Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Polygamy – another love that now dares speak its name again

Polygamy – another love that now dares speak its name again

Not that there’s anything wrong with it (?).

Long ago, and far away, we predicted that once the legal standard for equal protection of the law as to marriage became  “love”  and consenting adults, without regard to gender, there would be no rational basis upon which to limit the number to two:

That is the argument put forth by Prof. Martha Nussbaum, “Polygamy would have to be permitted”:

Now, via BuzzFeed, Polygamists are emboldened to speak of their love and demand legal rights in the wake of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision, Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings:

The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.

Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.

“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”

“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.”

Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, “Our very existence has been classified as criminal… and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.” …

But polygamists in the United States, where bigamy is a crime, have taken cues from the marriage equality movement, and the few public champions of the lifestyle have deliberately positioned themselves as libertarian-minded gay rights advocates as well. Following gay rights activists’ lead, polygamist families — like the Browns, with their TLC reality show Sister Wives, and the Dargers, who came out with a book last year — have come forward to convince the American public that their lifestyle can be wholesome and normal.

The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.

Matt Lewis notes:

After all, why shouldn’t marriage equality apply to them, too?

The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.” Polygamists couldn’t agree more.

USA Today notes, Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions, that the polygamist movement still does not have the political power to effect legal change:

But the trajectory towards legalizing polygamy is not so simple, legal scholars say.

David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University who specializes in family law, says that the lack of mainstream acceptance for polygamy does not bode well for its legalization.

“There is no political movement in this country that is anywhere near making the same gains for polygamy that have been made for gay marriage,” he says.

That may be so.  But that can and probably will change. 

Preventing loving adults from marrying is the new evil in the modern world, as Justice Scalia recited in his Dissent in the DOMA case:

By formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is “no legitimate purpose” served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has “the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure” the “personhood and dignity” of same-sex couples. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy “help” only to a member of this institution.

Why do we hate loving adults just because they want to live and marry as a threesome? 

On what rational basis do we pick the arbitrary number Two when other (allegedly) arbitrary distinctions have been declared the enemy of decency?  Polygamy has a historical and social acceptance in many cultures which far surpasses gay marriage, a very recent phenomenon.

Why should the children of polygamous relationships have to live in shame and be subjected to discrimination, to paraphrase Justice Kennedy?

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Since the entire issue of same sex ‘marriage’ has been framed in terms of ‘rights’ it is beholden upon all those who argued in favor of such a ‘right’ to either explain why this right does not extend to the polyamorous, or acknowledge that it does.

Otherwise their ‘argument,’ such as it was, will be revealed as nothing more than an “I got mine and never really gave a fig about true human rights in the first place’ admission.

UH OH! Time to get loud and indignant about another sex issue that doesn’t affect your life in any way whatsoever.

    V.McCann in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 1:14 pm

    No one is talking about sex. The post is about government’s definition of marriage, which is public by definition and affects everyone in our allegedly self-governing society.

      Quint in reply to V.McCann. | June 30, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      Semantics. You’re (we’re) going to lose the image war. Again. In embarrassing fashion. Again.

        Ragspierre in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 2:03 pm

        Sounds like you should just give up and join the other side.

        Me, I’ll just keep on embarrassing you.

          Quint in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2013 at 2:16 pm

          You (WE) just lost a colossal Supreme Court ruling in humiliating fashion. I’m trying to help you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2013 at 4:10 pm

          Wow. “Colossal” huh? How many decisions went against abolitionists? I don’t give a flying fluck what the Supremes tell is right. I know right from wrong.

        V.McCann in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 2:09 pm

        No, using words to mean what they mean is not a matter of semantics; it’s the only way meaningful debate takes place. It wasn’t an image war that’s we* lost. It was the battle to prevent fanaticism from overrunning rational, accurate thought, and it was lost the second the county allowed the progressives to frame the issue as one of liberty, or choice, or freedom, or–most absurdly of all–“outlawing” gay marriage. It wasn’t about any of those things. It was about the same thing it’s always about: forcing people to think what “liberals” tell them to think.

        *But be careful with your assumptions regarding my personal position. I am not necessarily either opposed to sanctioning gay marriage or a supporter of traditional marriage. I am, however, steadfastly resistant to being told that I must agree with “liberals” regarding the proper definition of marriage.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 6:43 pm

        quint . Marriage kills sex.

        ThomasD in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 6:48 pm

        If by ‘semantics’ you mean a respect and appreciation for the longstanding legal, moral, and social definition of a term then yes the issue is ‘semantic.’

        You can ride a bicycle at the bottom of your swimming pool and insist that people call it a submarine, but that in no way makes it an actual submarine.

          BannedbytheGuardian in reply to ThomasD. | June 30, 2013 at 7:07 pm

          I never did understand the fish needing a bicycle . Now I have to configure a submarine into the equation!

