Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Polygamy And American Constitutional Law (Now the Left wants to cry "Halt!"?)
WAMC-FM Northeast Public Radio ^ | January 7, 2014 | Professor Stephen Gottlieb

Posted on 02/03/2014 4:21:46 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet

(AUDIO-AT-LINK)

A conversation on The Roundtable convinced me to address polygamy. A judge in Utah decided that state could ban formal legal polygamy but could not ban people living in comparable arrangements without formal legal sanctions. Some people argue that legalization of polygamy follows from constitutional protection of gay and lesbian relationships. If one consensual relationship is OK, therefore so are all the others. That is a mistake. The law does not work that way.

Missing from that argument is any mention of whether anyone is hurt and how. There are many ways that law takes account of injury, both constitutional law and other areas. For relationships that could be consensual, we are concerned about opportunities for coercing, defrauding, or injuring others, and for people below the age of consent. There are a number of legal methods to deal with those problems, from procedures to verify what is happening, to regulation and prohibition. Which is appropriate depends on what the situation requires.

In the context of polygamy, I have heard professional women describe living in polygamous relationships and preferring it that way. I can understand that – the gals outnumber the guys. But there has been considerable discussion of social and family pressures pushing women into polygamous relationships, including young women below the age of consent. Gay and lesbian relationships don’t have that problem – if anything, social pressure is toward straight relationships. But in isolated polygamous communities, elders have pushed young women into such relationships and closed off alternatives. The women’s movement is largely about making sure that women can control their own lives. I can’t offer any estimate of the percentage but it certainly seems to be a problem. Nothing short of prohibiting the relationship may prevent the coercion. And existing wives need protection too. Consent, and vetoes can be very difficult to handle. Even the Koran and Shariah limit men to four wives.

But consent is not the only issue. One issue is economic. If this is a traditional male-chauvinist relationship, can one man assume responsibility for multiple wives and many children? And do the young people have to be kept in cloistered communities away from the opportunities of the wider world to make sure that they too will consent?

And polygamy has an impact on the wider society, on the gender balance and gendered behaviors we are prepared to deal with. To the extent that polygamy puts off the age at which most men marry and conceive, are we prepared for the social consequences? Since there is concern about the health of children conceived by older men, there is another generation to be concerned about.

I don’t claim to know all the answers to the questions I’ve raised. My point is that there are serious issues to consider, that law is more complex than some are assuming, and that it is entirely appropriate for law to address this issue with an eye not just on the people in front of the court, but with an eye on the implications of any legal rule on all those who will be affected by it. Unlike gay rights where consenting relationships don’t harm others, polygamy poses serious issues. None of us is entitled to remake the world in ways that hurt others just so that we can have whatever we want, whether the issue is corporate irresponsibility, treatment of children or polygamy.

******

Steve Gottlieb is Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School and author of Morality Imposed: The Rehnquist Court and Liberty in America. He has served on the Board of the New York Civil Liberties Union, and in the US Peace Corps in Iran.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: culturewar; feminism; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; islam; marriagelaws; mormons; nuclearfamily; polyandry; polygamy; samesexmarriage; sharia; traditionalmarriage
Too late, professor. Way too late!
1 posted on 02/03/2014 4:21:46 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

To muslims:

Women and girls = property.

NOW does not even make a peep.


2 posted on 02/03/2014 4:24:47 PM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

He should have started this debate thirty years ago. Conservatives saw this one coming and the lefties ignored the potential problems so they could get everything the gays wanted. You’re right, they’re way too late.


3 posted on 02/03/2014 4:26:54 PM PST by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Polygamy will not work in an urban environment unless the parties involved are very rich.

Polygamy works in a farming environment where more hands mean more production.

4 posted on 02/03/2014 4:30:03 PM PST by AEMILIUS PAULUS (It is a shame that when these people give a riot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
And polygamy has an impact on the wider society, on the gender balance and gendered behaviors we are prepared to deal with.

Gender based abortion has the same disproportionate effect on gender balance. So far I hear crickets from feminists.

5 posted on 02/03/2014 4:30:23 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Or, in any environment, where more bodies mean more welfare.


6 posted on 02/03/2014 4:37:02 PM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I have been friends with three or four homosexual men over the years. Everyone of them was sexually abused (recruited) as a child.

How does that not count as someone getting hurt?


