More religious bigotry shining through along with a good heaping helping of feminist based sexism. "Almost every example of polygamy is sexist and repressive". Your viewpoint is what is sexist and repressive. A woman who voluntarily decides to go into a plural marriage is repressed? If she can leave if she wants to she is repressed? If she has veto power over whether another woman is allowed to join she is repressed? And say if it's a woman with multiple husbands? (That does happen in some countries). Are the men repressed? Or is the woman repressed for having to service multiple men?
You're ignoring the constitution entirey, you're ignoring the fourteenth amendment, you act like it doesn't exist. If a law says "marriage is between a man or a woman, or "men can marry women, women can marry men," then it confers different rights/privileges/powers on different gonders, violating the equal protection clause. The only way to correct that is to say that everyone gets to participate in the practice of marrying women, whether male or female. That is my argument. Stop ignoring it. You're arguing polygamy is fine on libertarian grounds, you're not presenting an argument for why it violates constitutional rights, and you're ignoring my argument on how male-female-ONLY marriage laws violates the equal protection clause.
I didn't say it did. You were the one that brought up miscegenation laws and asked about a law where a black person and white person can't marry. In such cases the couple were subject to arrest. But further THERE ARE NOT STATES WHERE IT IS ILLEGAL FOR PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX TO MARRY! You are being DISHONEST by repeatedly making that claim. The only question is do people get the same goodies. And it's based on their choice, not their gender.
If the law does not say two men can marry, then it is illegal for two men to marry.
And you refuse to answer the interracial marriage question, because you don't have a principled and consistent view of the constitution, you want it to mean whatever you want it to mean. If you think that its constitutional to allow male-female marriage only, then why is it not constitutional to allow white-white or black-black only? If no statute explicitly says "whites cannot marry blacks," then you'd be down with this apartheid system under the equal protection clause?
Barring polygamy, which you seem to be in favor of, is an arbitrary category based on religion. Back in the day it was the religion of most Christians that made polygamy abhorrent. Now it's the religion of radical feminism that makes polygamy abhorrent. We can't let adults make the own choices because some stupid feminist things that polygamy is inherently sexist. BULLOCKS! Why is it perfectly legal for a man to have three babies mamas living in the same house, maybe be married to one of them, but if they decide "Hey! We'll have a ceremony that shows we're all committed to each other" somehow YOU think the state should have the right to interfere because, supposedly, it's "sexist"? And since you claim to be for LBGT rights, what about bisexual people? Why should a bisexual person have to choose to be married to a man or a woman if that person really would rather be with both at the same time? Isn't that denying the bisexual person his/her "sexual preference?"
I am not arguing against polygamy, I am explaining
on legal grounds that the right to marry a man or a woman is part of the equal protection clause, but that the right to marry multiple spouses is not part of the equal protection clause. And no one is arguing against polygamy on religious grounds, they say Muslims/Mormons/Jews can't have polygamy all across the board. The fact that it involves religion doesn't automatically mean any law discriminates based on religion. You're just calling it discrimination based on religion when its not. No one stops Mormons from getting married, they stop polygamists from getting married.
And let's say you're right, that polygamy and gay marriage have the same legal status under the equal protection clause. So what. How is gay marriage not allowed?
Yep. Gays and lesbians get to beat each up over the head for alimony and child support (they can already go for child support) and all sorts of other crap that is the family court system. YIPPEEE! I suppose as a lawyer I should be pushing this instead of getting the government out of marriage. More work of the vultures of society. Here's what you probably don't understand though. Family court is paid for primarily by the court cases and NOT by taxes. Every time you go to court there is this thing called "court costs". One side or the other pays for each court case and sometimes the costs are split. Only if everybody is indigent (poor) is family court "free". But in cases like that, the people getting the "free" service didn't pay their share of the taxes anyway. Think about it. If they have a steady income to pay taxes, then they have a steady income to pay court costs.