    MaggotAtBroadAndWall in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    Wrong. One of the arguments made by the anti-traditional marriage crowd is that there are around a thousand federal statutes written to benefit people who enter into marriage. The laws were written when society believed that a lifelong monogamous relationship between a man and a woman for the primary purpose of producing and raising children was good for society, the family, and the children.

    Married gays now insist they deserve those benefits. So will polygamists. As will participants in every kind of crackpot idea for marriage that “progressives” can dream up.

    You may not pay taxes, but I do.

    If we’re going to pervert, distort, and redefine marriage, then the laws granting federal benefits to marriage need to be re-examined.

      Yet in every gay marriage discussion there’s always some conservative moaning about how gays represent nary 1% of the population! Fewer marry. Fewer yet are clamoring for polygamy. Stop. It’s not about money. Nonetheless it’s time to get government out of marriage entirely.

        Ragspierre in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 2:06 pm

        Really? Cite on one.

        OTOH, aren’t militant “gay” rights people DEMANDING that government MANDATE new rights that were unheard of under the Constitution?

        Who brought this fight? Hmmmm…????

        serfer1962 in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 2:06 pm

        Quint…don’t you have homework to do?

    RKae in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 4:43 pm

    UH OH! Time to hide your head in the sand and say “Nothing to worry about; everything will go along just as it always has.”

    Yeah. Right.

    gs425 in reply to Quint. | June 30, 2013 at 9:04 pm

    So now youre not all about ‘community”?

Good point. As long as we’re throwing away thousands of years of accepted Judeo-Christian traditions, I’ve always thought it would be ‘cool’ to marry my dog, or that 12-y.o. girl down the street. If it was good enough for Mohammed, it should be good enough for me.

    Awing1 in reply to walls. | June 30, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    While polygamy logically follows from a “marriage equality” argument, marrying entities that cannot consent does not. Marriage equality depends on the argument that “all involve consent, and all involved can legally marry, just not each other.” Let’s keep our slippery slope arguments on the logical side of things.

      Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | June 30, 2013 at 4:17 pm

      Who says that the whole concept of “consent” is not perfectly fungible, too?

      What prevents a future Justice Kennedy from declaring “no legitimate purpose” WRT the idea of an “age of consent”?

      I can see nothing that prevents the application of that “reasoning” to anything.

      And, of course, you are a bigot for even THINKING that a child should be protected from an adult sexual predator! Repent, hater…!!!

        Awing1 in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2013 at 4:43 pm

        You can’t see how an argument that the government cannot discriminate against a particular marriage based on the gender of the participants doesn’t result in the destruction of the consent requirement? I honestly feel bad for you if that’s the case.

          Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | June 30, 2013 at 5:13 pm

          You feeling badly for me is not an argument.

          Try making one. I will get along just fine…

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | June 30, 2013 at 6:18 pm

          You didn’t make an argument for me to counter, what do you expect?

          Show me how the logic of arguing discrimination based on gender in granting marriage results in the destruction of the consent requirement, and then I can debate you.

          Ragspierre in reply to Awing1. | June 30, 2013 at 6:37 pm

          What prevents a future Justice Kennedy from declaring “no legitimate purpose” WRT the idea of an “age of consent”?

          I can see nothing that prevents the application of that “reasoning” to anything.
          ——————————

          There you go. Again.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | June 30, 2013 at 7:35 pm

          Yeah, I don’t see an argument there. Show me how you get from “don’t discriminate based on gender” to “no more need for consent to binding agreements”. Are you trying to argue that if the government doesn’t have a legitimate interest in discriminating based on gender in marriages, they don’t have a legitimate interest in requiring that both parties to a marriage consent?

      gs425 in reply to Awing1. | June 30, 2013 at 9:11 pm

      Bull, the justice system prosecutes children as young as ten for crimes. If they can consent to a crime, why not a marriage?

        Awing1 in reply to gs425. | June 30, 2013 at 9:21 pm

        If you don’t know what the word ‘consent’ means, just don’t use it. You don’t consent to crimes, you consent to contracts or agreements. No state that I’m aware of enforces contracts where one or more parties is a minor.

          gs425 in reply to Awing1. | July 1, 2013 at 7:45 am

          One does not need to have two parties to ‘consent’ to anything. Consent is an act of thinking and reasoning. If all you have is semantics….move on.

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | July 1, 2013 at 8:36 pm

          Are you serious? You’re using the wrong word, you absolutely do need to parties for there to be consent.

          con·sent (kn-snt)
          intr.v. con·sent·ed, con·sent·ing, con·sents
          1. To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. See Synonyms at assent.
          2. Archaic To be of the same mind or opinion.
          n.
          1. Acceptance or approval of what is planned or done by another; acquiescence. See Synonyms at permission.
          2. Agreement as to opinion or a course of action: She was chosen by common consent to speak for the group.

          Please stop talking, you’re lowering everyone else’s IQ.

First, there is no “right to marry”.

It has ALWAYS…in every culture of which I know…been PERMISSIVE. That is, you needed permission. Now, you could always screw around and couple up, but “marriage” is not that.

