"...Polygamy isn't going to have the traction that same sex marriage has had..."
Ha. That's what she thinks. And she thinks it because she can only see what is in front of her nose right now. The problem for her is that time marches on, and as the political machine runs out of "victim" groups and their issues to cynically manipulate in order attain political power polygamous people are inevitably going to rise to the top at some future time. Simply because they will run out of other suitable groups.
Certainly, the first suitable group of polygamists in the USA to make the case with are not going to be supposedly "conservative" mormons from Utah. Much more likely to be recent muslim immigrants wanting Sharia laws to apply. Also possibly recent African animists or christian/animist combo, but this is less likely.
If anyone is interested in how polygamy and modern constitutional law has interacted elsewhere in the world consider the example of South Africa. Polygamy is legal in South Africa, but only for certain defined groups. The constitutional court of the country (same as US Supreme Court) voted to legalise same sex marriage (enthusiastically) and also polygamy (reluctantly, but they still did it). Basically you have to come from a cultural group that has practiced it before, and where it currently has some sort of standing in the community. Controversially, at least in my opinion, this effectively limits polygamy to certain black African tribes in the country. I'm still waiting for this to be challenged in court by someone not from one of these groups who claims that the law as practiced discriminates on the basis of race - which is illegal. Should win IMO.
The relevance of this to the USA is that at least one Supreme Court justice, Justice Ginsberg, has supposedly stated that she believes the South African constitution to be superior to the American one (in a discussion on constitutional issues in Egypt after Mubarak fell). And this constitution (or at least the justices interpretation of it) allows (limited) polygamy. And once limited polygamy is allowed, this in turn can be challenged on the basis that the law must apply equally to all.
Not that we don't already have polygamy. It's just not official. "Soft" polygamy I think they call it. You know, the 80:20 law. 20% of the guys get 80% of the girls, Absent very harsh social restrictions, that are not likely to ever be applied, it will inevitably be like this. Just won't involve actual marriages until the day the political class determine polygamy to be the cause du jour.
Ha. That's what she thinks. And she thinks it because she can only see what is in front of her nose right now. The problem for her is that time marches on, and as the political machine runs out of "victim" groups and their issues to cynically manipulate in order attain political power polygamous people are inevitably going to rise to the top at some future time. Simply because they will run out of other suitable groups.
Certainly, the first suitable group of polygamists in the USA to make the case with are not going to be supposedly "conservative" mormons from Utah. Much more likely to be recent muslim immigrants wanting Sharia laws to apply. Also possibly recent African animists or christian/animist combo, but this is less likely.
If anyone is interested in how polygamy and modern constitutional law has interacted elsewhere in the world consider the example of South Africa. Polygamy is legal in South Africa, but only for certain defined groups. The constitutional court of the country (same as US Supreme Court) voted to legalise same sex marriage (enthusiastically) and also polygamy (reluctantly, but they still did it). Basically you have to come from a cultural group that has practiced it before, and where it currently has some sort of standing in the community. Controversially, at least in my opinion, this effectively limits polygamy to certain black African tribes in the country. I'm still waiting for this to be challenged in court by someone not from one of these groups who claims that the law as practiced discriminates on the basis of race - which is illegal. Should win IMO.
The relevance of this to the USA is that at least one Supreme Court justice, Justice Ginsberg, has supposedly stated that she believes the South African constitution to be superior to the American one (in a discussion on constitutional issues in Egypt after Mubarak fell). And this constitution (or at least the justices interpretation of it) allows (limited) polygamy. And once limited polygamy is allowed, this in turn can be challenged on the basis that the law must apply equally to all.
Not that we don't already have polygamy. It's just not official. "Soft" polygamy I think they call it. You know, the 80:20 law. 20% of the guys get 80% of the girls, Absent very harsh social restrictions, that are not likely to ever be applied, it will inevitably be like this. Just won't involve actual marriages until the day the political class determine polygamy to be the cause du jour.