6 votes

Federal judge opens the door to polygamy - Slippery slope arguers vindicated

"In a game-changer for the legal fight over same-sex marriage that gives credence to opponents’ “slippery slope” arguments, a federal judge has now ruled that the legal reasoning for same-sex marriage means that laws against polygamy are likewise unconstitutional."


The gay marriage slippery slope now means I am also free to marry my sister (if she would have me).

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Good. Now I can have more than one woman to bitch at me.

Just what I want.

Not something I want, but I believe that free people should do what they want, so long as they don't commit aggression against me, and I cannot figure how someone other man having more than one wife, or some other woman having more than one husband is aggression against me.

Mind your own fucking business is my motto, and kiss my ass if you don't agree with me.

"Bend over and grab your ankles" should be etched in stone at the entrance to every government building and every government office.

I guess it's a slippery slope

I guess it's a slippery slope if you think the government should have the power to tell three people they can't get married. For the rest of us...


If people want to be polygamists, that's fine with me. Marrying your siater is pretty gross, but I can't think of a reason why it should be illegal. They definitely shouldn't have kids though.

Fortune Favors the Bold

It is a slippery slope

Because these luciferian Satanist fucks want to be able to "legally" have se with children, meaning people under 18 ... So to all those this is freedom BS .. who decides how old a person has to be to enter a contract, why is it 18 fake freedom lovers why not 10 why not 9 ... this is what these globalist pukes want


In alot of states it's sixteen or seventeen. The thing is, whether it's age gaps, polgamy, or whatever, why do you care? No one is saying YOU have to be a polygamist. It really doesn't effect you in anyway. And heck, if you really feel the need, you can still shun, exclude, and judge. You can't just force your sexual morality at gunpoint.

Fortune Favors the Bold

you do realize women in some states can marry

when younger than 18 years old. But I think all states require you to be an adult to enter into a valid contract. Your argument is just the opposite of current law.

How do they do it?

At what point do you tell your wife you're thinking about getting another wife? I suppose after that one, it's pretty easy. I have a wife and I couldn't possibly imagine laying that one on her. I don't know anyone who could.
I say more power to 'em. Personally, I don't think life would be easy with a house full of women, but I suppose it works. I once read a study of hundreds of ethnographies that showed that a huge majority of cultures around the world pre-WWII practiced polygyny (multiple wives) and a few even practiced polyandry (multiple husbands).

Some people

have open relationships. There are actually some lines of thought that allowing occasional partners outside of marriage would lower the divorce rate. Why? People are wired to want new sexual experiences. If people have trysts, they will have their fun, but the experience won't compare to the intimacy of a long term loving relationship. As long as both partners are open and mature, it can be done without strife. There may be an unavoidable element of jealousy, but a mature couple can use those feelings to reinvigorate their passion for each other. By feeling jealousy, one can be reminded of the value and appeal of their partner, and increase their desire.

Fortune Favors the Bold

meekandmild's picture

and the victim is?


A marriage is no more than a contractual relationship

and should be left as such. Government needs to butt out except for enforcing the contract.

I assume my wife would add a clause to my marriage contract that she has exclusive rights to me and I can't have another contract of this sort with anyone else, ever. Of course, I would object and try to water it down to something more wishy washy but I know how that would end. But it would be a fun negotiation.

And let's remember what RP said of heroine. Making it legal doesn't mean we all will do it and need a law to prevent it. Seriously, how many polygamous marriages will there be? Very few.

The way I see it

It's all about the UN establishing Sharia Laws


Seriously? I would be interested in understanding how you see the world.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Here's one perspective

Pat is an atheist, I'm not.. howecver, I agree with him

you Tea Partiers...

you're all about freedom until someone offends your sensibilities, then you're all 'there outta be a law...' Buncha hypocrites the lot of you. Who freakin' cares who marries who?

And you have the gall to throw out the 'slippery slope' argument. You know what's a big ass slippery slope? Giving the fedgov one single ounce of power it shouldn't have. You freakin' conservatives are just as guilty in that dep't as the liberals are. More so.

There outta be a law

When they want to marry your 10 year old daughter, right? ... why is there a law that you have to be 18 to enter a contract, why not 12 .. does that offend your sensibilities ... you crack me up


It is difficult to believe that a person who is not physically sexually mature could make an informed decision to consent to sex. Yes, alot of 18 year olds may not be as mature as older people. But there's a heck of alot of immature adults who make terrible decisions. There is a legitimate interest in protecting children from the manipulation of adults. But barring some mental disability, an 18 year old knows what it means to consent to sex. The fact that they may not make the best decisions is a poor reason to deny them their freedom. It is the mantra of the statists that "the government knows better then the individual, and we need laws to protect people from making bad choices.)

Fortune Favors the Bold


The general government has no business dictating who may or may not elope.

The real issue is the people have ceded to the federal government the ability to make these judgments. Nothing is more clearly out of federal purview than marriage.

Unfortunately, since the constitution isn't taught in schools we now have a federal government gleeful in it's selective enforcement of the the bill of rights.. further shredding any authority the states previously held.