Second, the Supreme’s majority opinion will live in infamy in our history, right up there with Dred Scott, IMNHO.

“Justice Kennedy’ s pronouncement that Congress could have “’no legitimate purpose’” for passing DOMA constitutes “the three most important words in this decision,” says ABC Supreme Court correspondent Terry Moran.

I agree with Moran. Breathtaking. Gob-smacking. Whatever descriptive you care to come up with, Kennedy’s AMAZING social judgment is something we have no seen in a majority decision. I am frankly amazed even concurring justices let him write the insult to a free people.

But they did…

    JerryB in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2013 at 12:38 pm

    Breathtaking about sums it up. No surprise, I guess, because in the whole “national discussion” I’ve yet to hear the defense of marriage. Why does the state have an interest in marriage?

    The state’s interest in marriage is a crucial aspect of its interest in its future. The goal is to foster strong families raising future citizens. This demands a stable environment where couples’ needs for financial stability and the freedom and ability to educate their children is paramount. What it isn’t about is a tax break for support of a sex habit, or some “civil right” to a piece of paper.

      Ragspierre in reply to JerryB. | June 30, 2013 at 1:24 pm

      Start by looking up Chesterton’s Wall.

      I find it asinine that “thinkers” like you simply hand-wave a centuries-old, cross-cultural social norm away.

        JerryB in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2013 at 4:39 pm

        Huh? I thought I was agreeing with you. If SCOTUS and POTUS can’t comprehend that we should protect and foster healthy marriages, we’re done for.

    Radegunda in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    You’re correct that it isn’t a “right,” because it entails demands on other people, including the demand by government employees that taxpayers provide benefits to their spouse or the demand that single employees living on one income subsidize benefits for other people’s spouses – even if the spouse has his/her own income.

    We’ve also seen that it involves a demand that the state use its coercive power to compel others to recognize a same-sex relationship as marriage and to support it with professional services on request.

    When gay-marriage proponents claim that it’s all about “freedom” to “love the person you choose” and that their opponents are blocking the door to “love,” they demonstrate the dishonesty at the heart of the movement – especially when you consider that it’s being propelled in large part by the same people who used to say scornfully that they didn’t need a “piece of paper” to prove their commitment to someone!

      serfer1962 in reply to Radegunda. | June 30, 2013 at 2:14 pm

      Rags…no society existed without marriage and always a man & Women, the rest expired. Various cultures allowed multiple wives, but that had requirements and was rare. The church got into it solely to protect children, what’s the government’s reason?
      For myself having experienced the losing side in the 70s Sex Wars I cannot reason with more then one if any.
      Eventually normal people will adopt a marriage separate from these assine wars.

    janitor in reply to Ragspierre. | June 30, 2013 at 1:47 pm

    What’s astounding is that for federal purposes, the federal government DOES have the right to define words contrary to how states define them. “Sham” marriages that won’t give rise to immigration rights (but which would be upheld absolutely under state law, e.g.) Who is “separated” for purposes of filing a tax return as head of household or single, rather than “married filing separately”. This is nothing short of a politically-motivated, ill-thought-through, and crackpot decision. The possibilities — just the looming litigation and administrative nightmares — literally are making me nauseous.

The modern culture is becoming equal parts degrading and depressing. Where will it end? I only know I’m tired of it all; even the ways we have debates over it has become boring — the monotonous talking points, the anger, the ugly impasses. What’s astonishing — really, the most astonishing aspect of it all to me — is how wildly, eagerly, unreservedly, the “liberals”, or progressives, or those historically pledged the sacred notion of human individuality and dignity, are throwing away their legacy and cashing in their souls for, I guess, the promise Obama represents and might achieve, i.e., an operative totalitarianism in America and the true end of dissent. I wonder, will the price for this be a political one, a spiritual one, or will there be a price at all?

Polygamy as understood is a husband with multiple wives, but we can’t leave bisexuals out of the party. “Marriages” of two men and a woman, or 3 women and 5 men are a distinct possibility. Give it 10 years.

The 10 years after that? Probably incest.

    Ragspierre in reply to fmc. | June 30, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    “Polyamory”. Covers a multitude of sins…so to speak.

    ThomasD in reply to fmc. | June 30, 2013 at 7:03 pm

    Polyamory also would encompass 2 guys and 2 girls, or 5 guys and 13 girls, – any multiple thereof really.

If gay marriage had come about through popular support (which it probably would have eventually) there would have been virtually no effect on the standing of polygamy and other deviant relationships. But, as usual, liberals gave in to their lust to crush their enemies through naked political power and corruption of established institutions rather than convincing arguments. To do this they had to de-legitimize traditional marriage and all the foundations it rests on. As a side-effect (whether intended or not) this removed all barriers against recognizing polygamy, incest, and probably more.

“The only reason it’s not permitted now is bigotry toward polygamists.” I learned that if you say stuff like that, then the Constitution can be interpreted to mean anything we want. You don’t have to prove it either, just say it. Then the wording of the Constitution is moot.

