Carolyn Moynihan connects some dots:
... Community leader Warren Jeffs, already in trouble before the raid, is currently in jail awaiting trial in Texas on sexual assault and bigamy charges. If he sits tight a bit longer, though, the bigamy charge may collapse; with same-sex marriage apparently in the bag, polygamy is looking like the next big thing in the United States -- and no-one seems to care what happens to the kids.
While Jeffs has been cooling his heels in clink, television networks have promoted his cause by rolling out shows such as Big Love and Sister Wives. The Browns ofSister Wives, all four of them, have talked about how happy they are with their choice and how well adjusted their 16 children are, and how the children are carefully educated about choice and consequences, and how there are no underage or arranged marriages. Fictional versions of the lifestyle add to the gloss by leaving out what one script writer calls the “yuck factor”.
Now that the small screen has demystified and sentimentalised polygamy it is the turn of professors and judges to legitimise it. And what better time to do so than in the wake of the latest green light for same-sex marriage? Straight after New York conferred the right to marry on homosexuals, Ralph Richard Banks, a Stanford law school professor predicted that polygamy and incest must now be legalised: “Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage.”
11 Comments
Even though same-sex marriage and polygamy have nothing to do with each other (polygamy preceded legal same-sex marriage by thousands of years), maybe the time has come for polygamy to reappear?! Who knows. I don't much care either way.
We can discriminate against people who are born with immutable characteristics like having multiple spouses. What would be the rational basis for that?
" Straight after New York conferred the right to marry on homosexuals"
I take issue with that phrase; homosexuals in New York already had the right to get married. There never was a ban in which a homosexual was not allowed to enter into state licensed matrimony. What did happen was that the State of New York neutered all marriages, such that any marriage union can include segregated genders. That is irregardless of the sexual orientation of the participants, of which the state continues to be uninterested, and which it does not license or regulate.
Neutered marriage unions do give tacit state approval of homosexual behavior, which might occur if the participants in a same-sex union happen to consider themselves homosexual. And because of that tacit approval to homosexual sex, there can be legally be no judgement on other kinds of sexual relationships, as to # or gender, if all participants are consenting adults. No longer will the state be able to assign marriage to paternity, as occurs legally with man/woman marriage.
Nice pickle the state finds itself in.
@Daughter of Eve
Interesting. If we take the "conservative" argument that same sex marriage is a complete "redefinition," then the state has little interest in keeping it a monogamous institution.
However, if we take the "pro SSM" side that is simply extending the right to marry to those of the same gender, then we have no additional legal quandary.
Marriage serves no useful purpose except as a means of furthering the public interest in promoting the specific practice of male-female relationships.That there be more than one of either or both of the two sexes in a marriage,or what level of kinship may bar persons from marriage,is arguably,like the age and mental competency standards,a detail.But allowing anything that does not unite at least one male to at least one female to be called a marriage is a complete abandonment of the whole purpose of the institution.
Great point Daughter of Eve, you pretty much prove the lies of the SSM agenda.
Amanda, you might enjoy this article:
"The Implications of New York 'Marriage.'"
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2011/08/implications-of-new-york-marriage.html
It's pretty thorough.
Actually if you are worried about the case of Warren Jeffs leading to polygamy and incest being legalised then you had better ban same sex marriage and Christianity. WJ is a hetrosexual male - the only group of people who seem to advocate for polygamy. He is also Christian and claims his rights to religious freedom have been violated. That is what happens when you allow Christianity to spread unchecked - it is just another step down the slippery slope to polygamy and incest
That should of course be "ban opposite sex marriage"
Badger, quit twisting words. The man can claim to be a Christian all he wants. Real Christians do not take multiple wives. It is against Jesus' teachings. WJ is a deviant just like homosexuals.
Who are you to decide whose religious beliefs are valid or not? Or do religious freedoms only apply to those who have the same beliefs as you?