[Lightman]

For what it is worth, the ACLU backs polygamy. I agree with Doug64 here.

The ACLU backs a lot of things out of principle*; doesn't mean that they'll be willing to put in the resources necessary for this particular fight any time soon.

* There is an ancient policy document from the 70s somewhere where the ACLU stated its opposition to the criminalization of possession of child pornography. Is this a thing that anyone working at the ACLU currently will ever bring up? No. Is it something that the ACLU will ever argue in court? No.

Source: worked in an ACLU office.

[Doug64]

Not likely ... they HAVE TO ... that decision is now BINDING LAW. If they reverse themselves, then they have to reverse Gay Marriage. Presuming the lower courts righteously upheld the existing SC decision, they probably would just decline to even hear an appeal.

The ruling is binding law until the SC says otherwise, but there's nothing that requires it to apply the same reasoning to future decisions. It's completely within their power to let their ruling stand while applying the conjugal understanding of marriage to future cases involving polygamy.

[Zamuel]

Not likely ... they HAVE TO ... that decision is now BINDING LAW.

The ruling is binding law until the SC says otherwise, but there's nothing that requires it to apply the same reasoning to future decisions. It's completely within their power to let their ruling stand while applying the conjugal understanding of marriage to future cases involving polygamy.

Not if it's in the context of a current ruling regarding civil rights ... ie: You're suggesting the supreme court could make discrimination against blacks illegal, but allow it against Indians. If they create a legal conflict with contradictory rulings ... they will be forced to resolve it in favor of one decision or the other ... The latin on that principle escapes me ...? anyone ?

Zam

[Doug64]

Not if it's in the context of a current ruling regarding civil rights ... ie: You're suggesting the supreme court could make discrimination against blacks illegal, but allow it against Indians. If they create a legal conflict with contradictory rulings ... they will be forced to resolve it in favor of one decision or the other ... The latin on that principle escapes me ...? anyone ?

You are thinking of the principle of external consistency, where the court is required to attempt to harmonize conflicting statutes. But that requires that the Court be intellectually honest in this case, not something that can be assumed when much-beloved policies are at stake.

[quetzalcoatl]

You are thinking of the principle of external consistency, where the court is required to attempt to harmonize conflicting statutes. But that requires that the Court be intellectually honest in this case, not something that can be assumed when much-beloved policies are at stake.

There are other assumptions that are being made, e.g., that polygamy is categorically similar to monogamy (whether of the gay or hetero variety). The Supreme Court is not necessarily obligated to accept this as a valid claim.

[Doug64]

There are other assumptions that are being made, e.g., that polygamy is categorically similar to monogamy (whether of the gay or hetero variety). The Supreme Court is not necessarily obligated to accept this as a valid claim.

The Supreme Court's opinion basically came down to "people in love are people in love, whether they are opposite sexes or the same sex." So just what is categorically different between that and "people in love are people in love, whether there are only two, or three (or more)"?

[quetzalcoatl]

The Supreme Court's opinion basically came down to "people in love are people in love, whether they are opposite sexes or the same sex." So just what is categorically different between that and "people in love are people in love, whether there are only two, or three (or more)"?

That's a rather unfortunate formulation to be sure. But what category are we discussing? The category of cardinal numbers or the category of marriage? The category of marriage is now understood to be a dyad, and this understanding is currently accepted fairly universally on the left and right (outside of a few outliers). At some future date this understanding may change, but that's the way it stands now.

One of the historic features of Supreme Court decisions are their tendency to lead public opinion, but not lead it too far. So there will be no danger of a legal interpretation of polygamy as a valid form of marriage, not for a long time if ever. Legal consistency is not really a binding consideration, until...well, until it is. And it won't be until some critical mass of public opinion changes on this "issue." Yes, this is hypocrisy of a sort, but socially necessary hypocrisies have existed since the beginning of time. There will be no escape clause for opponents of gay marriage in this particular direction.

[Zamuel]

The category of marriage is now understood to be a dyad

In MOST of the Christian world, yes, but it is being steadily challenged, just as the "Gay Marriage" issue was ... Elsewhere in the world there is no such understanding.

So there will be no danger of a legal interpretation of polygamy as a valid form of marriage, not for a long time if ever.

The Legal issue in the USA is essentially state legislation against "Bigamy." It's very notable that parts of Utah's Bigamy statute were struck down by a Federal court in 2013 in a case brought by the ACLU. There's an ongoing case (right now) against Michigan that alleges the state's legal ban violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. There is also a petition in the Montana District Court asking the court to grant a second (polygamous) marriage license to a Man who is currently married (if denied, this case has the potential of going to the SC). As with Gay rights/marriage, a steady erosion of old Christian traditions is giving way to modern concepts.

Zam

[Doug64]

That's a rather unfortunate formulation to be sure. But what category are we discussing? The category of cardinal numbers or the category of marriage? The category of marriage is now understood to be a dyad, and this understanding is currently accepted fairly universally on the left and right (outside of a few outliers). At some future date this understanding may change, but that's the way it stands now.

