In a recent debate with Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, NYU Professor and frequently-sought-after "expert witness" in court cases to redefine marriage, made some very telling remarks revealing the underlying agenda of many of those who say that same-sex marriage "won't affect the rest of us." Hear what she has to say in this excerpt put together by Heritage:
Stacey asks about marriage: "What should limit it to two, and why should it be monogamous? Nothing, in my view."
Writing at the FirstThings blog, Professor Robert P. George reports the on an increasing trend of same-sex marriage activists "conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc."
George quotes on such activist, Mesha Gessen, who spoke recently on a panel about marriage at the Sydney Writers' Festival. Here's some of what she had to say:
It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.
Unfortunately, as Prof. George points out, "Gessen is far from out of step with other leading figures in the movement."
You can read the rest of Gessen's remarks, and Professor George's response, over at FirstThings.
We recently reported Slate author Jillian Keenan's opinion that "the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too."
Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider news coming out of Canada today:
A Canadian court is assembling an unprecedented set of testimonies and legal briefs about the pros and cons of polygamy. The goal is to answer the question of whether Canada’s anti-polygamy law is constitutional.
But, as the story reveals, there is still cause for hope. The case to legalize polygamous unions faces an uphill battle, against some formidable forces -- for example, the scholarship of Professor Joseph Henrich from the University of British Columbia.
Henrich has written of monogamy that it is "one of the foundations of Western civilization, and may explain why democratic ideals and notions of human rights first emerged as a Western phenomenon."
This much, at least, is not news to us. Let's hope that the Court recognizes this fact enshrined in the tradition of marriage, too.
A author for Slate argues without reservation that the same logic behind SSM means marriage must ultimately be redefined to included polygamy -- is it still a slippery slope argument when proponents of SSM agree with you?
Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?
We can only hope.
Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too.
... The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
Carson Hallowoy argues in The Public Discourse that "The oral arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court suggest that there is very good reason to believe that the declaration of a “right” to same-sex marriage will set us on the path to polygamy":
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”
A strong statement from the pope's spokesman Fr. Lombardi, SJ in response to recent international efforts to redefined marriage. Here is what he said about the context in the United States:
In the United States, some of the referendums held on the same day as the presidential elections in various States have, for the first time, delivered an outcome favourable to same-sex marriages. It is therefore clear that in western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union.
It is nothing new. This we had already realised. Nevertheless, the matter does not cease to amaze: Because we should be asking if this really corresponds to the feelings of the people, and because the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good. Not only the Catholic Church is saying this; it was pointed out clearly by the Chief Rabbi of France in a well-reasoned statement. It is not, in fact, a question of avoiding unfair discrimination for homosexuals, since this must and can be guaranteed in other ways. It is a question of admitting that a husband and a wife are publicly recognised as such; and that children who come into the world can know, and say they have, a father and a mother.
In short, preserving a vision of the human person and of human relationships where there is a public acknowledgement of monogamous marriage between a man and woman is an achievement of civilisation. If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry? It is not expected, then, the Church will give up proposing that society recognise a specific place for marriage between a man and a woman.
"...the facts from the election returns don’t support the contention that marriage is a losing issue. First, it appears that supporters of gay marriage had vast resources to promote these ballot measures that swamped social conservatives, easily outspending supporters of traditional marriage. The Left managed to heavily market this issue not only to their base but also developed ads targeting Republicans, young people, and minorities with customized messages as to why those specific audiences should support gay marriage. Traditional marriage supporters had insufficient funds to effectively respond.
Second, in each of those four states, traditional marriage outperformed Mitt Romney and Republican candidates in general. Far from a drag on the ticket, traditional marriage received more votes than Romney in each of those four states. Thus, most citizens voting Republican/Romney also voted for traditional marriage, and also a sizable bloc of Democrat/Obama voters supported traditional marriage.
In the end two things appear clear within the context of how gay marriage is currently being discussed. The first is that there is a trend among young voters in favor of gay marriage. The second is that, given the narrow margins in these races, traditional marriage still wins when equally funded, but a large imbalance of resources for promotion and organizing to mobilize voters can give gay marriage a winning edge.
