[Winona Online Democracy]
Thanks for the Supreme Court ruling reference however in reading it and other links most ruling dealt with those relationships between a man and a woman. What with have now is now a whole new challenge to what was perceived to be ordinary and customary fundamental understandings of marriage and the law being challenged. As an example "If a bisexual person married both a man and a woman would they be guilty of polygamy" based on prior rulings of the courts? I don't think so based on the direction of court rulings. If then this style of polygamy becomes okay then does that set the stage for a reversal of prior court rulings on the main issue of polygamy itself? As a further argument is in not polygamous for a person to be legally married to a person and having children with another person other than their spouse? Could this argument be used to say things have changed and so must the courts since prosecution of the practice is not in the cards? In a recent TV news report a gay male couple had children with the consent of a woman who agreed to give birth. The other male partner now wished to have a child by the same woman and she has agreed. While she will be the mother of all the children they will have different fathers. If one of the fathers dies who gets custody? Who has the financial obligation to raise the children including but not limited to their healthcare? Will the employer of any one of the three be on the hook for healthcare? Will employers, as we move down the road of legal acceptability choose to withdraw from healthcare for all employee family's and will they offer only direct healthcare coverage to the employee only? In a time of cost containment who believes the expansion of the legal interpretations for expanding dependent coverage will not cause some companies to back out of healthcare for all? Paul Double Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 1:58 PM
One reason polygamy could not be put into law is because the Supreme Court in 1878 (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145) ruled such marriages illegal in the US. So to make them legal, it would take either a Constitutional Amendment (try passing that one) or a reversal by the Court. Dean
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy All messages must be signed by the senders actual name. No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list. To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
