kids to get polygamous marriages .

However, a parent can buy a 'M' rated game and play it in front of the kid, and even let the kid have a turn.

In both cases, what a parent is doing is detrimental to the child.

[flash9286]

So to enforce that would be unconstitutional and unenforceable, but to ban polygamy is easy and enforceable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by flash9286
So to enforce that would be unconstitutional and unenforceable, but to ban polygamy is easy and enforceable.

Quite frankly, the only reason the ban against polygamy was 'constitutional' is because discrimination was tolerated. If such a case came up today, with the court's religious jurisprudence since the issue was decided when Utah was admitted to statehood, the Court would have to say banning polygamy violated the religious beliefs of Mormons (and violate the free exercise clause).

In the law school class I took on First Amendment law, the class came to a conclusion that polygamy bans couldn't survive under the Constitution.

The difference between that and drug bans, if you were wondering, is that one would be considered neutrally applicable (drug bans), but bans against polygamy were enacted to discourage Mormonism (as most of the legislative debates show). Of course you can argue that both should be allowed or both shouldn't be allowed, but due to Constitutional jurisprudence, I'd say a peyote ban would stand while a polygamy one wouldn't.

[flash9286]

edit-nm you answered my question

[flash9286]

So you think that even if the state could prove that children and women suffer under polygenic marriages, it would still be ruled unconstitutional.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by flash9286
So you think that even if the state could prove that children and women suffer under polygenic marriages, it would still be ruled unconstitutional.

I think it may be a difficult thing to prove, but I think it would still fail, because when these laws were being enacted, it was to screw the Mormons (legislators actually say this in debate). Now if a state wanted to pass a law now to protect women and children, they'd probably have to prove it does them harm and is not merely a pretext for getting at the Mormons (or some Muslims), which may be a high hurdle.

[Dis]

Originally posted by GePap
I see no intellectual reason for it to be illegal as opposed to monogamy, after all, marriages are contracts, and who said people can't enter into multiple contracts.

As for "legal" nightmares: its called changing and clarifying the law. And making the litigants pay up most of the civil court costs.

In short, its not something I see any compelling reason to ban, as long as those interested in doing it have a fair understanding of the consequences they might endure. I know that is a pretty high standard, but heck, if fools are allowed to marry one person and screw it up, why not three?

What about when all their children and wives suck up the entire county's welfare money, yet they don't pay property taxes?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sava





I agree.

I have some concerns regarding polygamy because historically, young girls have been used as property. But in today's world, I don't see why consenting adults cannot enter into such arrangements.

Did you not see what's happening to girls and women in Utah/Arizona?

The husbands are kicked out of the church and their wives are given to somebody else.

Slavery is alive and well in america...

[Dr Strangelove]

Polygamy makes inhertitance a little problematic.

Many years ago a young Romanian boy was sent to Istanbul as a hostage in order to guarentee his father's allegiance to the Sultan. He was raised alongside of the princes of the realm in the Sultan's harem. When the Sultan died his eldest son assumed the throne and promptly decreed that every one of royal brothers should be put to death. The boy watched in horror as all of his friends were seized and beheaded. At the first opportunity he ran away from the Sultan's palace and made his way home, where he discovered that his father had died some time ago and that the land been placed under the rule of a regent. He assumed his rightful place on the throne and began to root out those who would collaborate with the Sultan. His enemies he would decapitate and place their heads upon poles for all to see. Even when the Sultan sent an army to enforce the fealty of his nation, he laid a trap for them and slaughtered the entire lot, placing their heads on stakes at the border for the Sultan's scouts to see.

You ask the name of this poor boy, so deeply traumatized by the horrors of polygamy that he became a beast whose actions could barely be called human?

Vlad Tepes, aka "Dracula".

Don't let this happen in your country. Just say "no" to polygamy.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
But then the UK could get a CB on us.

Yea, but they'd have to take a huge stability hit to break the alliance and because we share the same true faith.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Dis
I always hear those are the happiest marriages. But that could be just talk.

True. In fact over 2% of arranged marriages end in divorce. Why chance it.

[Dis]

and yes I'm bumping this thread for you guys who still think polygamy should be legal. Maybe if you could show me some cases of consentual polygamy. But all it really is is rape, incest, child abuse, and oppression of women.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/16/fugitive.polygamist.ap/index.html

[Vince278]

Wow Dis, between this and two other threads I see you have been giving love and marriage a lot of thought.

[Arrian]

My $.02 is... what Ming said back on page 1.

-Arrian