Since Supreme Court now allows gay marriage they must allow you to have more than one wife. Do you agree?

I don't know if they "must" allow that or not, and I don't know that they will rule that way. It is certainly possible that they could rule that way, but I just don't know whether they will. It's a crap shoot. "The law" surely does not guide their decisions; the intended meaning of the clauses they are interpreting -- when they rule on gay equality issues, abortion, and so on -- certainly is not guiding them. What IS guiding them is their own political views, and that does not mean that they have to legalize polygamy. It only means that they might do so.

Not exactly.

They didn't allow it actually. They didn't make a decision, they just left it to the ninth circuit of the Court of Appeals(the court right below the Supreme Court), who already decided that in California, gay marriage should be legal. The Supreme Court basically copped out and chose not to make a choice(I imagine they did that because they didn't want to make a precedent case), so the decision the Court of Appeals made is the one that won and it only applies to CA, not the nation. Every where else where it used to be illegal it's still illegal to have gay marriage.

As for DOMA, that is the part they made a decision on, which their decision made it that the states with gay marriage legally recognized the federal government must recognize it as marriage, though other states don't have to and other states can still deny gay couples marriage.

Personally, I think marriage ought not be defined by the government and churches at the same time. It causes a conflict and makes it that the government is favoring some churches over others. Some churches define marriage between any couple, while others define it between a man and woman... if this is the case, doesn't that mean the government favors some churches over others no matter how they define marriage? I don't know why people don't bring that up. It makes sense, and it could be argued that the government defining marriage is a violation of the first amendment because other churches also define marriage and the government would be favoring some churches over others.

Civil unions, since they are not defined by churches, the government has every right to define them as they please. I personally think the civil unions should be equal to marriage in rights and privileges, allowed between any couple, and even allowed between polygynous/polyandrous relationships.

Churches should have the rights to define marriage as they please, and government would just recognize marriage as a civil union, nothing else. It would be each church which would recognize it as more than that. And each church would have the right to marry a same-gender couple or not to, or to marry a polygamous relationship.

I believe my view above is the only one that gives both equal civil rights(equal civil unions to everyone with the same privileges as marriage) and religious rights(churches define marriage as they please.) Defining marriage with the government never does give both no matter how you define it. It only gives one or the other. So, if you want the government to define marriage, which right do you want to give up? Civil rights or religious rights? I say we don't give up either and do what I described above.

Oh and by the way, Mormons don't practice polygamy. "Mormon" refers to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this church(which I am a member of) excommunicates any member found publicly endorsing or practicing polygamy and we have been for over 100 years. You should specify that you're talking about the Fundamentalist Mormons. They are the group who broke away almost 100 years ago because they wanted to still practice polygamy. So next time say "FLDS" or "Fundamentalist Mormons". Maybe if the second is too lengthy you can shorten it to "Fundy Mormons" lol.

No, polygamy is against the law. It is OK to have an affair with three women at the same time, it is OK for a woman to sleep with a different man every week, but it is terribly immoral to actually marry more than one woman at a time. Go figure....

Polygamy won't become legal anytime soon because there is no one out there protesting and complaining about a loss of civil rights. It is not an issue the liberals are making noise about, so it is not likely to happen.

Family planning will necessarily change the purpose of marriage. Traditional marriage roles had already gone to the wayside, through government social family planning models in past years.

Marriage is for the purpose of conceiving and raising a family, it's a little more than just finding the person who completes the individual's other half. According to government models; there are tax breaks or other financial reasons to be married, but the primary purpose is to create a family. I don't know how gay or lesbian families plan to conceive children, the foundation for conceiving and raising children to appreciate both genders as equally important is attributed to the basis for humanity's existence. Multiple spouses has already been supported through government family social planning--in that marriage has been discarded and replaced with temporary relationships supported by child support. That is the economic and social planning; what works best for individuals who may or may not be able to continue their marriage is best left to their own discretion. There may be a change in family planning.

Any Mormon that has more than one wife is excommunicated no exceptions

whatsoever. That has been so for over 100 years.

Apparently you never received the telegraph...

message.

Gay Marriage and having more than one wife are totally separate questions.

Abortion is sold in the United States as being good because it is a choice.

But the very same people who promote abortion once they have half a chance

they make abortion mandatory. In China there have been over

300 Millon forced abortions of children under the age of one years of age...

most of those children have been female children.

There are mobile death vans that pick up babies, mostly little girls, and

in these mobile death vans the under one years of age child is murdered

by government employees.

The same Van is used to induce abortions in women who are pregnant

but who are over the one child limit set by the Communists when they took

over China.

Abortion and Gay Marriage comes from the same source, the Eugenicists who

believe in population control. These are the same people who have erected the

PRISM system where every U.S. Citizen has an Unconstitutional illegal...

NAZI-Like File made of them of everything they do on the internet etc. etc. etc.

Gay Marriage is already legal. No Gay Marriage gets SWAT team attacked

even when it is an open Hollywood Gay Marriage that has a lot of publicity

surrounding it.

Polygamist are constantly being hassled by the same system that never does

anything against Homosexuals. There is a reason for that.

Eugenicists don't like reproduction. They like World depopulation.

Meanwhile Mormons believe in celebrating life, not the sins of the World.

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.

http://vimeo.com/66470114

http://vimeo.com/66836413

http://vimeo.com/41132771

http://mormon.org/ Chat.

God bless.

Sorry, but you're ignorant.

The SC didn't "allow gay marriage."

SOME states allow same sex marriages to occur.

The SC merely ruled part of DOMA to be unconstitutional because DOMA treats soem legally married (see above) couples differently than others.

The SC also said those who defending Prop 8 had no legal standing to do so.

In neither case did they "allow gay marriage."

No. It's against the law. If they wanted polygamy, they could have allowed it before. It has nothing to do with God's gay children loving one another.

hey someone has to pick up the slack ;)

if a woman cant be forgiven without childbearing, certainly a gay couple will not enter heaven for rejecting their obligations

No. The Gay issue is a sectarian gender issue. It has NOTHING to Do with Religion. :)

yes,because having more one wife has be existing