And this still doesn't attack the Equal Protection argument. You're saying men and women have different spouse options. This violates the Equal Protection Clause.
There you go again. Banning interracial marriage. GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT BANNED IN ANY STATE! But more importantly I'M FOR GETTING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE INSTEAD OF EXPANDING THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN MARRIAGE! And don't give me any more of that discrimination crap. You support religious discrimination against Muslims and Mormons and sexual orientation discrimination against people who are bisexual. They don't get their "choice" of "all of the above."
When did I say anything bad about bisexuals? If anything I'm for the "bisexual marriage system," where every individual can marry a man or a woman. Not once in this entire thread do you talk about the equal proteciton clause, you ignore it to talk about your personal views.
And your semantics argument is meanngless. Gay marriage is banned in a state that does not legally sanction gay marriage. And if private marriage is marriage, and thus no state denies marriage of any kind, then equal protection still demands that men and women have the exact same rights, men and women can both "government marry" women.
Well a lot of your liberal friends don't see the justification for separate bathrooms. Johnny wants to be Jill but Johnny still has all boy parts. Some people feel that Johnny should be able to go to the ladies room because....well just because.
You bring up a great pt about complicated areas where gender discrimination may make sense, and thus exceptions can be made. You have not amended the equal protection clause out of existence. Pointing out that gender discrimination works in one area does not change the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all US citizens. Your argument is meaningless, your only logic is that gender-based laws cannot be banned under the constitution in general (because you can't actually pt to gay marriage being bad in anyway, you're just saying this other discriminatory law can make sense, so therefore "bye bye equal protection clause."
If saying that a gay man can't choose to marry man is sexist then saying a bisexual man can't choose to marry a man and a woman is also sexist and a violation of your (warped) definition of the equal protection clause.
No, because I never talk about the civil rights categories of gays and lesbians and bisexuals. I solely talk about men and women. You're making up an equal protection clause that doesn't exist. It says everyone gets the same rights. If everyone is only allowed to marry one spouse, that means everyone has the same rights, even if certain ppl wish those rights were different. If men can marry women but women cannot marry women, then different ppl have different rights/privileges/powers, and that violates the Equal Protection Clause.
And one more time GAY MARRIAGE IS NOT BANNED. Saying the same lie over and over again doesn't make it true. In some states gay marriage is not recognized. Here is another analogy since you seem incapable of understand the facts regarding mixed race marriages. Let's say a state decides to decriminalize medical marijuana, but does not license it. Let's say the effect of it not being licensed is that medical insurance won't pay for it the way t pays for prescription drugs. Does that mean that in such a state medical marijuana is "banned"? No. No sane person would claim that it is.
Lol you're saying I don't understand mixed race marriages? All you do is dodge the question, saying "You (me) brought it up, not me," you can't answer the question because it would prove you're inconsistent. You haven't responded to it.
If the effect of not licensing medical marijuana is that insurance won't pay for it... then insurance won't pay for it. Its not "banned," because those insurance companies can still pay for it, they simply chose not to under their policies.
But if the government itself said "insurance companies cannot pay for medical marijuana," then insurance coverage for medical marijuana would be banned. Similarly if the government passed a law saying "these are the list of things medical insurance providers can cover, and nothing else," and don't list medical marijuana, then insurance coverag for medical marijuana is banned. Similarly, passing a law that says "men can marry women, women can marry men," leaves out men marrying men, thus is bans men marrying men. The lack of a statute saying men can marry men means men cannot marry men, literally, its banned. Its not allowed, its illegal, its banned.
Now some Mormons actually believe that polygamy enhances their standing with God. So they are denied full free exercise of their religion. And for what? Because 150 years ago some religious bigots thought their practice was immoral and now some feminist anti-religious bigots think their practice oppresses women? Also a bisexual person who would really rather have both than have to chose between one of his/her preferences cannot have that choice solidified in marriage under your view. 
