Posted on 12/16/2013 9:02:38 AM PST by NCjim
Once you blow up a societal consensus it cannot be easily reconstructed to protect only those practices or beliefs you like while still banning those you think ought to be kept beyond the pale. That’s the upshot of a case decided late on Friday in a Federal District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah that essentially decriminalized polygamy. The case, Brown v. Buhman, which was brought by the stars of Sister Wives, a TLC cable channel reality show depicting the life of a man with four wives and 17 children, who challenged the Utah statute that not only prohibited marriage with more than one spouse but said it was illegal for a person to cohabit with someone who was not their legal spouse. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that struck down state laws that prohibited sodomy, Judge Clark Waddoups heeded the plaintiffs’ argument that said Utah’s law violated their right to privacy.
While gay marriage advocates have sought to distance themselves from anything that smacked of approval for polygamy, Waddoups’s ruling merely illustrates what follows from a legal trend in which longstanding definitions are thrown out. The inexorable logic of the end of traditional marriage laws leads us to legalized polygamy. Noting this doesn’t mean that the political and cultural avalanche that has marginalized opposition to gay marriage is wrong. But it should obligate those who have helped orchestrate this sea change and sought to denigrate their opponents as bigots to acknowledge that the end of prohibitions of other non-traditional forms of marriage follows inevitably from their triumph.
It should be specified that the federal court decision doesn’t get us quite there yet. Utah’s polygamy law is still on the books, but hanging by a thread. As the Salt Lake Tribune explained:
Utah’s bigamy statute technically survived the ruling. However, Waddoups took a narrow interpretation of the words “marry” and “purports to marry,” meaning that bigamy remains illegal only in the literal sense — when someone fraudulently acquires multiple marriage licenses.
But by saying that the Utah law violated the plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment as well as infringing on their right to privacy—the legal principle that served to take down state laws prohibiting contraception and homosexuality—Waddoups has merely taken the next logical step toward legalized polygamy that will, sooner or later, allow polygamists the same rights as other married people.
There are reasons to worry about this. As Stanley Kurtz wrote in the Weekly Standard back in 2006, there is an inherent contradiction between the patriarchal model of polygamy where the husband has authority over his various wives and democracy. Kurtz argued that the 1879 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Reynolds v. United States that supported the right of states to restrict polygamy not only protected traditional marriage but democratic norms. Prior to the Mormon Church’s renunciation of polygamy, Utah was for all intents and purposes a theocracy. In a society where husbands rule over families like ancient Eastern potentates, freedom isn’t likely to thrive.
According to Kurtz:
Marriage, as its ultramodern critics would like to say, is indeed about choosing one’s partner, and about freedom in a society that values freedom. But that’s not the only thing it is about. As the Supreme Court justices who unanimously decided Reynolds in 1878 understood, marriage is also about sustaining the conditions in which freedom can thrive. Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.
When Kurtz wrote his piece, the debate over polygamy was just starting to bubble up in no small part because of the premiere of the HBO series Big Love which ran from 2006 to 2011. The show contrasted the “good polygamy” of its protagonist Bill Hendrickson, an upwardly mobile Viagra-popping entrepreneur who just happened to have three highly attractive wives with the “bad polygamy” of the cult living in a remote compound dominated by an evil “prophet” and his son, a repressed homosexual. If one ignores the religious dimensions of the argument between the LDS church and fundamentalist Mormons that was part of the subtext, the series presented the choice of plural marriage as one that ought to be encompassed by the promise of American liberty.
Indeed, that’s the point made by Georgetown University law professor Jonathan Turley, who represented the plaintiffs in the Utah case. As the New York Times reports, Turley believes that the Utah case is about “privacy rather than polygamy” but also noted:
Homosexuals and polygamists do have a common interest: the right to be left alone as consenting adults. There is no spectrum of private consensual relations — there is just a right of privacy that protects all people so long as they do not harm others.
In 2006, Kurtz cited Turley’s writings in the wake of Lawrence as a sign that the country was heading toward “a final slide down the slippery slope.” He was right about that, at least as far as gay marriage and polygamy were concerned. But it remains to be seen whether his worries about the future of democracy are similarly prescient. Even in rural Utah, polygamy is something practiced by only a small minority. It is difficult to make the case that either the fictional Hendricksons or the reality stars of Sister Wives present much of a challenge to American democracy. Nor, as Turley rightly argued in court, is there any reason to cite abuses, especially of minors, by cults as unique to polygamy since incest, mistreatment of children, and welfare fraud can also be found in sectors of society that purport to support monogamy.