7 posted on 02/03/2014 4:37:57 PM PST by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Homosexual marriage has an impact on the larger society, but the liberals won’t allow that subject to be discussed when it comes to homosexual marriage. But in the area of ploygamy, now a liberal states that since polygamy impacts the larger society, we need to put on the brakes on going in that direction.

Liberals aren’t known for holding consistent standards or positions, but, you can’t have it both ways. Logically, you can’t say we’re allowing this particular change in the definition of marriage among consenting adults, but we won’t allow this other change.

Or you can’t hold these positions and still be intellectually honest.


8 posted on 02/03/2014 4:42:08 PM PST by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
"Unlike gay rights where consenting relationships don’t harm others, polygamy poses serious issues."

Basic false assumption right there. Gays' consenting adult relationships do harm others, because when they acquire children (whether by adoption or artificial reproduction technologies) their children are intentionally, and generally permanently deprived of either a father or a mother.

They are literally, deliberately generating broken families.

9 posted on 02/03/2014 4:45:59 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o ("St Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. . . against the wickedness and snares of the devil.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

Because that NEVER happened and you’re a racist homophobe! /s


10 posted on 02/03/2014 4:48:09 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Jealousy is when you count someone else's blessings instead of your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

This is an example of someone on a slippery slope who has decided to yell.. “Wwwwwheeee!!!!!” as they continue to slide.


11 posted on 02/03/2014 4:51:01 PM PST by C210N (When people fear government there is tyranny; when government fears people there is liberty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

5 working women and one working guy get married. That is six incomes combined. If each woman had a child that is six incomes with 11 exemptions. Big gov stands to lose while the combined income of the family will afford it a good standard of living vs the tax rate of similar traditional couple with two kids. If each wife takes turn watching the kids (no daycare costs). There is lots of advantages to polygamy in terms of taxes and income. If sodomy (less acceptable and practiced in human history) is legal then the barriers to polygamy (more widely practiced by people in the past) should be lower.
Anyone forces someone to marry is abusive no matter if the marriage is traditional, gay or polygamy. If all the adults consent, the US gov and state gov has no grounds to make it illegal, especially after gay relations (two consenting adults) is made a human right. The state cannot assume polygamy arrangement is automatically abusive and continue to keep it illegal. It is like assuming all men have a penis and should be made illegal to prevent women being raped.


12 posted on 02/03/2014 4:51:17 PM PST by Fee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“The law is what I say it is.” Lewis Carroll, Through The Looking Glass.

Seriously tho, how consenting adults choose to order their lives is nine of the Governments business. Once conservatives ceded that power to Government they lost the war.


13 posted on 02/03/2014 4:57:03 PM PST by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee

Abraham, King David, King Solomon, Simeon, Jacob, Esau, Gideon, Moses, etc., etc...


14 posted on 02/03/2014 5:15:41 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Jealousy is when you count someone else's blessings instead of your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: C210N
C210N said: "This is an example of someone on a slippery slope ..."

My similar thought was, "This is a man who suddenly finds himself halfway down a slippery slope that those with more wisdom saw coming long ago".

His statements make no sense. What logic can be applied to decide that a "married" lesbian couple cannot have a husband? Or two husbands? Or a husband and several more "wives"?

To believe his lame arguments is to suggest that heterosexual marriage should never have been permitted by the government because of the widespread use of coercion among married couples over the last ten thousand years.

On so many fronts the liberals are getting what they always wanted with all the dire consequences.

15 posted on 02/03/2014 5:20:17 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“Missing from that argument is any mention of whether anyone is hurt and how.”

The contribution of homosexuality to pedophilia didn’t seem to matter in the discussion of homosexuality being normalized by allowing homosexual perverts to marry each other.

The argument promoting gay marriage centered around the contrived notion that homosexuals are born that way. Allowing that, which the courts unwisely did, how can polygamy be denied? A pretty strong case can be made that men and women are polygamous by nature, and a faithful marriage to one partner is an extra natural union. That’s why people have so many sexual partners before marriage, after marriage, and why there are so many people engaged in the practice of serial marriages. By any other name, polygamy is polygamy, and there is no such thing as human relationships that don’t present the risk of someone being hurt.

Besides, homosexual marriage is not based on reason, but emotion and cultural corruption. As our culture is further corrupted by pop culture and leftist anti culture, sin becomes acceptable and excused. It becomes arbitrary as opposed to absolute, and what happened with gay marriage will happen when our society reaches a state of corruption that excuses polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality.


