So, what IS marriage now?

[Bill the Cat]

Since the Supreme Court has redefined legal marriage, what IS the definition of marriage now?

[Papa Zoom]

Since the Supreme Court has redefined legal marriage, what IS the definition of marriage now?

It's evolving. Polygamy is next IMO.

[Starlight]

Since the Supreme Court has redefined legal marriage, what IS the definition of marriage now?

The legally or formally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship.

[Jaecp]

The legally or formally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship.

^^^

Why is this so hard?

It's the same as the old definition of marriage, except swap out some pronouns or gendered terms and, boom, there you go.

[Irate Canadian]

The legally or formally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship.

30 years down the line, what do you think the definition will be? Or do you think we will get rid of the practice of marriage?

[CMD]

It's evolving. Polygamy is next IMO.

Followed by incest most likely.

[shunyadragon]

Since the Supreme Court has redefined legal marriage, what IS the definition of marriage now?

There will always evolve a secular legal meaning of marriage. At one time it did not include inter racial marriage, but now it includes these marriages. The secular legal definition did not recognize same sex unions in the past, now it does. It is possible that in the future polygamy will be included in the secular legal definition. It is already recognized within some beliefs.

Individual churches and religions have different definitions. To the LDS church interracial unions are not in their definition. Some interfaith unions are not in the definition in some religions and churches.

For the separation of religion and state to be meaningful, the secular legal definition should not be determined or defined by any one religion or church.

I believe it will eventually evolve simply into a legally sanctioned marital union between two consenting adults. The age of what is considered a consenting adult, and at what age parental consent is allowed varies from state to state, therefore remains an open question that is currently unresolved.

[Littlejoe]

It's evolving. Polygamy is next IMO.

It's already started:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...mous-marriage/

[Jaecp]

Got a better source than Breitbart, LJ?

Meanwhile,

No, it isn't the "new gay marriage"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ge-119614.html

2 page analysis on the differences between SMM and polygamy, useful for anyone

[Starlight]

30 years down the line, what do you think the definition will be? Or do you think we will get rid of the practice of marriage?

I would bet my money on the definition being the same in 30 years time.

It is possible polygamy may eventually be legalized in the West. It is currently legal in about 25% of the world's countries, and was historically practiced by most native american tribes, and the Mormons, and of course occurs extensively in the bible. Modern demand for formal recognition of polygamous unions doesn't seem overly strong, however, and I think the general lack of people actually demanding it will have more effect than anything else. I suspect we eventually will see the marriage laws being relaxed in the West to allow polygamy, however I estimate that this will take 50 years to occur.

[Littlejoe]

Got a better source than Breitbart, LJ?

Meanwhile,

No, it isn't the "new gay marriage"

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...ge-119614.html

2 page analysis on the differences between SMM and polygamy, useful for anyone

Google "Montana Polygamy" and you'll get plenty of hits, it just so happened Breitbart was the first one. Let's see theres:

http://www.inquisitr.com/2222469/mon...-rights-issue/

http://www.kxlh.com/story/29578457/p...owstone-county

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

and this TOTALLY unbiased account here:

http://polyinthemedia.blogspot.com/2...y-license.html

[Papa Zoom]

The legally or formally recognized union of two consenting adults as partners in a relationship.

Only two? Why only two? Are you in favor of three or even more? Consenting of course.

[Starlight]

It's already started:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...mous-marriage/

His court case is going to fail. Why? Because none of the reasoning in the same-sex marriage Supreme Court case lends itself to endorsing polygamous marriage.

And, no, the reasoning of the Supreme Court wasn't just "we're going to overturn the traditional definition of marriage, so anyone who feels like it can get married now" like conservatives seem to regularly imagine it was. The judges instead actually made clear and careful arguments on the subject which considered the pros and cons. (IIRC, the judges concluded there were 8 primary reasons why same-sex marriage should be allowed, and zero reasons why it shouldn't.) So the case for polygamous marriage can't really draw much from that decision because the arguments discussed weren't overly relevant to polygamous marriage. If polygamy is to win in court, it will have to do so based on its own merits, not just by piggy-backing the same-sex marriage decision.

[Starlight]

Only two? Why only two? Are you in favor of three or even more? Consenting of course.

I have no real preference either way on the subject of what the law says regarding polygamy. I don't feel I am informed enough about the potential pros and cons to come to any decision on the matter, and would want to learn more about what both sides had to say on the subject before I formed an opinion.

[Rushing Jaws]

^^^

Why is this so hard?

It's the same as the old definition of marriage, except swap out some pronouns or gendered terms and, boom, there you go.

## Marriage was a human, culture-conditioned, time-conditioned contract before, and it still is. I don't see the problem: if the OT could allow polygamy, and Christ could forbid divorce, and Protestants could practice divorce, all without the heavens falling - why the gigantic fuss ? Why is the teaching of Christ utterly and totally binding now on gays, but not binding on Protestants in the matter of divorce ? Divorce is far more widespread than homosexuality, so where are all the furious denunciations of those who break the marriage bond, and, very often, get hitched to a third party - something Christ called adultery ? They are not heard at all. Apparently Leviticus is still in force, but the teaching of Christ is optional at most. Considering how Luther bent the Gospel to snapping-point to gratify the lust of Philip of Hesse, perhaps one should not be too surprised. Though it is surprising that Luther, the defender of bigamy, is never bombarded with the volleys of hate directed at those accused today of perverting marriage. Why is early Protestant tolerance of bigamy OK, and gay marriage today not OK ? It is moral relativism to ignore the teaching of Christ when a Reformer tolerates bigamy, while insisting on the teaching of Christ when gays, the SCOTUS, & the POTUS ignore it. Protestants need to clean up their doctrine and practice regarding marriage before they get worked up about gay marriage, otherwise they won't have a leg to stand on.