As Zamuel pointed out, unless the Supreme Court somehow disavows or avoids its own reasoning in its latest ruling, "some future date" will be coming within the next few years.

[Nets]

The ACLU backs a lot of things out of principle*; doesn't mean that they'll be willing to put in the resources necessary for this particular fight any time soon.

* There is an ancient policy document from the 70s somewhere where the ACLU stated its opposition to the criminalization of possession of child pornography. Is this a thing that anyone working at the ACLU currently will ever bring up? No. Is it something that the ACLU will ever argue in court? No.

Source: worked in an ACLU office.

I wasn't claiming they'd devote the same resources to polygamy that they would to gay marriage, but the ACLU has represented polygamists in court in the past.

[Doug64]

A few other charts that might impact the future of religion in the US:







Comparing what we can of how the different groups do at holding on to their children (and so who is most dependent on conversions to maintain their numbers), the size of the next generations by birth would be:

• Mormons 108.8%
• Historically Black Protestant 87.5%
• Jewish 75%
• Evangelical Protestant 74.8%
• Catholic 67.9%
• Unaffiliated 45.1%
• Mainline Protestant 42.8%

[Doug64]

I found the missing number needed to finish the stats for future population changes in religious groups over a generation. So, combining birthrates, retention rates and conversion rates, assuming nothing changes, here's what things look like in one generation:

• Evangelicals: 117%
• Mainline Protestants: 75%
• Historically Black Protestant: 106%
• Catholics: 72%
• Mormons: 152%
• Jews: 86%
• Unaffiliated: 203%

One change that doesn't show up in those numbers is that the Jews are likely to be much more Orthodox than at present, given respective birth rates.

[Harmattan]

I found the missing number needed to finish the stats for future population changes in religious groups over a generation. So, combining birthrates, retention rates and conversion rates, assuming nothing changes, here's what things look like in one generation:

But you must also look at how many convert back from their religion.

The Mormons have been boasting about how they will dominate USA in thirty years since a very long time. But their numbers are actually pretty stable. They enjoy many conversions, but they also suffer from many reverse conversions, in the same proportions.

It's just the usual Mormon marketing. Once in a while they manage to get a big newspaper or TV tell everyone that USA will be Mormon.

[quetzalcoatl]

The numbers don't seem to add up when you combine the chart in your OP with the rates of increase of the last post.

As an example let's take the Mormon affiliation. Starting with a 2% population and assuming the 152%/generation increase remains constant, this is what you get:

Gen 0 - 2%
Gen 1 - 3%
Gen 2 - 4.6%
Gen 3 - 7%
Gen 4 - 10.6%
Gen 5 - 16.2 %
Gen 6 - 24.6%

So we are looking at an elapse of 6 generations for this 22% "equilibrium" to occur. More time is needed if you assume the rate of increase falls as the equilibrium point is approached. Say 120 years minimum. What reasonable conjectures can we make about religious populations a century from now? I would sooner predict the potato harvest in Idaho circa 2135 than an equilibrium religious population.

[Doug64]

The numbers don't seem to add up when you combine the chart in your OP with the rates of increase of the last post.

While I know what an equilibrium analysis does, I have no idea exactly how it does it. For these latest numbers, I took the Total Fertility Rate divided by 2.1 for the size of the next generation, multiplied it by the retention rate for how many of that generation sticks around, then added on the percentage of those that don't stick around multiplied by the ratio of conversions to those that leave. For the LDS Church, that was a TFR of 3.4, a retention rate of 64%, and five converts for every six that leave. And it looks like I messed up the math slightly, it actually comes out to 134%.

[Doug64]

The Mormons have been boasting about how they will dominate USA in thirty years since a very long time. But their numbers are actually pretty stable. They enjoy many conversions, but they also suffer from many reverse conversions, in the same proportions.

Yes, in the US the LDS Church is losing slightly more members than it is gaining in converts, but that 3.4 TFR makes up for a lot. Still, I wouldn't consider a possible increase of around 5.365 times in four generations to "dominate the USA," seeing how it builds on a starting percentage of the US population of only 1.7%. Sure, assuming that everything stays the same including the size of the US population that means that in around a century ~9% of the US would be Mormon, but that's not exactly even a huge minority. And if there's one thing certain, it is that things will change.

[abu_rashid]

One thing I forgot to mention in the polygamy detour that actually ties into this thread, and that's that polygamy actually depresses overall birthrates -- men practicing polygamy may have more children, but there are fewer children per woman.

This might be true of Mormon polygamists but certainly not for Muslim polygamists. Pretty much all of the polygamist families I know involve at least 1 convert wife, and it's also fairly common for polygamist families to involve wives who have been divorced. So they usually have a child or two from a previous marriage and then re-marry into a polygamous relationship and have a few more.