Slippery slope arguments are a logical fallacy. There’s no way Lawrence v. Texas could lead to gay marriages being legalized.

I should have become a family law attorney. Marriage never stopped the litigious.

Enough of this nonsense!

All I want to know is how can I marry my cat?

I’m goin’ back to bed…

“Preventing loving adults from marrying…”

This quotation illustrates the completeness with which rational thought has been eliminated from the public discourse. Failure or refusal to recognize gay marriage does not prevent anyone from doing anything. It simply represents voters’ decision regarding which behaviors to actively encourage.

In fact this is how state-regulated and sanctioned marriage is going to be destroyed. All benefits automatically accorded on the (formerly) easy bright-line basis of marriage will have to be re-thought, and perhaps most of them wiped out, save for certain dependent next-of-kin inheritance rights.

In fact I would urge that we advocate for this sooner rather than later, or else we will head into 80 years of a mess and leave the incentives for all kinds of “equal protection” claims. Not to mention the diversion of time and money from other matters.

Get rid of spousal immigration rights. Get rid of joint tax returns (and redefine under federal law what constitutes “income” for the community property states). And so forth. Sometimes you have to drink something unpleasant to cure the disease.

The court didn’t actually decide that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage. This was essentially a state’s rights decision, which SHOULD please many participants here. They may never actually rule on that subject or if so, it will be years from now.

I’m not aware of any states that recognize plural marriages at this point. Personally, I don’t have a problem with it, except for enforcement in such areas as welfare fraud.

I’m for anything that juices the birth rates of americans of european ancestry.

    janitor in reply to Jackster. | June 30, 2013 at 4:05 pm

    They didn’t so rule, but in effect they achieved the same agenda. We’re going to have an equal protection issue when individuals in different states are subject to different federal rules and benefits based on state law. The examples given to naysay this reality are specious, e.g. states’ differing ages at which teenagers can marry (children who in any event still need parental consent aren’t a viable political voice to complain, and don’t usually have inheritance, dependent support, tax return and similar issues.)

Why not go further, perhaps to Heinlein’s idea of “line” marriages which function like a corporation. A group marriage with husbands and wives where new spouses are taken in as older ones die off and all take care of the minor children. Stable as anything based on sex can be.

The old definition will come back as soon as the thieves in suits realize they’ve just written off the inheritance tax.

I can marry my two son in laws now in polyamory splendor. When I kick off they get everything tax free. The only difficult part will be finding somebody to make the cake and take pics of the ceremony.

    PaulB in reply to PaulB. | June 30, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    Oh yeah! I’ll also have to take grief about robbing the cradle but that’s just age discrimination and I’ll be able to sue for temporal bigotry hate crimes. More bucks for my daughters, eh?

cdwoodworth | June 30, 2013 at 2:51 pm

The battle for marriage was essentially lost – take your pick:
A.When childbearing ceased to be an important factor socially. That’s probably 50 to 100 years ago, certainly by the time of the pill.
B. When ‘no fault’ aka unilateral no-reason-required divorce was made legal even in unions having children who then became some of the ‘prizes’ to be fought over in divorce.

Because of these two things marriages became just another ‘relationship’, between two unconnected individuals and/or another income stream for private and public interests to profit from.

Gay marriage is fine by me in the sense that I don’t care whether it’s called marriage or not. I do care that many benefits were tied to marriage – like the right to will property , some of the rights of inheritance,and as important the right to visit and/or participate in the care of one’s loved one in the hospital.

Most of the rest is sound and fury, signifying nothing. Once marriage was untethered from its social and biological roots, it was destroyed.

    JerryB in reply to cdwoodworth. | June 30, 2013 at 5:00 pm

    I was with you up to “Gay marriage is fine by me …” The pill and rampant divorce undermined marriage. Both vitiate the primary end of marriage, which is the procreation and education of children.

      “The pill and rampant divorce undermined marriage”

      Did it undermine yours?

      cdwoodworth in reply to JerryB. | June 30, 2013 at 9:58 pm

      [email protected]:00pm:
      I’m not religious and even if I was I have seen the fact that gays couldn’t get married – and this society foolishly (and ‘now'(since no fault)hypocritically tie basic things of a human decency nature to the status of married versus non-married. Provided gays were to get those rights I could care less whether it was by some form of marriage or merely removing those legal rights as only belonging to those married. I’m certainly not the type that would force churches, for example, to recognize or perform gay marriages, I simply don’t want homosexual partners denied visitation rights at their loved ones bedsides and similar B.S., and since I view marriage as already dead I’m not inclined to care whether it is used for this purpose (instead of some other legal remedy) or not.

        JerryB in reply to cdwoodworth. | July 1, 2013 at 8:01 am

        There have to be some things worth holding onto. Some would say that the Constitution has been vitiated, so just let it go. Letting marriage go the wayside is signing a death warrant for society.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to cdwoodworth. | June 30, 2013 at 6:25 pm

    C. Abortion also figures in the dissolution of marriages and attitudes toward marriage. There has been an increase in the number of abortions by married couples to prevent the expense of third and fourth children by married couples. The psychological effects of the abortion increase problems in the marriage (and in the siblings whether they know about the abortion or not) due to guilt and cynicism/hardness of heart…the whole spiritual/psychological atmosphere of the home will have changed due to the shedding of innocent blood, the lack of feeling, love and compassion for the child they aborted.

