re: #358 iceweasel

What is the logic behind disallowing any of that stuff? On what grounds could you deny, specifically polygamy? Currently, Muslims in America cannot fully exercise their religious freedom (which, I’m sure many might not think they is such a bad thing, but that is another issue) because it is illegal for them to marry up to their allotted five member marriages.

If all are consenting adults, by what standard does the federal (or state) government(s) deny religious freedom to certain polygamous religions? What argument exists that isn’t “for the greater good” and is actually based on rights, and specifically the right to free exercise of religion.

Will turning a blind eye to polygamy continue to grow (in Europe especially), or will it be legally recognized at some point? Or will Muslims (and other more fringe sects) just roll over on their religion and accept European Judeo-Christian derived monogamous marriage as their default family unit?

The issue is hardly so cut and dry as “Two Consenting Adults”. I don’t see how it is even remotely Constitutional right now to bust up bigamists on the grounds of specifically engaging in plural marriages. The legal framework that these laws are adopted from is pretty clear that they are attempting to uphold morality; that is they literally and clearly state that they are legislating morality.

I’m not pro-polygamy, but at least know what you are about. “Two Consenting Adults” and “A Man and a Women”, but nothing else under the sun is legislating morality rather you slice it for or against gay marriage. There isn’t a legal argument that isn’t arbitrary.