Thursday
Apr232009
Culture Wars Warning: First Same-Sex Marriage, Then Polygamy
Thursday, April 23, 2009 at 5:36 
I'm not sure I can add much to this dramatic article offering the prospect of American society going to hell in a handbasket, except to note:We're not talking one guy, several women polygamy here, but same-sex polygamy.
Don't say we didn't warn you.
Same-Sex Marriage: Opening The Door To Polygamy
By Gregory J. Sullivan
With the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and an enactment of a statute Vermont Legislature sanctioning same-sex marriage, a great deal of commentary, filled with understandable but unwarranted optimism, has appeared on the possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated in additional states, including New Jersey.
Advocates are dismissive of the slippery-slope argument - that is, by allowing same-sex couples to marry, then any restrictions on a parent marrying his child or his couch will logically fall. Such views are easily ridiculed if not rebutted, but the next logical step in this debate - namely, polygamy - is not readily dismissed and must be honestly considered by those who favor same-sex marriage.
We tend to think that culture wars are a unique affliction of our unsettled age. In the 19th century, however, the country was engulfed in a moral struggle not only against slavery but also - and often with comparable fervor - against Mormon polygamy. From Joseph Smith's revelation in the early 1830s that included plural marriage to the official repudiation of this teaching by the Mormon Church in 1890, Mormons were furiously persecuted and relentlessly prosecuted for their practice of polygamy.
The platform of the Republican Party in 1856 famously called for the prohibition in the territories of "those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery." Moreover, the state constitutions of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah all have provisions banning polygamy and Congress required these anti-polygamy provisions as a condition of admission to statehood in all these states except Idaho.
This constitutional struggle over polygamy culminated in 1878 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. United States. A bigamist named George Reynolds was prosecuted in the Utah territory. Reynolds sought a conduct exemption to the criminal prohibition of polygamy based on the guarantee of the free exercise of religion under the first amendment. With the correct observation that the practice of polygamy is incompatible with American political institutions, the Court determined that the prohibition was well within the authority of Congress in the territories.
Mormon polygamy was defeated by a culture stable enough in its understanding of public morality, particularly at the elite level, to thwart this great challenge. That understanding has essentially vanished today.
Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm.
Then what is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity with their own teachings.
What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other?
With the exclusively libertarian premises that are relied on today for such questions, the case for polygamy is stronger than that of same-sex marriage. For the libertarian, any case against polygamy is based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. After all, most people know homosexuals. How many polygamists does anyone know? Perhaps such irrational opposition should be stigmatized as "polyphobia."
With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem. Instead of mocking opposition to same-sex marriage as the irrational product of a benighted religious tradition, advocates must be forced to confront the inescapable logic of their own argument.
If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a "right" that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.
Reader Comments (29)
A thought -- What's to prevent a woman (a mother, for example) from marrying another woman out of convenience -- to get the other's employee benefits, while waiting for the man of her dreams to come along...and eventually divorcing her same-sex spouse and marrying him?
Would that devalue marriage? Could it?
The problem with any slippery-slope argument, is that it goes downhill on BOTH sides.
To put it another way: a step in ANY direction, is always a step closer toward an undesirable extreme.
For example, if we move to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage, what's next?
A return to miscegenation laws?
They are not long gone, and have a very long history.
Why does the author suggest that "plural marriage" "must be honestly considered by those who favor same-sex marriage", as though this were irrelevant to anyone else?
Why does the author not suggest the parallel point, that the threat of "miscegenation law" "must be honestly considered by those who oppose same-sex marriage"?
IMHO, the issue of polygamy can and should be addressed on its merits, and Mr. Sullivan has presented several pertinent points on that issue.
But to say that one "opens the door" to the other, is bullshit.
What's to stop a woman from marrying a man out of convenience while waiting for the man of her dreams to come along- and eventually divorcing her spouse and marrying him?
This is pure garbage.
The National Socialist Movement of America just released a new communique calling for a book burning of "jewish propaganda." Shall we reprint that in full next?
"What’s to stop a woman from marrying a man out of convenience while waiting for the man of her dreams to come along- and eventually divorcing her spouse and marrying him?"
---------------
Lol... Because no man in his right mind would do that.
"Mr. Sullivan has presented several pertinent points on that issue."
----------------
Indeed he has.
Josh,
Sorry --- I thought that on the ludicrous/pernicious Whack-o-meter, this fell on the ludicrous side of the line.
S.
Nah, that's my bad. #1 what kind of douchebag jumps to comparing it to Nazis right away (hadn't had my coffee yet) and #2 it's always better to err on the side of free expression always always always and I shouldn't be afraid of/threatened by/hostile to ideas, as they can speak for themselves, and I'm welcome to as well. Sorry, gay marriage is just one of my buttons to be pressed.
Still, this guy is 100% full of s...yeah, nevermind ;)
Josh,
Sorry — I thought that on the ludicrous/pernicious Whack-o-meter, this fell on the ludicrous side of the line.
S.
----------
Many groups are on the 30 yard dash. NAMBLA??
And that's the problem. We can't open the door halfway and expect it to stay that way....or can we? Only time will tell...
We can't avoid the $60,000 question: "How far do we want to take it?"
The case can also be made for group marriage, incestual marriage, and so on. Polygamy has already been legalised in Britain. The British government recognises such marriages among its Muslim community. If such recognition and provisions can be made for the Muslim community, then why can't I, a non-Muslim, marry more than one non-Muslim and have my marriages recognised?
Dave,
NO the case can NOT be made for incest or NAMBLA marriage in this country because we're not perverted and gross and no one is even remotely suggesting anything possibly close to that except for YOU.
