Posted on 02/26/2015 11:07:16 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
few weeks ago, Lindsay Graham asked Loretta Lynch an interesting question at her Senate confirmation hearings: “What is the legal difference between a ban on same sex marriage being unconstitutional, but a ban on polygamy being constitutional?"
The question, understandably, took her by surprise. “Senator, I have not been involved in the argument or analysis of the cases that have gone before the Supreme Court, and I’m not comfortable undertaking legal analysis without having had the ability to review the relevant facts and the precedent there…but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you."
No one takes the issue of polygamy seriously, so I accept Lynch’s answer at face value, and also appreciate the Senator’s question. And I hope an unemotional discussion of polygamy does come out of it. Polygamy usually only enters the discussion as part of the “slippery slope” litany — bringing us to the brink of bestiality on our way to some unnamed, unspeakable perversion. As you recall, gay marriage was the first slippery step, so we apparently have already lost our footing. Look out below!
I remember learning in a cultural anthropology class that the majority of societies ever studied were found to be polygamous. In primitive societies, the advantages are obvious. A team of sister wives could share food gathering, chores and midwifery duties. If one of the wives died, her children would still be mothered. Naturally, there would be bickering and issues of pecking order, but that’s what all families do. Another thing that families do is stick together in times of crisis. It’s not hard to see how in our ancestral past polygamy might have improved our species’ chance of survival.
Today, polygamy is illegal worldwide, except for most Muslim countries. Women are shamefully oppressed under sharia law, so I think polygamy is somewhat tainted by association. But the question of whether polygamy should be illegal in the United States is its own issue, and ought to be considered on its merits. And it seems to me that it’s the kind of thing consenting adults out to be able to choose for themselves, just like gay marriage has been found to be — outside Alabama, at least.
Like you, I never gave polygamy much thought until I watched the HBO series "Big Love" in 2006. (It was followed in 2010 by "Sister Wives," a reality show which I have not seen.)
"Big Love" is the story of a family of uppermiddle class Mormons who live in suburban Salt Lake City and practice polygamy — which was legal in Utah until the 1880s. Pressured by the federal government, the Mormon Church officially banned it in 1890, and many polygamists fled to Mexico, Canada, and creepy remote rural compounds.
In "Big Love," the modern day sister-wife arrangement introduces some interesting twists to the basic soap opera themes. The three wives are distinctly different types and ages, with different sexual appetites. The teenage daughter of Wife #1, for example, is decidedly more mature than Wife #3, and not much younger. Also, the 18-year-old son of Wife #1 has a crush on the vivacious Wife #3. Meanwhile, shopaholic Wife #2 is secretly running up a huge credit card debt.
My main takeaway from watching "Big Love" is that polygamy is no crazier than monogamy, and no more likely to fail or harm children. It can work, given the right combination of individuals, particularly if religious conviction is a big part of their motivation. We do demand that the government respect all religious beliefs, don’t we?
Not really. Polygamy seems to be one of those rare issues that liberals and conservatives agree on — they both disapprove, but for different reasons. Liberals tend to go along with the standard feminist critique of polygamy — any woman who chooses to share a man with another woman is submitting to patriarchy and must have low self-esteem.
Conservatives will dig up some obscure Biblical verse that seems to condemn polygamy, ignoring the numerous Old Testament polygamists who God selects to do his work.
Frankly, I think it’s hypocritical to have laws that permit nitwit or sociopathic heterosexuals to leave a series of broken homes in their wake while banning big, happy polygamist families. Hypocrisy aside, I just can’t see how the court could legally defend banning it.
There is at least one guy in town who sees it this way. If I understand him correctly, Charlie Gruner feels that any combination of consenting adults should be able to sign any marriage contract they can dream up. The government should be involved only to resolve lawsuits or to protect minor children from abusive guardians. That’s what separation of church and state looks like, y’all. I can’t imagine what possible rationale the Supreme Court might have for not seeing the choice of marriage partner(s) the same way they saw same-sex unions. We’re talking inalienable rights here, people. Remember, we put “the pursuit of happiness” on the same pedestal as “life” and “liberty.”
Nots, not note (hate autocorrect!)
There is a point here. When marriage is not longer the contract for procreation, but is instead a contract for living together and getting tax benefits, what does it matter what the size or combinations are?
An adulterer, yes. A polygamist, no.
De facto polygamy is already an expensive problem.
That is, unless the man has scriptural grounds for the divorce. Then he is neither adulterer nor polygamist if he remarries.
Okay fine. So is adultery illegal?
Most divorces do not satisfy the standards of Scripture.
For that matter, most marriages these days don’t do that either.
Just make sure you are an NFL player.
Then it’s totally okay!
“...but I look forward to continuing the discussions with you.”
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard this in the past year or so, from Obama’s flying monkeys before Congress.
**I want to marry a horse—who are you to say I cannot be happy?***
Ask the horse! “Horse, you want to marry me?” It will say “Neigh”!
I’m going to marry my cat, Rolleiflex camera, Tomorrow (perpetually), and the flavor of lemons.
Why not?
Your cat will flea, tomorrow never comes (or so I’ve heard), lemons are a bitter harvest, the Rolleiflex can picture it though ;)
Polygamous families will be on welfare so fast it will make your head spin. Many wives equals many kids. It worked fine in a pre-industrial economy. Of course on the other hand we are a dying civilization and our Third World replacements will embrace the concept along with their diet of acorns, insects, dog meat, rice and fish heads.
Hey, as far as the state is concerned all you ever needed for all that to happen is for judges, pols, or the voting majority to go for it.
Freegards
Where have YOU been all my life?
:)
LOL! Isn’t that true!!!
Tom Hanks, was the executive producer of the polygamy show “Big Love”. His dad was what we would call a serial monogamist. (Probably adulterer). “Tom would later reveal that, by the age of 10, he'd had "three mothers, five grammar schools and ten houses”.
Don’t use one destructive sin to try to justify another. That’s silly.
If I get divorced, I intend to marry a Fleshlight. Cheaper than a wife, won’t ever leave you, and won’t complain about having a headache.
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.