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

Skip to comments.

About that “polygamy is inevitable” thing…
Hot Air ^ | June 28, 2015 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 06/28/2015 7:51:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

On Friday, shortly after the Gaypocolypse began raining down on the media landscape like an ELE comet strike, I had already begun musing on Twitter about the no longer hypothetical slippery slope which had just opened up. To be sure, we’ve had more than a few discussions of slippery slope items in years past which were little more than hyperbole in the real world. But then, the “real world” has been changing rather rapidly in the past few years and I’ve had to take a fresh look at some items which I’d previously written off as straw men, but have now risen up like all too real zombies. For example, only a few years back I scoffed at the idea that a Christian business person could be forced to participate in a gay wedding ceremony if it violated their 1st Amendment beliefs. And of course I assumed that no preacher could ever be forced to either conduct such a ceremony or be driven out of business. (It didn’t happen with the Hitching Post, but it came close.) And don’t even get me started on the idea of redefining gender in a courtroom setting contra chromosomal arrangements.

One of the benefits of having Fridays off is that Ed is forced to tackle thorny plot twists such as these before me, so he jumped into the whole polygamy angle while the initial fight was still raging. One of the first items he offered (which ran along the same lines as the questions which immediately came to my mind) came directly from the horse’s mouth, so to speak. While I know that Chief Justice Roberts isn’t particularly popular around the ranch here these days, he brought up an interesting point which Ed highlighted.

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

Ed raised what he saw as a possible (though significantly improbable) argument against Roberts’ polygamy point, even in the brave new world of collisions between government and marriage.

Dignity and self-determination are the cornerstones of Kennedy’s championing of gay rights throughout his many landmark opinions on the subject. You could argue, when the time comes, that polygamist marriages are inherently undignified because they place women in a position of de facto subservience to men, but that’ll be a hard argument to make when you have sister-wives in front of TV cameras swearing up and down that their relationships with their husband are 100 percent equal and that they’ve never felt exploited even for a moment.

This doesn’t work for me because I never thought that the court was going to try to make a case for anything resembling the “dignity and tradition of marriage” angle. Frankly, I’m shocked that Kennedy even went so far as to say that there was any tradition involved, and where he did it looked like 95% window dressing and 5% law, intended to placate the aggrieved masses who he knew would be beating down the gates. In my view, the court was always going to be forced to treat this as some sort of legal pronouncement, void of religious or moral currency, simply saying that it was a thing which was available to some and therefore must be available to all. When you peel all the colorful excuses out of the majority decision on Friday I think that’s what they boiled it down to.

But let’s return to the real meat of this essay, which deals with the other items awaiting us in the ditches of that slippery slope. (I’ll try to keep the jiggery pokery to a minimum.) First, the most extreme examples include conversations about people marrying animals. That line of discussion should be shut down because animals can not give meaningful legal consent for anything and the court has an easy out. But once we leave American Pharoah and his friends out of the discussion, things get a bit more cloudy. I happen to think that the Chief Justice is correct when it comes to polygamy. What is the argument against plural marriage, given its far more substantial historical roots when compared to SSM? Ed’s point of wives being placed in a subservient role to men falls apart as soon as the Strong Independent Woman card is played. Further, who says it’s always multiple wives? If one woman wants to marry five men, are the men being unfairly subsumed? Mind you, I think plural marriage is a terrible idea since I have enough trouble taking care of one wife, but our legal system seems to offer no real impediments at this point.

With that said, let’s dig a little bit deeper into the rabbit hole. What restrictions between humans could the court still argue for in terms of marriage? Certainly a minimum age would be in play since we don’t allow children to provide consent. But that age already varies from state to state and some, such as Mississippi, will let you go below it if both sets of parents sign off on the deal. Will those barriers stand?

And finally, how about incest laws? Does the state and / or federal government have a vested interest in preventing siblings from marrying? In terms of protecting the next generation from genetic pitfalls, that should be possible. But once you go beyond siblings, where does that gray line get drawn? Some states will allow first cousins to marry. Once you get to second cousins it’s pretty much a free-for-all. And what will the court say to siblings who are sterile under this new set of rules? I don’t even want to venture a call on that one.