The looming question that America will soon face as a consequence of gay marriage is polygamy."
City Pages takes an extended look at polyamorous Minnesotans waiting in the wings of the movement to redefine marriage:
"...Whether a poly person is looking for stability or sex, the Twin Cities has a group for pretty much any flavor.
A quick search online will show a number of various polyamory meet-up groups or organizations, catering to various ages, backgrounds, and geographical locations throughout the state. MN Poly — the Minnesota Polyamory Network — is the most well-known, and also happens to be the one that has Carrie as a member of the board.
The group officially has a couple hundred active members, but this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding a poly group in the area.
... "I remember once in the gay-marriage movement several years ago there was an opinion piece written in another local publication. The right-wing groups and talking heads were all saying things like, 'We can't support gay marriage because the next thing will be polyamorous marriages.' I thought that was interesting because I had never heard polyamory mentioned in the media before," she recalls. "So anyways, this publication wrote an op-ed piece where they said, 'You don't have to worry about polyamorous marriage because polyamory doesn't exist.' That really upset a lot of us because we felt like we were being marginalized."
The group took a stand, organizing a letter-writing campaign (remember letters?) and creating more awareness for the poly community. The results are still being seen today.
"It's a lot different now that we have organized groups, and I think because people have become so much more accepting of the GLBT community and other types of relationships, I think our group and our community is going to continue to grow," Carrie says optimistically. "I think that we are the next equal rights movement, and that poly is going to continue to become increasingly accepted in the future."
City Pages also interviewed a polyamorous mother of two:
Alright, so let's get this part out of the way: How long have you been practicing poly?
My husband, Jim, and I have been married for almost 12 years. We decided to open our marriage up in August of 2009, and I promptly met my boyfriend, Justin, who I've been with for three years.
And how many kids do you have?
I have a daughter who is ten and a son who is eight.
So how did your kids react to you practicing poly?
The things with kids, is that when people are trying to hide something, it's exciting. But we just live our lives and don't really make a big deal out of it, so they don't really think anything of it either.
You never had any sort of talk with your kids about being poly?
Early on, if Justin would spend the night then we'd try and get up before the kids and be like, "Hey, my friend Justin came over for breakfast again!" But eventually we just stopped pretending. Plus my kids get up way too early, so I just couldn't keep that up.
As three states face ballot questions on whether to uphold the traditional definition of marriage between two members of the opposite sex, some in the national intelligentsia are looking forward to the next victory of the sexual revolution: polygamy.
The faith writer at The Washington Post asked in a recent column, if one believes marriage should sanction any affectionate arrangement that makes its parties happy, “Why is polygamy so problematic?”
John Witte Jr., a law professor and religion scholar Atlanta’s Emory University, has written in a forthcoming book on plural marriages that the case for legalizing polygamy rests on the same ground as that of homosexual unions.
“American states today, viewed together, already offer several models of state-sanctioned domestic life for their citizens: straight and gay marriage, contract and covenant marriage, civil union and domestic partnership,” he writes in the first chapter of a forthcoming work on polygamy. “And the parties can further tailor these built-in rights and duties through private prenuptial contracts. With so much marital pluralism and private ordering already available, why not add a further option — that of polygamous marriage?”
Lisa Miller, who writes the Post‘s “On Faith” column, wrote that she knows defending the indefensible can make libertines uncomfortable. “But really. If the purpose of marriage is to preserve personal happiness, protect and raise children, and create social stability through shared property and mutual obligation, then why is polygamy so problematic if it occurs among consenting adults?”
So says a County Attorney’s declaration filed on May 22, 2012 in a federal case challenging the polygamy ban on constitutional grounds:
The policy, as officially adopted by the ... County Attorney’s Office, states:
Prosecution of Bigamy Crimes:
The ... County Attorney’s Office will prosecute the crime of bigamy ... in two circumstances: (1) When a victim is induced to marry through their partner’s fraud, misrepresentations or missions; or (2) When a person purports to marry or cohabits with another person ... and is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud. This office will prosecute the crime of child bigamy ... regardless of whether one of the parties is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud....
