Posted on 09/13/2014 5:10:33 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Should we really care if more than two consenting adults want to marry each other, or if polygamy advocates see the LGBT movement as an inspiration?
A few years ago, when I was rushing my daughter to pre-school one morning, a similarly tardy and exasperated-looking mom passed us on the stairs. My daughter took this as an opportunity to announce, “I have two moms.” The exasperated mom picked up her hunched shoulders to turn to Willa and, after a sigh, say, “You don’t know how lucky you are.”
This has happened to us a lot. On more occasions than I can count, overwhelmed straight parents have proclaimed how much they wish their family had two moms and, thus, extra help. This conversation often bleeds easily into a “the more the merrier” logic followed by some joke about polygamy. Like, “I’d sleep with 10 wives and husbands as long as it meant I could actually sleep in once in a while!”
And if most parents are being honest, the idea of more hands on deck is mighty appealing, even if we may not understand the emotional arrangements of open marriages and might legitimately be skeptical about the gender imbalances often found in polygamy.
Back in the early days of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender movement’s push for marriage equality, this slippery slope to polygamy was pragmatically taboo. After all, arguments about gay marriage leading to polygamy were lobbed almost entirely with the purpose of derailing the gay rights agenda. And there was also something inherently offensive about making the connection, along the same lines of suggesting that gay marriage would lead to people marrying goats. Never mind the fact that opposite-sex goat-human marriage had been looming as a dangerous temptation all along…
Still, people often mention polygamy and gay marriage in the same sentence (not to mention the same essay). Recently—in, surprise, Utah—a judge struck down a part of that state’s anti-polygamy law. Mind you, the Utah law makes it a felony punishable by up to five years in prison when someone “cohabits with another person” to whom they aren’t legally married. This makes me wonder whether Utah also outlaws the combustion engine, the Internet and other realities of modern life, but anyway there you have it.
The legal challenge came after the state sued the stars of Sister Wives, a TV show that follows the real life of one husband, his four wives, and their 17 children. Now here’s the thing: Sister Wives premiered in September 2010, but Kody and Meri married in 1990, Kody and Janelle married in 1993, and Kody and Christine married in 1994. In other words, all those marriages predate even the earliest adoption of gay marriage in America, which was in Massachusetts in 2004. And second, in the Sister Wives family, Kody married each of the women, but the women didn’t marry each other.
In other words, polygamy, as it generally is practiced in the United States, is a predominantly heterosexual enterprise—like heterosexuality (or the male ideal of heterosexuality) on steroids. After all, while the percentage of married women who have affairs has risen in recent decades, married men still do most of the cheating. Conservatives concerned about the high rate of divorce in America should stop blaming gay marriage but instead heterosexual infidelity—a prime culprit in 55 percent of divorces.
If couples want to bring cheating out of the deceitful shadows and instead incorporate it openly into their relationship—plus have more hands on deck for kids and more earners in the household in a tough economy—who are we to judge?
Seriously, I’m a bit too traditional and jealous for that sort of thing, but I’m also too traditional to wear jeggings outside the house. Still, you (mostly) don’t see me judging anyone else for doing so.
In 2013 when the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples, pro-polygamy groups heralded the ruling as a step away from the conventional one-man one-woman definition of marriage and, thus, as opening the door to polygamy. I get that, and to an extent pro-polygamy activists may be trying to latch their still-widely unpopular cause onto the increasingly victorious rainbow bandwagon.
But while it’s mildly understandable that some see these conversations as conceptually linked—“If we’re changing the marriage laws to include gay couples, how else might we change them?”—polygamy doesn’t inherently flow from gay marriage. If anything, what polygamy does flow from is a general opening up of options.
We increasingly allow Americans to define their own families for themselves while removing coercive public policy and judgmental social norms. And this idea, which is at the heart of everything from increasing access to birth control to the striking down anti-miscegenation laws to so much more, is exactly what conservative religious extremists have always opposed.
There are interesting arguments to be made for legalizing polygamy, from protecting children from secretive non-consensual multiple-marriage situations to how being “feminist” actually means not protecting women from these marriages but letting them choose for themselves. All compelling points. But the truth is, I don’t really care.