A-F-F-I-R-M-A-T-I-V-E ___________A-C-T-I-O-N

Will Gay groups now be seeking some type of affirmative action?

Why not? . the basis for affirmative action for other minority groups is a perfect fit for the gay community

What will such affirmative action entail? Preference in adoptions? Preferences in housing? Requiring towns to support gay-centered activities? More educational curriculum devoted to celebrating the gay community? banishing any andall moral opposition to gay life. Will religious groups that oppose gay marriage/rights be punished (like forcing Catholic church out of adoption work in MA?)

The end goal is and always was legalizing pedophilia.

    Awing1 in reply to sablegsd. | June 30, 2013 at 3:14 pm

    How does any of the logic of these cases and arguments lead to a destruction of the consent requirement?

      V.McCann in reply to Awing1. | June 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm

      Because if society has no right to define marriage, there’s no way to impose a consent requirement.

        Awing1 in reply to V.McCann. | June 30, 2013 at 4:38 pm

        But nobody argues you can’t define marriage, they just argue you can’t define it *in a certain way*. They’re saying marriage equality prohibits the government from saying “A and B can marry, and C and D can marry, but A and C cannot.” That argument has nothing to do with a consent requirement, because with a child (e), e cannot marry A or B or C or D, e simply cannot marry, because e cannot consent.

          V.McCann in reply to Awing1. | July 1, 2013 at 12:32 am

          That’s exactly my point. Why is it more valid to define marriage as requiring two consenting beings then it is to define marriage as between a man and a woman?

          Awing1 in reply to Awing1. | July 1, 2013 at 8:38 pm

          Well, because defining it as between a man and a woman increases individual autonomy, defining it as something that doesn’t require consent decreases individual autonomy. They’re not even in the same ballpark.

Marriage is a religious construct, and it should be pulled back to be solely part of the Religion, not part of the state. People should be free to practice their religion, including not supporting other religions ceremonies, ie a Florist should not be able to be sued for not selling to a Gay wedding.

There should be a ‘Civil Union’ federal statute that allows for say up to six adults to be in a relationship with the contract defining the rights and responsibilities as well as what laws govern in a separation. Such relationships don’t necessarily entail scuzzy or sleaze behavior.

So yes I vote for Polyamory, I know two wonderful women that we would all win with such a relationship.

We are a society of sinners. We have it in our nature to do what is wrong, even when it seems right.

Three points:

1) There is a way which seems right to man, but it’s end is the path to death. (Proverbs 14:2). We are killing ourselves off as a nation with political correctness and what is “right”.

2) Pride goeth before a fall. (Proverbs 16:18). In our pride as a society to be “inclusive” of all things immoral, we are setting ourselves up for destruction.

3) The wages of sin are death.(Romans 6:23) If we continue to be UNREPENTANT in our glorification of immorality as a society, i.e. a lawless society, we are dooming ourselves to destruction. Redefining marriage to suit our political needs of the moment is one of the many ways we, as a nation, seem to “Progress” towards that end.

Now one can remove the biblical quotes from my points and it still is logical:

1) We’re killing ourselves off as a nation due to political correctness.

2) Embracing immoral behavior will lead to our nation’s downfall.

3) A lawless society is one which will not stand the test of time. Redefining Marriage opens the door to many challenges to current standing law.

Either with the religion justification or without, the end result is the same.

    You’re quoting Proverbs that is purportedly written at a time when two of Israel’s most celebrated king had multiple wives. Not to mention the Patriarchs?

    Ironic that you should be quoting the same scriptures that are the basis for Mormonism polygamy.

Texas Lt Governor David Dewhurst: We’re passing this bill

http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2013/06/texas-lt-governor-david-dewhurst-were.html

Henry Hawkins | June 30, 2013 at 4:22 pm

In 1986 I married my sister so I wouldn’t have in-laws. Am I legal now?

My gay friends have had one of two reactions over the past few years when I brought up “Well, next polygamy will have to be legalized”: 1.) “Why, that’s just silly!” 2.) “How DARE you!”

All the time, I had one of two notions in my head: 1.) “They’re living in denial.” 2.) “They’re lying to me.”

Donald Douglas | June 30, 2013 at 4:51 pm

The folks at the libertarian Reason magazine are already making the case for polygamy.

Don’t know how much pull they have, but hey, libertarianism is so hip these days!

Linked William, ‘How Will Homosexual Marriage Supporters Argue Against Polygamy?’

    Libertarians are the biggest simpletons on Earth. Everything to them is a 3-step process: 1.) Make a good product; 2.) You’re then a millionaire; 3.) The big corporation that opposed you goes out of business.