But liberals like Turley still refuse to acknowledge that Justice Antonin Scalia was right when he predicted in his dissent in Lawrence that the demise of sodomy laws would lead to the legalization of some things that advocates of gay rights wanted no part of. If we have “evolved” to the point where marriage by any two consenting adults of either sex should be recognized by the state, then there isn’t any logical or legal rationale for prohibiting the same privilege for any number of citizens cohabiting to claim the same right.
All that is needed is a little candor on this issue on the part of critics of the dwindling band of opponents of gay marriage. The floodgates have been opened, and if that makes some of us uncomfortable, especially those who understandably view polygamy as synonymous with the exploitation of women, then we should be honest enough to acknowledge that it is merely part of the price that had to be paid to give gays the same right to marry afforded to other citizens.
A bunch of immoral heathens are “vindicated”?
doubtful
Muslims could push this over the finish line. After all, up to four wives is a central tenant of this cult.
Can I now claim my dog as a dependent?
Sodomy, contraception, abortion, and polygamy were illegal (when they were illegal) because America was a nation of Christians.
America is ceasing to be a nation of Christians, and all manner of perversion are becoming legal.
I never even thought of that..good point..Dearborn should be a really interesting place to live in a few more years..
One of the main arguments for gay marriage was to allow access to ‘spousal’ benefits. Gee, why should a gay man be denied participation on his partner’s work benefits? Well, if marriage is to be completely redefined to accomodate benefits, how about 3 wives? How about marrying your sister? Maybe even marry both your parents, so they can be covered by your insurance?
Article III states:
The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State:[Religious toleration. Polygamy forbidden.] First:--Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.
The court’s ruling was correct to the extent that the sanctity of marriage vows are not what they used to be and it’s no longer the place of the state to prosecute a married man for having a steady relationship with someone other than his wife.
At the same time the court let stand the part of the law that prohibits fraudulent behavior and that part of the ruling was also spot-on.
From the article: “Once you blow up a societal consensus it cannot be easily reconstructed to protect only those practices or beliefs you like while still banning those you think ought to be kept beyond the pale.”
Our civilization and family law was based on the Ten Commandments, shame and common sense until ‘individual selfishness’ replaced ‘for the common good’.
Common law marriage condoned ‘shacking up’ and based on the number of baby mommas and sperm donors plying their trade - we have, in fact, had unregistered polygamists for decades.
Exactly. Polygamy may be weird, but it has historical precedent on its side.
Well said.
Just call it cheating or having an affair.
And society is okay with.
We have been a polygomist society fot decades.
I'd marry mine but she's a cheating bitch and runs around on me all the time.
But liberals like Turley still refuse to acknowledge that Justice Antonin Scalia was right when he predicted in his dissent in Lawrence that the demise of sodomy laws would lead to the legalization of some things that advocates of gay rights wanted no part of.False.
It keeps things progressing toward their ultimate goal.
The United States was built from an empty wilderness to an industrial society by single men. The country never had a surplus of females until the World War 2-— Korean War decade. I think that the 19 th century hostility to Mormons was in part due to there being seen has “hogging” a valuable resource.
Absolutely true.
A black man who has babies with several women is a 'hero' in his social circle and society in general is silent on this matter.
Newt Gingrich also seemed to get a free pass when it was revealed that he'd had a six-year-long relationship with a woman outside of his marriage, clearly a situation that passes muster as a polygamous relationship given the length of time involved and the obvious commitment. It's also noted that the affair took place with the knowledge of his wife, Marianne, and that satisfies another condition of a polygamous relationship.
Bear in mind, I much admire Gingrich for his work in conservative politics while being consistent in pointing out that he was, indeed, a polygamist in every sense of the word.
That said, if Mr. Brown belongs in jail for polygamy because he's committed to the women in his life then plenty of other men should be in jail as well.
I'm thinking a prison about the size of Idaho should suffice.
Heather is such a lucky little girl.
This was all forced upon us by undemocratic means. We didn't ask for or demand any of this nonsense.
Like the removal of school prayer or gay marriage. It's pressure groups aided and abetted by activist judges. Who runs and fiances the pressure groups? Its not Christian men and women I can tell you that.
In every presidential election since 1992, with the arguable exception of 2004, a majority of Americans who could be bothered to vote, voted to elect a communist for president.
During most of my lifetime, the US Congress has been dominated by socialist democrats. Again, these members of congress were elected by a majority of the Americans who could be bothered to vote. Sometimes, for decades. The late Bobby “Kleagle” Byrd serves as a prime example, likewise Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer. Those of a certain age will remember the despicable “Tip” O’Neill.
“Unelected” judges and justices are appointed by elected Presidents (or Governors) and confirmed by elected Senators.
Americans have been voting for socialists of various sorts for longer than I have been alive; electing socialists to office and getting the socialist results they apparently want. A majority of Americans who can be bothered to vote are functionally socialsts and not Christians.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.