For chrissakes man, don't be so weird and disgusting, please! The issue is about same sex marriage, that's it, not whatever weird pedophilia or incest s**t you feel like you need to talk about.
Dave,
NO the case can NOT be made for incest or NAMBLA marriage in this country because we’re not perverted and gross and no one is even remotely suggesting anything possibly close to that except for YOU.
For chrissakes man, don’t be so weird and disgusting, please! The issue is about same sex marriage, that’s it, not whatever weird pedophilia or incest s**t you feel like you need to talk about.
-----------
Many feel that same sex relations is "weird and disgusting."
"A yardstick for lunatics, one point of view."
http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/austinpowersinternationalmanofmystery/incenseandpeppermints.htm
My point is that if an intellectual argument can be made for gay marriage, then other groups will want to make their cases as well -- NAMBLA, group marriage, polygamists, incestual marriage, and so on. It's as simple as that. Polygamists have fought a lot longer than the LGBT communties, who have made great strides in their case for the acceptance of biologically unnatural behavior. The polygamists still want their day. The Muslims have already made their case in Britain. Some Christian sects could follow. Once you open the door to a sexual deviancy, other deviancies will follow. You can bank on it. My personal view is that we respect traditional marriage and preserve it as a child-bearing institution, and continue to criminalize both polygamy and sexual relations with minors.
http://www.theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/22SxSo/PnSx/HSx/MolestChild-BaldwinS.html
No it hasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
"Homosexual behavior in animals refers to the documented evidence of homosexual, bisexual and transgender behavior in non-human animals. Such behaviors include sex, courtship, affection, pair bonding, and parenting. Homosexual and bisexual behavior are widespread in the animal kingdom: a 1999 review by researcher Bruce Bagemihl shows that homosexual behavior, has been observed in close to 1500 species, ranging from primates to gut worms, and is well documented for 500 of them.[2][3] Animal sexual behavior takes many different forms, even within the same species. The motivations for and implications of these behaviors have yet to be fully understood, since most species have yet to be fully studied.[4] According to Bagemihl, "the animal kingdom [does] it with much greater sexual diversity -- including homosexual, bisexual and nonreproductive sex -- than the scientific community and society at large have previously been willing to accept."
"No it hasn’t."
------------------
De facto. They are recognised.
RE: homosexuality in non-human animals -- So does incest. Are we really on the same level as the gut worm??
Dave,
Either homosexuality is unnatural or it is natural and you just think it's icky. Which is it, you can't have both.
Some species reproduce asexually. It is natural for them. Humans need a partner of the opposite sex and that is natural.
3 things undermine marriage as a child-bearing institution:
1. Cohabitation.
2. The legal equalization of cohabitation with marriage.
3. Gay marriage.
Marriage is the most pro-child institution we have in society. Children do better in traditional marriage than in any other arrangement. And the vast majority of children want both a mother and a father. Each brings special gifts to parenthood and family life. Traditional marriage gives a child the very best chance of thriving in childhood and well into adulthood. When it comes to fertility and monogamy, traditional marriage trumps them all. Cohabitations? They don't last. Just ask the African-Americans. Gay partnerships/marriage? They don't last either. African-Americans voted for Prop 8 in force because they know the importance of traditional marriage. They have suffered the most because of its breakdown in the African-American community. Gay marriage may help gays to cruise less, but it won't eliminate cruising. They know what it's like to live without it. That's not the right environment for a child.
Again, traditional marriage is the most pro-child institution we have in society and I don't think there is any need for new social engineering experiments. Why run the risk of messing up a whole generation of people simply to satisfy the selfish wants/desires of others? And why should we turn our backs on the wisdom and experience passed down to us over the centuries by those who came before us and to ignore the faith traditions they left?
Dave,
You win. Gay marriage kills children because black people can't live together and gays are always cruising. Airtight, man.
No. I mentioned the breakdown of traditional marriage and the impact it has had on the African American community. There are 3 things that undermine marriage, as I stated in my previous post. But gay marriage will not strengthen marriage. I think it will weaken it and I stated the reason why. As a society, it is our duty to protect marriage and for the reasons stated in my previous post.
Rutgers University has a whole 'marriage project' that supports my arguments.
It is important to note that more than 2/3s of African Americans are more out of wedlock (cohabitation issue). I drive school buses. When I pick up the kids in the morning, I see the white fathers standing there at the bus stop with the kids, to see them off (Kinder., 1st +2nd grades). I don't see the African American fathers. I only see the mothers. Again, that is why blacks supported Prop 8. They know what is at stake. No group has suffered as much as they have and that is why they are against gay marriage -- because they believe it will further the breakdown of traditional marriage. Also, gay marriage is not a civil rights issue. That's another thing that ticks off the African American community. That is why you hear the "Don't compare your sin to our skin" mantra from the black churches. That is another reason why African Americans are generally anti-gay. Gay rights advocates are always equating gay rights with racism and the Afro-American struggles of the last century. Blacks can't stand that.
That's different. They can happen because not all marriages have to be registered, and the government recognises them when they have taken place in countries where they are legal. But polygamous marriage has not been legalised in the UK.
But enough from me. I'm off to tell my partner of seven years that cohabitations "don't last" and that we won't, in fact, be spending the rest of our lives together. She's going to be devastated (not to mention surprised).
Mike,
The jig is up! Dave has cracked our devious plan to destroy the family and legalize pedophilia and horse marriage. I'll start burning the documents, you alert Agent Lucas to divert funding from the Liberal Jew Run Media over to Operation Teabagging. Our Radical Homosexual Agenda must prevail!
Lucas is a double agent. Your queer and illegitimate goose is cooked. :p
"Children do better in traditional marriage than in any other arrangement. And the vast majority of children want both a mother and a father." You can't prove either statement, especially the second one.