    They’re idiots.

    And polygamy is YET ANOTHER area where they flat-out refuse to take peripheral factors into account. Also, they suffer from the Libertarian disease of “Legalize everything and let the chips fall where they may, even though we know DAMNED WELL where they’re going to fall.”

    I hate them intensely.

Polygamy is cultural poison and 100% of the time leads to pedophilia. It appeals to (and legitimizes) men’s need for one-upmanship, and competition begins for who can get the girls younger and younger.

Also: there’s a need to get the girls younger, so that they don’t get themselves educated; so that the old man who rapes them with society’s consent will be their “teacher.”

It will also speed up the Islamization of the West.

Only a fool would OK it under the notion of “freedom.”

    Ragspierre in reply to RKae. | June 30, 2013 at 5:09 pm

    Sorry, that is 100% bullshit. In some cultures where polygamy has been practiced, men do NOT enter into a plural marriage UNLESS chosen to do so.

    They don’t do it, in other words, because they take a notion.

Gay marriage? What an insult to God! I weep for my country. I think it is horrible to raise children in such families. I don’t think people have really thought this through.

Pettifogger | June 30, 2013 at 6:04 pm

I have wondered about this issue, but now I am not so sure polygamy necessarily follows from gay marriage. Most now accept that sexual orientation is, as is race, an immutable characteristic. Polygamy is no such thing, so discrimination against it is significantly distinguishable from discrimination against gay marriage.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Pettifogger. | June 30, 2013 at 7:26 pm

    Not so quick. What is immutable about race?

    Looking at someone or even a genetic test will not necessarily tell you who is what race ( there are only 3) lor sexuality.

    When a genetics et is found – it will be a battle to put / fight off attempts to classify it a a defect.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Pettifogger. | June 30, 2013 at 11:19 pm

    Problem there is that we have some evidence that polygamy, or something along those lines, is in our genes. Turns out that sexual dimorphism correlates with polygamy, while testes size indicates level of promiscuity. The bigger the size difference between the sexes, the larger the harem, while the bigger the bigger the testes, the more competition that a male’s sperm face in a female. Gorillas have large sexual dimorphism, and relatively small testes. Our nearest relatives, chimps and Pygmy chimps, have less sexual dimorphism than we do, but relatively larger testes. Which suggests that humans developed to expect some female promiscuity (I would expect primarily as wives cuckolding their husbands in order to procure better sperm from alpha males), and some polygamy.

Consensual polygamous and consanguinous marriages are going to happen. It’s pretty much the same argument. With polygamy, it is the exact same argument. With incest, the only real counterargument (with heterosexual marriages, anyway) is genetic defects. Can you see an attorney making an argument for eugenics in a modern American courtroom? Yeah, me either. Pedophilia and bestiality will probably have to wait for the law to devolve, but people are working on both.

    ThomasD in reply to Rich Fader. | June 30, 2013 at 7:14 pm

    The genetic defect argument is, by and large, a non-starter. There are a few known issues – things like sickle cell trait, Tay Sachs, etc. They are already a problem for the non-consanguinous who choose to marry within their own heredity groups. But in the absence of those known issues there is no proven risk of increased birth defects from inbreeding.

    Incest will be one of the last to fall, not for any scientific or rational reason – but purely from the ick factor alone.

      Ragspierre in reply to ThomasD. | June 30, 2013 at 7:23 pm

      The whole genetic ambit is swept off the table if a couple has no intention of having kids.

      To marry an adult child of your own is now utterly defensible.

      “Who gets to decide who we love?”

    Agreed, the genetic defects argument fails on several counts:
    1) procreation is not a qualfication for marriage
    2) there are over 4,000 “minor” genetic defects already passed on through hetero copulation
    3) abortion

Colorado Alex | June 30, 2013 at 6:31 pm

The argument for polygamy will not come from the religious side. It will come from bisexuals, especially bisexual women. The argument will be that by banning polygamy, we’re discriminating against bisexuals who love more than one person at a time.

In fact, polygamy may have an easier time than gay marriage. A lot of people are turned off by the rampant hedonism that elements of the gay community embraces (see any gay pride parade). Some twenty-something couple with a cute wife and their mutual cute girlfriend are going to be a lot more camera friendly.

Polygamy is only an obvious and tame next step.

Pedophiles are rubbing their hands with glee. If the thousands year old concept of marriage, which just happens to be the bedrock of civilization and the most treasured institution of most religions, can be allowed to fall to the relentless march of radicals bent on destroying every institution that stands in the way of total power, why should any moral standard not be subject to the same anarchy.

When 95% let the screeches of 5% dictate what society will tolerate, anything is possible. Not just possible, likely.

Evening, dear. Evening, dear. Ba-a-a-a.

    Awing1 in reply to Searcher. | June 30, 2013 at 9:59 pm

    Yes, a declaration that the government can’t discriminate on the basis of gender is the exact same as removing the requirement to consent. Because gay marriage is literally rape.

Polygamy and its effects are often misunderstood.

