Lindsey Graham: If Gay Marriage Is A Constitutional Right, Why Not Polygamy?

[RandySF]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch to explain Wednesday at her confirmation hearing why polygamy wouldn’t also become a constitutional right if if the Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage was protected by the Constitution.

“If the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional — that it violates the Constitution to try to limit marriage between a man and a woman, that’s clearly the law of the land unless there’s a constitutional amendment to change it — what legal rationale would be in play that would prohibit polygamy?” Graham asked. “What’s the legal difference between a state ban on same-sex marriage being unconstitutional but a ban on polygamy being constitutional?”

“Could you try to articulate how one could be banned under the Constitution and the other not?”

Lynch declined to discuss the legal question.

“Senator, I have not been involved in the argument or the analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court,” she said. “So I’m not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to undertake a review of the relevant facts and the precedent there. So I certainly would not be able to provide you with that analysis at this point, but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.”


https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-same-sex-marriage-polygamy

[jmowreader]

1. If the Trumpets insist on "Biblical marriage" then polygamy must naturally follow

Everyone read Leviticus 18. It is a very long iist of everyone you may not have sex with. And the list includes your mother, your father's wife, your sister from your father's side and your sister from your mother's side.

The only way Leviticus 18 makes any sense at all is if the Levites were seriously into plural marriages.

In fact, the prohibitions on incest are so long and detailed, it makes the prohibitions on sex with other men and with animals seem like afterthoughts.

Fun fact: If you'd like to know what animals really would have been on Noah's Ark, if such existed, turn to Leviticus 11. It is a complete list of every animal that lived in the Holy Land at the time the Bible was written.

[safeinOhio]

2. If it is legal to ban gay or polygamy marriage, why

can't we ban all marriage?

Problem solved.

[tymorial]

9. That's my vote. Why is the government involved with marriage to begin with

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The underlying reason for why polygamy is unlawful in the U.S. is not religious.

It is against public policy because it's associated with poor treatment of women and children. In addition, because of excessive number of children in one "family", state and federal aid are necessary to keep them out of poverty. It's really more about the states don't want these people on welfare more than arguments of religion and/or morality.

So Lindsay Graham, it's a false equivalent of polygamy and gay marriage.

(OTOH, my personal thoughts are if bigamy and polygamy were legal, there might be less divorce. But it all comes down to who's going to pay for the kids.)

[dsc]

8. that may be true now but it wasn't true when we banned polygamy

it was clearly an anti Mormon law. And the public benefit thing works both ways. As it works now many of the polygamist cults collect benefits on every marriage but the first, since the first marriage is the sole legal one.

[D_Master81]

4. If the constiution gives you the right to a gun, why not bombs?

I mean you wont get arrested for having a gun, but the FBI will kick in your door if they suspect you're making bombs. Maybe we should ban both right Lindsey?

[krispos42]

5. Same sex marriage is a contract between 2 people.

So is opposite sex marriage. So they are legally identical if you don't identify the genders of the people. Party A marrying Party B.

Polygamy is between 3 or more people.

I mean, this is basic stuff here. And he's a senator, huh?

[StarfishSaver]

10. Four people

Two men, two women. All over the age of 18 in perfect health, of sound mind, and legally fit to enter into contracts. All of them are either uninterested in or biologically incapable of producing children.

Is there any reason each of the two women cannot marry one of each of the two men?

What if all four of them are gay. Is there any reason the two women still couldn't marry the two men?

If not, what reason, other than the only sentence in Leviticus that anyone seems interested in enforcing against others, should the two men and two women be prohibited from marrying each other?

[J_William_Ryan]

11. Correct.

The contract law that is marriage is the same in all 50 states, written to accommodate two individuals; contract law same-sex couples are eligible to participate in.

Graham is clearly throwing gasoline on the fire of the culture wars, a typical Republican tactic intended to divide the American people to the political benefit of Republicans.

[Mike Nelson]

6. I would say...

… let's stay on the topic - marriage between two people. We can judge their ages, gender identification, mental cognition, etc - but stay on topic.

Multiple spouses is a completely different topic, dealing with humans that want multiple spouses. Of course, we would want to open that up to humans desiring same sex spouses, or maybe a mixture - but it's still a different topic.

[Baltimike]

7. Dear Lindsey Graham...you are a false eqivolencing asshole. nt

[MineralMan]

12. The Constitution says absolutely nothing about marriage.

That's not the function of the document. Instead, it is designed to establish a framework for federal government and to delineate certain rights common to all people in the republic.

Everything else, and I mean everything, is left up to the states to decide. The only crime mentioned in the Constitution is treason. Congress and the individual states are the authorities who create laws, including criminal laws. Those must be in line with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, but that document stands mute with it comes to specific laws.

To answer Lindsey Graham, there is no reason that polygamy should not be legal in any state, which would be free to make it so and establish laws regarding that. The states can also pass laws prohibiting it, which is the current state of affairs in every state.

Such laws are not the purview of the federal government. The federal government can pass laws ensuring that rights are protected, but doesn't typically address laws that remove rights in such human affairs.

There is no intrinsic evil attached to polygamy. It was popular in the Old Testament, at least for kings and such. Prohibiting it is merely a civil issue. Our states have decided that it is not a good thing. So, there are laws against it. if they decide it is OK, then state laws will reflect that.

It's a stupid argument, Lindsey.

[DavidDvorkin]

13. I agree with Graham.