The first wife does not marry the second wife; neither of the first two wives marries the third wife.

They'd have in common the same man who married each of them in turn. The practice comes with the expectation that each wife is monogamous while the man is polygamous, which is different than bigamous where polygamy is lawful.

May ask, do you object to society issuing licenses for polyamous arrangements?

If you object, why?

If you do not object, why?

If polygamists were plaintiffs instead of the two couples Olson has chosen to represent, they's explain that their marital practice was loving, consensual, and that they desired all the emotional validation and uplift that Olson's plaintiff's have talked about in their testimony. They'd also describe the stigma they experience. They're part of a group that is classifiable as lacking political power to change the marriage laws.

Indeed, Olson could have made pretty much the same oral argument for polygamists that he has made in this anti-8 trial.

Likewise, he could have made the same basic argument on behalf of people who experience Genetic Sexual Attraction.

I think the real reason the Prop-8 side didn't want the trial open to the American people is that they didn't want us to see their arguments. And I don't blame them for that! When one of your expert witnesses is explaining that though polygamy was quite common throughout the world until recently, it was still marriage between one man and one woman, since the man only married one woman at a time after all! -- you might not want the public seeing your case, either.

I don't really understand why the Supreme Court decided that the American people aren't competent enough to watch this trial. It seems rather belittling.

I agree with TC Matthews and Dee.

No one is a minority based on sexual orientation when it comes to marriage law which does not impose a sexual orientation criterion for eligiblity nor for ineligibility.

SSM argumentation might, but marriage does not.

The SSM argument, Dan, is one red herring after another.

So, let's allow the courts to do their job, and interpret the constitution (not legislate from the bench, but provide PROTECTIONS for the minority).

When you say
"We have to look at the bigger picture here, and do what is best for society as a whole, protect the Constitution and its intent"

I assume you're not skipping the 14th amendment right? The Plaintiff's case argues that Prop 8 unconstitutional because it violates the 14th amendment. Whether or not it does is the point of the trial

Also regarding your question about appealing the US Supreme Court, the answer is of course not. Both sides will have chances to appeal before it gets to the 'highest court in the land' but their decision is final.

PS. Both of these things are on the test to become a US citizen if you are naturalizing. I have a feeling all US citizens should have to take this test.

The fight over Prop-8 in court, when twice the voice of the people has passed it, makes a mockery of democracy. To my knowledge, the voice of the people has never been put on trial. Votes have been cast and counted; a measure has received a majority....twice. The right, (an equal right) of casting one's ballot is integral to our Democratic Republic. The people of California have spoken -- the people’s rights are being infringed upon by this trial. The decision to televise did its damage, perhaps as intended (that opens a kettle of fish) and, although the decision was overruled by the US Supreme Court, a mis-trial has occurred as a result. Can Prop-8, although a defendant, seek an appeal of the US Supreme Court if it loses? Anyone know?

Perusing the posts before mine, it seems that the talk by those of the gay community, or those Anti-Prop 8, has largely been the voice of violence, or else antagonistic in tone. One exception is Maple, and I understand how she feels, even though I think she's wrong. Children deserve a daddy and a mommy, not two of one. And what about three of one, or four of the other? Polygamists (who are NOT Mormons, by the way) will next want "equal rights" or "equal recognition" or "true equality" by having the laws criminalizing polygamy repealed. An interesting article on this expanded potential in terms of attempts to re-define marriage is this article from USA Today: "Polygamy laws expose our own hypocrisy":
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/2004-10-03-turley_x.htm

We have to look at the bigger picture here, and do what is best for society as a whole, protect the Constitution and its intent, and uphold the natural family which underpins society. That means there will be individuals and groups that will not be able to have what they want -- and, please, none of this "equal rights" rhetoric; we all have equal rights under the law already . We should be grateful for that, and nourish that which has made our country strong for over 200 years, that which has seen us through a near-secession of New England during the War of 1812, and the later secession that resulted in the Civil War. In both cases, preserving the nation and its Constitution came first. (Please, no comparisons between civil rights and gay “rights” – see Fred’s posting on that.) Recall these lines from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address: “...that we here highly resolve...that government: of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” This “of the people” is threatened in California.

Back to doing what is best for society and looking at the bigger picture: As always-- though it is often forgotten -- there is the future to consider here. Our nation can decline and/or fall just like any nation, empire, or civilization in the past.

In the book _The Character of Nations_: How Politics Makes and Breaks Prosperity, Family, and Civility_ (Angelo M. Codevilla, HarperCollins, 1997, pp. 155-56) the author makes cogent points in the following quote (bear in mind that the notions of redefining marriage and of redefining family are interconnected, and read through his logic with a rational mind, without taking offense):
[quote] The very notion of 'redefining' families is a thinly disguised argument for the proposition that the natural family is no better than any other human arrangement and is probably the worst of the lot. Thus, practitioners of what were once called 'deviant' lifestyles want to pin the family [or marriage] label on relations between homosexual couples less because they think there is little difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships than because they want for homosexual couples whatever deference natural families [and marriages] normally receive. Yet this desire can not be fulfilled for logical as well as practical reasons. If families are not natural and permanent unions of one man and one woman, and their children, in addition to others related by blood and marriage, they are the products of infinitely variable choices. And if that were the case, how could one deny the label family to sometime unions of one man and many women, of one woman and many men? Why deny it to any combination of bisexuals, pedophiles, and necrophiles or to practitioners of sex with other species or with one's own offspring? Yet to the extent the label 'family' is restricted to some living arrangements and not others, the criterion for the restriction must be natural. The acceptance of nature as the criterion, however, drives us back to one man and one woman united to reproduce and raise children." [end of quote]

Finally, to those above who say people who believe in love, don’t show it: There is an aspect of love that has been called “tough love.” Tough love is the sort that is not afraid to say, “You can’t have that.” If parents don’t use this aspect on themselves and their children, judiciously and appropriately, they end up with a child that rules them and is ungovernable, just as they themselves become ungovernable, ruled as they are, by their wants. A good future often means saying “no” now. As TC Mathews said above: “marriage is a right sure. Redefining marriage? sorry no.” (Posted January 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm)

I'm glad to hear that you do not condone violence against those who disagree with you. I wish more on your side of the issue felt the same. A simple trip through this thread though illustrates otherwise and sadly so.