I won’t be entering a polygamous relationship anytime soon. I live in New York City, so I simply don’t have the space for more wives. And just like I don’t have the ass for jeggings, I don’t have the heart for non-monogamy.
But I do have a soft spot for allowing consenting adults to make their own decisions, and to be supported by their government in doing so, not constrained.
Perhaps it is good old Heshem. Hard to say for sure though. In TV appearances the nose was usually wrinkled up in what some might interpret as disdain for those nearby. I always reckoned it just stink from her upper lip.
Kelly on Fox gave Kohn multiple opportunities to shine. Apparently not enough glimmer. First Kohn, then Ayers and most recently Churchill. Kelly’s taste doesn’t go much beyond her mouth.
Marry sisters.
Gay polygamy? Bathhouse Barry will be fully engaged in this one.
In today’s society a man is taking a huge liability by marrying just one woman. Most marriages end in divorce. Even if the woman is unfaithful and worthless she gets half. Polygamy is just stupid squared. Unless both partners are equal in wealth, marriage is not a good proposition, especially for older men.
Pre-nuptial agreement.
From the article:
Wrong. The gays and lesbos were quite happy to tell everyone 40 years ago how they wanted to change the definition of marriage. In order to destroy it, of course. ALSO, they were happy to announce they wanted to jump on children too.
From the 1972 Gay Rights Platform ( http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm ):
8. Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
ISLAM
The horror of polygamy - the man and woman who stay together BOTH having to give up property and money to the one who left.
Or polygamy becoming legal, and long time mistresses or on again / off again relationships lead to someone suing for a share of the marital property, inheritance from the dead guy, part of his retirement account, etc.
Some lib married a redwood?
Once they have ruled that marriage doesn’t really mean anything, I don’t see how they would legally stop polygamy.
I can’t see what the legal reasoning would be, once the door has been opened.
It’s just a matter of the first few court cases, imo.
And the horror of a state condoned marriage to an animal. If the animal is treated and malpractice is charged, the veterinarian will have to defend a lawsuit for significant damages for more value than just the property value of the animal. The state will also have to consider medical care for the animal spouse and medicare if the animal is left alone when the human spouse dies.
“In today’s society a man is taking a huge liability by marrying just one woman. Most marriages end in divorce. Even if the woman is unfaithful and worthless she gets half.”
Yeah, but who can one blame for marrying a worthless, and unfaithful women?
It makes more sense than homo marriage...which is unnatural.
I’ve said for years that it would be polygamy first, then the pets, then the neighbor’s children. The naturalists/atheists say there is no creator. If no creator then no basis for moral law. No moral law means anything goes.
If you believe 2 people of the same sex can be married to each-other, then you have to believe one man can be married to as many people and animals and he wants because its all about how he feels isn’t it? It has nothing to do with God, or children(family), or tradition.
Honestly if you believe 2 people of the same sex can be marred to each-other that believe alone puts into question your own capability to be married because obviously you don’t have a clue what marriage is. Therefore you cannot be engaged in that which you know not what.
But setting that technical issue aside, if that is your idea of ‘marriage’ then it must also necessarily include animals and as many other people as a man, woman, animal, plant, or child can feel the ‘sensation of love’ for. Which of course is no more a definable number than it is a verifiable condition.
LOL
“I’ve said for years that it would be polygamy first, then the pets, then the neighbor’s children. The naturalists/atheists say there is no creator. If no creator then no basis for moral law. No moral law means anything goes.”
I agree, if you want to re-define marriage on a foundation of emotion, rather than God, children(family), and tradition then there is can can be no logical or meaningful bounds to that definition or union. The institution itself is thus meaningless and ultimately dead.
It should be pointed out, that people who define marriage in such a way really aren’t capable of the union for that reason alone, because you can’t possibly be engaged this kind of union if you don’t know or accept what it is.
That is like saying your a mathematician who refused to accept the concept of numbers.
The barn door has been opened so to speak.
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.