And why do they do that? Because the states and DC throw the serfs some bones in the form of tax filings and privileges. Even more if you elect to pop out some future wage earning tax-chattel for the imperial farm.

The state has perverted your institution. Not homosexuals. Don't get surprised when when other people catch on to the graft and want their cut.

I don't understand gays,

I don't understand gays, serial marriages, or polygamy; with that said, I don't believe the government should tell adults humans who they can and can't enter into contracts with.

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

This Ruling is About Freedom

The freedom for a woman to covenant with the man of her choice, even if that man already has a wife. Relationships also benefit from the free market. The only people that don't benefit are deadbeats that have to rely on a artificially limited supply in order to find a spouse willing to marry them.

For those of you that have read this ruling, you know that the judge in no way infringed upon the state's right to regulate marriage. State sanctioned polygamy is still illegal. Unlike the homosexual community, the polygamous family that filed this suit is not seeking state recognition of their marriage. They just don't want the state throwing them in prison for their lifestyle choice. As the judge points out in his ruling, it is legally acceptable for a man or woman to have multiple sexual partners. It only becomes illegal if they covenant with one another in a religious ceremony. The judge ruled correctly that if the state wants to ban multiple sexual partners then it must do so across the board, and not just single out people that have multiple sexual partners for religious purposes. Do we really want to start throwing people in prison or having multiple sexual partners? Even if you legalized drugs it would still not free up enough prison space.

"it only becomes illegal if

"it only becomes illegal if they enter into a religious covenant." Huh? Freedom of religion? How can thr government declare that people following their religion entering into a covenant is illegal?

Fortune Favors the Bold

Listen to this man, he speaks the truth

"Oh yeah of course...he speaks the truth! Yeah right. You folks are all liars, and your God is Marduk!"

No, you fools. You have it all backwards. Our God is the true savior of this planet, the one who came to permanently destroy Marduk. He is not a normal God but a type of alien, that part is true. That's what you don't understand and fail to realize here.

Marduk and IHOVA are the alien God's of the Bible who ushered in total destruction on this planet with their hateful spite of a victim's sin. They came from the King James Bible and every other parchment the entire cabal ever produced. We came here to cut through all the light and darkness, so that Marduk the real anti Christ is destroyed. You don't understand this yet, but it is true that Marduk is the evil abomination speaking through Bible verse and it is he who will be destroyed. The Latter Day Temples were restored here in order to end Marduk's reign of supreme terror.

Are you @#$%ing serious?

Are you @#$%ing serious? This is the craziest shit ive ever read. I find the pantheon in my Forgotten Realms Handbook to be more belivable than this zany wacko-loon crap. How can humans function and still buy into this kind of absolute padded-walls gibberish!? There's more crazy packed into that paragraph than clowns in a tiny car.

Is it really any crazier then

Is it really any crazier then any other religion?

Fortune Favors the Bold

Good point.

Good point.

I Thought This Was a Libertarian Forum? :)

Too funny that something like this would expose those who still think that government can mandate a "right" society ... oh well ... I guess people are all a "work in progress" and on their own timeline.

The fact is that polygamy existed into New Testament time ... only church "elders" [functionally spiritual fathers to a group, not the present day office holder in a political/religious structure with terms and all that jazz] were to have but one wife [which allowed the elder to have time to be that spiritual father to others]

All marriage "contract" need to be accomplished in society NOT by government decree ... the government needs to deal with individuals individually only and simply. Before 1910 the only time the average Joe encountered the federal government was seeing a postal worker [which should have been allowed to be given over to the market decades ago] or a census worker.

It is high past time to de-centralize this experiment .. allow states to secede and then allow people to go where they fit best .. and push governmental decision-making as low and local as possible.

That way .. UT could be the place for anyone who needs polygamy ... and DC could be the place to be for people who need the government plantation.

'Nuf said :)

can someone show me an example

where the multi partner, wife, marriage thing did not turn into a mess?
I can easily show you examples of how 1 man and many baby mamas is destroying the country.
I can easily show you examples of how no fault divorce is destroying the country
I can easily show you examples of how polygamy always ends up being about 1 man with many wives, and the young man who has no wives having to leave, or in the cause of islam blowing himself up.

I can easily show that because of no fault divorce, baby mama, stupidity is just giving all the wealth in this country to lawyers.

I am going to be a jerk about this and say that if one person commits adultery in marriage they should loose everything cause they broke the marriage contract, and getting a divorce should be really hard. Single moms should not get government hand outs. Out law abortion. change those 3 things and in about 5 years a lot of the problems in this country will go away quick.

Even if everything you said

Even if everything you said is true, this doesn't justify making these things illegal. Laws are to protect the individual's freedom, not to engineer a perfect society.

Fortune Favors the Bold

Ive got a better idea, can

Ive got a better idea, can you show me an example of why its any of your @#$%ing business what other people decide to do with their own lives? Butt out.

SteveMT's picture

You want an example of a plural marriage community that isn't a

mess? Pinesdale, Montana in Ravalli county. They are a very small community, and they bother no one. they just want to be left alone. They are non-reformed, traditional Mormons.

tell that to

the lost boys.