16 posted on 02/03/2014 5:25:03 PM PST by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fee

Polygamy assures a surplus of males who will never find a wife. Look up the “Lost Boys” issue caused by polygamy in Utah.

Moses had it right:
1. Man & woman contract a marriage for life - with G*d as a witness.
2. Divorce was available, under certain conditions, costly ones.

Joseph Smith was something of a satyr and abused his position to justify his sexual predations. America dealt with this once, and may again have to so do. Oddly enough, my Mormon friends are not eager to see polygamy resurfacing.


17 posted on 02/03/2014 5:27:44 PM PST by GladesGuru (Islam Delenda Est - because of what Islam is and because of what Muslims do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fee
Fee said: "If each woman had a child ..."

I don't think it would work out the way you are suggesting.

Six households with $30k each would probably pay NO taxes.

Each exemption reduces taxable income by $3.7k, I think.

One household earning $180k, even with 11 exemptions worth about $40k, would leave $140k in taxable income.

The progressive nature of our income tax would, I think, punish households with lots of wage earners.

18 posted on 02/03/2014 5:30:39 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

oh, don’t stop now! I was planning on having 300+ deductions on me tax return when polygamy and bestiality were legalized. me and my gold fish, Goldie, are very close. the fact that I’d pay no taxes ever has nothing to do with it


19 posted on 02/03/2014 5:34:37 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS

Polygamy works in a welfare environment where “unmarried” mothers are paid by the state.


20 posted on 02/03/2014 5:43:13 PM PST by DannyTN (A>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What the authoritarian Left has always been about is control. If the rate of change is too fast or chaotic, it could lead to anarchy, and that would mean a loss of control of the process. Loss of control could lead to a reversal, which could lead to a well deserved reprisal against the Left.
But the Left has opened Pandora’s box, they have lit the fuse, and the outcome will be unpredictable. The Leftists want a slow glide path to tyranny; the worst possible outcome. They will attempt to appeal to conservatives and try to enlist them in opposing chaos. Many conservatives will fall for the bait and play the role as useful idiots; the Left will expect conservatives to cover their flank. As long as “progress” is slow and imperceptible, the people will sleep.
It’s too late now. The Left is the enemy and there is no place for negotiation. Let them choke on their vomit.


21 posted on 02/03/2014 6:00:53 PM PST by grumpygresh (Democrats delenda est. New US economy: Fascism on top, Socialism on the bottom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

God invented marriage, not man. God designated marriage, not as a contractual agreement, but as a covenant.
Governments may be able to regulate contracts, but a covenant is based on the laws of God and not man. Thus
marriage is an institution outside of the bounds of government.

It is time to get government out of the marriage business and to return it to the private sphere. The
problem for me today is that people who want to call themselves “married” against God’s law (as I read it)
are willing to use the State to force me to recognize that marriage, which I cannot do. The want to have the
State’s public education system indoctrinate my children that homosexual marriage is “normal”. They want to
force me to subsidize the homosexual marriage in the tax code just like the godly marriage is subsidized, and
they will use state agencies to punish me for “discrimination” if I decline to accept their status in any
way.

If the State must force me to acknowledge its power to declare two men to be “married”, then I must support
efforts to remove that power from the State. If people who don’t want God defining their personal morality
demand a separation of church and State then let us also have separation of marriage and State as well. If
those people don’t want any displays of the Ten Commandments in government buildings, they cannot hide behind
the Commandments that protect marriage when it comes to “marriage” that God cannot and will not sanction.


22 posted on 02/03/2014 6:02:26 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

Lesbians can marry each other, but they won’t be able to force me to sell them wedding cake or artfully photograph their “marriage”. They will be free to do as they please without demanding that I approve of it.

But clearly, homosexuals want to force me to approve of what they do, which I cannot do. And that is the thing that makes them so furious.


23 posted on 02/03/2014 6:04:05 PM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Can’t believe the light bulb is just coming on now. Especially when Scalia said this would happen in Lawrence v. Texas.

People wanted homosexual unions so badly they didn’t care what else might happen. Well, you will have the legalization of polygamy and incest, for a start. Then it’s on to pedophilia as what is considered “consenting” gets changed.


24 posted on 02/03/2014 6:34:44 PM PST by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kaehurowing

Polygamy has an ancient history and is still practiced in many cultures. “Gay marriage” has no such history. It is a modern construct.


25 posted on 02/03/2014 6:36:29 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet (Jealousy is when you count someone else's blessings instead of your own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
None of us is entitled to remake the world in ways that hurt others just so that we can have whatever we want, whether the issue is corporate irresponsibility, treatment of children or polygamy.