In short, the entire playing field just changed as I see it. If you remove any and all moral barriers (which is obviously possible, if not already a done deal) then where do the interests of the state begin? As I said, I’ve run around the hamster wheel in my mind for a while now, and not only do I think plural marriage is on the way, I honestly can’t come up with a legal argument against it which looks like it would hold water.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: gaymarriage; homosexualmarriage; polygamy; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

1 posted on 06/28/2015 7:51:40 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Any grouping of persons can now be “married”


2 posted on 06/28/2015 7:56:09 PM PDT by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

Robert Heinlein called group marriages an “S” group


3 posted on 06/28/2015 8:00:15 PM PDT by Fai Mao (Genius at Large)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

If you had to choose one as being more natural, polygamy is more natural than homosexual “marriage.”


4 posted on 06/28/2015 8:00:53 PM PDT by skyman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ray76

I want to marry my shoe, and I care not now who knows it!


5 posted on 06/28/2015 8:03:59 PM PDT by PUGACHEV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I though the laws against incest were to prevent mental and other abnormalities. Does incest apply to male/male and female/female “marriage” where there are no offspring? If not brothers and sisters, fathers and sons, and mothers and daughters should be able to “marry.”


6 posted on 06/28/2015 8:06:02 PM PDT by satan (The tree of liberty is dying in the drought.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PUGACHEV
What if a person "marries" themselves? What are the tax ramifications, etc? The definition of the word has been obliterated. What is "marriage"? 0, 1, ∞
7 posted on 06/28/2015 8:07:30 PM PDT by Ray76 (Obama says, "Unlike my mum, Ruth has all the documents needed to prove who Mark's father was.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
I honestly can’t come up with a legal argument against it which looks like it would hold water.

Nor can I.

8 posted on 06/28/2015 8:11:15 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Obvious from the start, polygamy and more significantly, "minor love," are on the way in. As for Christianity, and Judeo-Christian morality generally, it is on the way out.
9 posted on 06/28/2015 8:11:37 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
It even goes beyond incest. How about pedophilia being legal? No child will be safe. And, you had better believe that those kinds of perverts are out there.

Then there is sex with animals. Is that next?

This whole thing is a slippery slope. With this bunch of perverts on the court they will be able to that in the Constitution as well.

Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, et.al, are rolling in their graves.

10 posted on 06/28/2015 8:12:06 PM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parmy

11 posted on 06/28/2015 8:13:48 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You can help: https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBTX0095/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard

right up until Armageddon


12 posted on 06/28/2015 8:19:21 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: windsorknot
"Nor can I."

The court has basically adopted a nihilist position. How could you even argue against murder using their presuppositions? According to Bill Nye, the Science Guy, we are all just yammering blobs of protoplasm, and any notion of human rights or human dignity is sheer fantasy, religious superstition.
13 posted on 06/28/2015 8:21:39 PM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We will not likely allow polygamy again in the USA. The Mormons learned their lesson (Utah didn’t become a state until 1896, only after the LDS church finally banned ploygamy), and even the LGBT community is queasy about the whole idea.


14 posted on 06/28/2015 8:30:56 PM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Bet me a medium-priced steak dinner for two.


15 posted on 06/28/2015 8:31:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You can help: https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBTX0095/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Our pastor advised us that when debating people about homosexual marriage, etc, we simply respond with a question, “What makes anything right or wrong?”


16 posted on 06/28/2015 8:32:53 PM PDT by keats5 (Not all of us are hypnotized.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steve_Seattle
The court has basically adopted a nihilist position.

This is true. The Supreme Court of Eminations and Penumbras has not merely redefined "marriage", but has rendered it undefined, leaving the door open for unlimited possibilities. These "judges" are not only judicial activists: they're judicial anarchists.

17 posted on 06/28/2015 8:36:11 PM PDT by windsorknot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88
"We will not likely allow polygamy again in the USA."

On what basis can it be denied?

18 posted on 06/28/2015 8:37:38 PM PDT by Flag_This (You can't spell "treason" without the "O".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: satan

Very good point.


19 posted on 06/28/2015 8:48:49 PM PDT by lacrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RayChuang88

Lol, you can’t be serious.


20 posted on 06/28/2015 8:52:20 PM PDT by JGT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-36 next last

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