1. There are no societies where the majority of men ‘benefit’ from polygamy. Polygamy always leaves some men left totally out of the sexual/marriage market. Not everyone can be a ‘big man’ with a ‘harem’, indeed in most historical societies of that nature few men had harems. If a significant proportion of men ever had more than one wife that particular society would consist mostly of bachelor never-to-be-married men and ‘kept’ women. It gets even uglier when you look at places like some Mormon cults, where teen boys are basically exiled due to being ‘competition’ with the Bigger and Older men.
2. Polygyny is much rarer; though not unknown.

    Awing1 in reply to cdwoodworth. | June 30, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    For number 2:, do you mean polyandry? In societies where polygamy is allowed, the predominante legal rules limit it to polygyny. Polyandry is extremely rare, though not unknown.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to cdwoodworth. | July 1, 2013 at 6:12 am

    The FLDS is a red herring here, a couple thousand compared to a billion Muslims worldwide.

    As I pointed out above, our level of sexual dimorphism is evidence that humans have engaged in at least some level of polygamy in the past. If we were truly monogamous, and only pair mated, then the average size of the two sexes would likely be much closer together.

    Something else to consider along those lines is that a bit of polygamy, along with a consequent number of males never marrying, is that this sort of arrangement may tend to spur male accomplishment. If every male were allocated one female, and no more, there would be less incentive to work hard, take chances, and otherwise engage in symbolic combat with other males. And, that, arguably is why males supply most inventions, make the big fortunes, etc.

    Also, we are seeing something close to de facto polygamy in the ghetto today, esp. in the Black community. Males are fathering children on multiple women, with the state picking up the tab. Of course, they are probably not married to any of the women, since that would likely put them on the spot legally to support all their kids, and this way, the state does it for them.

    Someone observed that the primary sexual strategies for the two sexes are quite different. For males, it is more – breeding with the maximum number of females. For females, it is better, getting the best sperm for their children. Monogamous marriage results in a lot of cuckolding, with wives cheating on their beta husbands to get alpha male genes for their children. Polygamy seemingly fits this better, since the alpha males get to have multiple wives to breed with, and they are responsible for the children they beget there, while the betas that don’t have wives, and don’t breed, don’t end up expending resources to raise the biological children of other, higher status, males.

      cdwoodworth in reply to Bruce Hayden. | July 1, 2013 at 1:35 pm

      Bruce Hayden:
      There is a significant difference between some men having multiple wives/sexual partners and most men having NONE. I dare say a society where most men could not pair up would not be a very stable society.

      As far as the rest I will say the dominant sexuality of most females (and males if females are considered the ‘gatekeepers’) is serial monogamy.

The elected government officials of this land need to be educated in the difference between LGBT and those that practice polygamy. LGBT is the way a parson is born… polygamy is taught through religion. BIG difference! People can read the bible or any other religious doctrine and interpret it and then choose to teach it the way they want… this is how polygamy was born… through religion… the people of the LGBT community are just born…they are not taught to be who they are, they are who they are and should be proud!

Polygamy is NOT all “Sister Wives”, “Big Love” or even “Polygamy USA”… As for decriminalization of polygamy… isn’t it already? I don’t see the Browns or the Dargers being thrown in jail for breaking the law … do you?? The reason for that… the law “enforcement” is getting their piece of the pie… even though the tax payers are paying on average $13,800 per MONTH in public assistance for an average polygamous family… one man, five wives and five children each… it is called “Bleeding the Beast” and YES, YOU are paying for it… an LGBT couple is NOT trying to take your money… they just want to have the same rights as any other couple…. Let me get back to that number… Thirteen THOUSAND dollars a MONTH… and the area on the UT/AZ border where most FLDS live shows an average household income of ZERO to $40K a year… keep in mind, a household is about 30 people… how do you think they live??

As a resident of So. UT for almost 20 years it was very obvious to me that the law turned a blind eye to the FLDS where girls (some as young as 12) were being married off to older men. It was always sad to me to see a young FLDS girl with a baby in her arms and wonder if it was her sibling or her child.

My husband worked at the local paper in St. George, UT (The Spectrum, a Gannett paper) for 16 years as the local news editor (including the years of the Jeffs trials). With all the research he did during that time he found many instances of the “lack of law” in this area and the corruption going on. He wrote ‘plygs’ a fact-based journalistic novel of the FLDS.

As for the “slippery slope” … there should be none. What the people of the FLDS and the UAB practice as their “lifestyle” is SO far from it. People want to look at polygamy along with the LGBT and it is a totally different world. The LGBT just want to marry ONE person and have a life the way other
monogamous couples live. The Polygamous world is based on religion. They hide behind it, they survive on the words of a prophet that has ended himself and several others in jail. What good can come of a “religion” that 12, 13, 14 yr
old girls are “married” to the “highest bidder” (tithing and favors) within a “church”?