If only it were still so, Professor. If only.

26 posted on 02/03/2014 6:36:50 PM PST by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AEMILIUS PAULUS
Polygamy will not work in an urban environment unless the parties involved are very rich.

It works, just for different reasons.

As others have said, there are several good reasons for urbanites to choose polygamy. The big one is the additional governmental benefits that it would convey. Or government-mandated benefits, like spousal healthcare coverage.

I have at least one person I know - urban professional - who remains "married" to his "wife" for the sole purpose of allowing him to provide health insurance benefits to her and her children (his step-children). Otherwise they live completely separate lives. Now imagine a situation where he could marry another woman, while still carrying his first wife on his coverage.
27 posted on 02/03/2014 6:57:42 PM PST by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

What a bad thinker. That’s typical for liberals. Think what the Jay and Ruth Caplan Undistinguished Professor of Law must be like.


28 posted on 02/03/2014 8:07:02 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

Polygamy will break the state faster than any other marriage arrangement.


29 posted on 02/03/2014 8:08:59 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Is it possible we have finally reached the issue that will cause women to reflect on whether it is good for them as women and answer NO?

They said it was OK when they were allowed to kill their own children.
They said it was OK for the President to take advantage of a young intern.
They said Mohammedan gender-apartheid was OK.
They said prostitution was OK as long as the “sex worker” was treated with fairness and respect. (She works HARD for the money.)

Now they are faced with something the hippie women in the sixties came back from the communes to tell us: When you’re off in the woods, the women become enslaved by the men and domestic life reverts to the ancient traditions without the civilized state to help them, and they were having none of it. They came running back to the city as if the wolves were after them.

Those too young to have witnessed this are willing to try it again.


30 posted on 02/04/2014 1:02:11 AM PST by firebrand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
But there has been considerable discussion of social and family pressures pushing women into polygamous relationships, including young women below the age of consent. Gay and lesbian relationships don’t have that problem – if anything, social pressure is toward straight relationships. But in isolated polygamous communities, elders have pushed young women into such relationships and closed off alternatives.

Gay and lesbian relationships DO have that problem. How can anyone doubt that gay/lesbian parents of adopted/surrogate children will encourage their children to experiment with deviant sexual behavior? Homosexual communities routinely celebrate & encourage deviant behavior in children below the age of consent. Parents are clearly the greatest influence on a child.

There is no difference in the coercive influence of a polygamist community & a homosexual community or family. If anything, the homosexual community is extreme in its public coercion, attacking anyone who denounces it.

The only argument left to the author is the polygamist are presently “isolated”, whereas the homosexual community is in full bloom. Yet, it wasn't so long ago when homosexuality was firmly in the closet, out of sight, out of mind. So, if isolation is a measure of legitimacy, then the 1-2% of queers in the USA are still isolated, therefore illegitimate.

The author tries to vilify one perversion while accepting another similar perversion. Sorry Bub, but you made this slippery slope, so slide on down to Hell. There is no moral difference between 2 men, 2 women, 1 man & 3 women, or 2 men, 3 women & a pony - they are ALL immoral relationships. If you accept one, you must accept them all - it's all relative, don't ya know.

31 posted on 02/04/2014 6:42:38 AM PST by Mister Da (The mark of a wise man is not what he knows, but what he knows he doesn't know!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They opened the barn door, the cows got out and they are worried about not having enough milk for their cereal, screw them!!!


32 posted on 02/04/2014 12:30:26 PM PST by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker
Conservatives saw this one coming and the lefties ignored the potential problems so they could get everything the gays wanted.

The vast majority are not gay colorado tanker. As you know, they just stole that word. For the most part they are miserable and were sexually abused as children. I will only use the word homosexual, not gay, not fag, not queer, simply homosexual.

FReegards FRiend.

33 posted on 02/05/2014 10:27:07 AM PST by houeto (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2banana

That’s because their real goal is simply anti-Christianity, and Muslims are on the same side.


34 posted on 02/05/2014 10:28:59 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao

That’s a study that will never see the light of day if it is ever performed.

“What is the correlation between adult homosexuality and childhood sex abuse?”


35 posted on 02/05/2014 10:30:06 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fee

If you don’t stick with THE definition, there is NO definition.

The left thinks they can let the snowball roll just “this far” down the hill.


36 posted on 02/05/2014 10:31:34 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson