Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
Despite the bleating of some same sex marriage opponents that as a result of the opinion released yesterday the sky is falling and the opinion will now lead to court decisions saying that states cannot bar marriages involving more than two people, nothing in the opinion says that nor is there really any rational basis to suppose that will occur. The reality is that no state today allows such marriages and I think its fair to say that the courts aren’t going to take that leap any time soon. Yesterday’s decision was about permitting two people of the same sex the right to do what the law in every state allows two people of the opposite sex to do: get married.
I'm pretty sure Chief Justice Roberts dissent rationally disagreed with your statement however, thanks for the thoughts.

- - - Updated - - -

Quote Quoting Ohiogal
View Post
The decision does NOTHING for plural marriages. NOTHING AT ALL. You would be committing a felony based upon the order in which the marriage licenses are filed. The decision -- all 103 pages including dissent -- states time and again that it is marriage between two people. NOT more.
One sheet of paper and state "Not to be executed sequentially". Exactly following the law and showing intent to strictly follow it. In fact print out the law, and say "i am not sequentially wedding said partners".

If they enter in a record one by one, that's their system which i don't care. That didn't make me a bigamist. The claim would i married two people at the SAME EXACT time in one execution. If you're not committing bigamy, then you're not committing a felony; exactly as worded.

Ironically your right though, the ruling does nothing for it other than have the Chief Justice say stuff about how this kinda opens the door, but since "it's not being petitioned" he won't comment on that.

So... **** it, lets petition it.