Polygamy that is taught through religion is NOT a choice.
They live it or they are forever damned. They live it or they will not see their children in the afterlife. They live it or they will be cast out with nothing… no home, no food, no family, no children, no friends… NOTHING…

Tell me where this is a choice! Tell me how this should be legal! Explain how this is so slippery… those that speak of this slope have NO idea what true polygamy practiced by the FLDS and the AUB and other groups are doing to these women and children… there is no slope… there is a mountain and our politicians are terrified to climb it!

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to CaboCara. | July 1, 2013 at 12:38 am

    How do you know gays just want to marry one .In the gay gal world there are many multiple relationships ongoing. The gay guys are more promiscuous but generally don’t keep the one night stand thing ongoing. They like to move on to new fields not play relationship games like the girls.

    Caro – just ditch that man & go get yourself a gal. We know you want to.

      No wonder the government and most of the pro DOMA folks are such idiots… they are just like you @BannedbytheGuardian … you all think it is about sex… maybe you should become a ‘plyg’ … they get a hella lot more than anyone in the LGBT community… you should know… you PAY for the products of the FLDS and the AUB AND the other members of polygamous groups that put “father unknown” on birth certificates in order to get your $$$ …. LGBT is NOT about sex… but the FLDS is… there are 12 men in prison in TX to prove it… try reading a book… or actually understanding what you are writing about before making crude comments… it really is not necessary and until you gain an understanding and an education you will never fully understand what you are writing about anyway…

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to CaboCara. | July 1, 2013 at 3:49 am

        I have known many Mormons . I have known none that have spread Aids & killed millions of innocent people including children , babies , haemophiliacs .

        At the Blood Bank Mormons are not forbidden from donating blood as have men who have had gay sex in the last 5 years.

        Lesbians can donate blood because they really do nothing but fool around.

    Bruce Hayden in reply to CaboCara. | July 1, 2013 at 5:53 am

    I think that you paint with much too broad of a brush when it comes to polygamy. It isn’t just the FLDS marrying off barely legal girls to men twice their age, but also numerous Muslims. It has been remarked that both major party candidates last year had polygamous grandfathers, but the President had a polygamous father too – and since his mother was the second wife, it could be argued that he was illegitimate under our laws. Under the tenets of Islam, four wives (at a time) are allowed, and it is one of the largest religions in the world, with over a billion adherents.

We are living in the second Weimar Republic.

Colorado Alex | July 1, 2013 at 12:32 am

The problem is that people are looking at this as a series of logical steps: gay marriage -> polygamy -> incest -> pedophilia.

The reality is that all four branches of the same basic idea, which is the destruction of Western morality. If you look at much of the early progressive thought, there was a lot of hostility towards marriage, fidelity, and other “bourgeoisie” values. These values, it was argued, were actually tools of repression for the capitalists, the patriarchy, etc. Thus, the progressive alternative pushed for weakening or eliminating these institutions altogether and replacing them with new institutions centered around the State.

    BannedbytheGuardian in reply to Colorado Alex. | July 1, 2013 at 12:52 am

    Nothing in the Soviet ethos was against families other than eliminating individuals it did not like . Indeed if one produced 10 children one got to be Heroine of The Motherland.

    Life was a bit grim but marriage was between one man & a woman & marriage was usual for girls at 19. This is why Babushkas were so important . They kept the nuclear family together & because they had been on the housing list for 30 years they often had accommodation .in fact if you were not family in the USSR you lived in barracks in Siberia or factory towns.

    Aye aye Babushka Babushka aye aye. ( not sure Kate Bush actually knew what a babushka was)

      The family unit was for procreation. Period.

      The children belonged to the state, and were treated like it.

      Follow Oleg Atbashian’s blog, ThePeoplesCube.com for more facts about it. Oleg was one of those children.

        BannedbytheGuardian in reply to TheFineReport.com. | July 1, 2013 at 2:23 am

        Yes but he has / had a mother & a father & a Babushka & close relatives. He was not just a number .in fact the very names of USSR children denote Anna / fathers name / family name just as Americans often put in their mother’s maiden name.

        Anna Pavlovna Pavlova.

        Your post does not refute my points.

I’d like to extend invitations to everyone here for the upcoming nuptials of me and my ailing dog. You see, he has some health problems and I can’t afford the vet bills so I’m going to “tie the knot” (or bury the bone if you get what I’m saying:) to have him covered under my health policy. Open bar for “Kibbles & Bits”. “Three Dog Night” will be performing:)

[…] William Jacobson noted that legal scholars believe it will be more difficult for polygamists to gain public support, but that could change. […]

I have started a petition at the White House gov site. please sign and express your opinion. I need 150 signatures to have it posted to the White House petition site. The link is :
http://wh.gov/lO6zI

[…] momentum for House immigration bill Democrats wary of this and looming healthcare poke in the eye Polygamy – another love that now dares speak its name again The top has been ripped off of Pandora’s box After Gang of Eight, a new conservative message: […]

[…] But, hey, LGBT activists got an affirmation.  Woo-hooo!  And the legal and social status of polygamy is something to […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend