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.”
be careful not to get your d^^^ caught in your grille
There might be something to this. I’m sure my senior wife would appreciate a 17 year old Thai girl around the house to help out.
So a tv show tells us how people are in reality?
Really?
That should end things right there.
“Polygamy seems to be one of those rare issues that liberals and conservatives agree on — they both disapprove, but for different reasons.”
Liberals are against it until they are for it.
You mean the kicker?
“Bigamy is one wife too many, Monogomany is the same thing.”
-Oscar Wilde
What is so obscure about "no man can serve two masters"
What is the legal difference between pretending that same sex "marriage" is real and pretending that a marriage between a man and a grapefruit is real? As far as I'm concerned, if the man consents and the citrus raises no objection, it's just as real as a game of make-believe pretending to have a connection to the most important institution in western culture.
“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.”
Homo marriage, polygamy, and various other attempts to fabricate alternatives to one man/one woman have no merit, nor do those who find those acceptable. The liberaltarian claptrap ignores that one of the purposes of government is to preserve civilization, not barbarism.
Funny! I’m in the ‘no go’ zone! :-P
Great point!
A guy comes home drunk carrying a sheep under his arm.
He fumbles with the lock, stumbles in and slams the door.
He loudly climbs the stairs, waking his wife and turns on the bedroom light.
“Honey,” he slurs, “this is the cow I sleep with when you’re not in the mood.”
“You stupid drunk,” she answers angrily, “that’s not a cow! That’s a sheep!”
“S’cuse me...” he replies, “I was talking to the sheep.”
Does what? The Russian experiment of the late 1930s and early 1940s revealed the damage caused to society and individuals by the government’s attempts to destroy the marriage and family institution. Even though it went contrary to the Communist ideology, the Soviet Union felt it had not other option except to start supporting the traditional marriage and nuclear family.
Forbidding it? I”m not in the legislature. I have no more power over polygamy than I do over gay marriage. Or do you think I”m here preparing the ground for group marriage, polygamy and 70s style swinging? Lol
Post 14 was a simple enough post, there was nothing in there that implied that you need to explain that you aren’t an elected official and in the legislature, or about any powers you might have.
Your post was totally evasive in responding to the simple observation in post 14.
Here it is in it’s entirety. “Your early posts on the topic and your persistence in posting on it, indicate that polygamy is not something that you strongly oppose.
Am I correct in thinking that forbidding polygamy is not a major goal to you?”
Why should it be something I’m for or against forbidding? Polygamy, insofar as I know, is already illegal within the United States, or did you hear something while I was out today? And since “gay marriage” is now the law of the land, how will anyone stop polygamy or relative marriage? On what basis? Welcome to Obamaland.
It isn’t a slippery slope because homosexuals are further down the slope than polygamists IMO.
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.