This policy is intended, under the prosecutorial discretion exercised by this Office, to prevent the future prosecution ... of bigamous marriages entered into for religious reasons.
Government has a responsibility to recognize and protect institutions which it does not create, George Weigel argues, otherwise it oversteps its bounds and acts in a totalitarian manner:
"...a state that asserts the authority to redefine marriage has stepped beyond the boundaries of its competence. And if that boundary-crossing is set in constitutional or legal concrete, it opens up a Pandora’s box of undesirable results. For if the state can decree that two men or two women can make a marriage, why not one man and two women? Two women and two men? These are not paranoid fantasies; the case for polyandry and polygamy is now being mounted in prestigious law journals.
And if the state can define marriage by diktat, why not other basic human relationships, like the parent-child relationship, the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, or the priest-penitent relationship? There is no principled reason why not. Thus gay marriage is another expression of that soft totalitarianism that Benedict XVI aptly calls the “dictatorship of relativism.”
Conscientious voters will keep this—and the Democratic Party platform’s endorsement of gay marriage—in mind on Nov. 6." -- First Things
A few years ago, when the gay-marriage bandwagon got rolling, some of us argued that “if the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?” The same-sex-marriage crowd swatted the polygamy shtick aside as utterly irrelevant, even though there are far more takers for polygamy than there will ever be for gay marriage, and it is, de facto, already recognized to one degree or another by multiculti types in the British Government pensions department and the French welfare system.
So here we are in 2012, and the Toronto District School Board has a new poster called “Love Has No Gender“, full of happy couples but also happy triples. This poster is in every Toronto grade school.
These days in Brazil two women are simultaneously walking down the aisle to marry the same man.
The BBC is reporting that a union between three people, two women and a man, in Sao Paulo is causing major outrage.
The publication says that public notary Claudia do Nascimento Domingues, based in the city of Tupa, feels the couple is entitled to the same family rights that traditional couples have. She added that currently there is no law that averts the union between the threesome.
Still, religious groups are irate over the three-way marriage and Brazilian attorney Regina Beatriz Tavares da Silva told the BBC that the union is “absurd and totally illegal.”
Dan Savage recoiled when our President Brian Brown argued in their debate that redefining marriage opens the door to legalizing polygamy. Bruce Hausknecht of CitizenLink independently shows how the legal trajectory in the United States supports Brown's claims:
"If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn’t a man be able to have four wives?
That’s what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims. (My earlier coverage is here.) And it’s based on the same 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, that every argument for same-sex marriage – as well as a handful of court decisions – have used for justification. Lawrence, as you may recall, threw out a Texas criminal sodomy statute as an unconstitutional violation of the “right of privacy,” the same “right” that was also used in 1973 in Roe v. Wade to constitutionalize abortion.
A federal judge has refused to dismiss a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution.
... Although same-sex marriage advocates are fond of saying that this fundamental clash over the definition of marriage is all about them, it’s obvious that it’s not. Same-sex marriage is only the current issue. Polygamy, group marriage and who knows what else, are waiting in the wings.
Either marriage means what it’s always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean."
I've wondered, when it comes to LGBT "equality", we hear an awful lot about L and G "equality" and never anything about "B" equality.
Terence Jeffrey of CNSNews asks the same question of President Obama:
"...So, what does Obama's "marriage equality" mean for bisexuals?
According to Merriam-Webster, homosexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex." Bisexual means "characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward both sexes."
Obama, we now know, believes homosexual men have a "right" to marry other men, and homosexual women have a "right" to marry other women. So, who does he believe bisexuals have a "right" to marry?
In Obama's world, does a bisexual man have a "right" to enter into a bigamous union with one other man and one woman? Or can the state force him to limit his marriage to the union of just two people?
And if that is the case, how would Obama, within his philosophy of government, justify prohibiting a bisexual from forming a tripartite marriage?"
So what gives? What does marriage equality for bisexuals look like?
Writing at the FirstThings blog, Professor Robert P. George reports the on an increasing trend of same-sex marriage activists "conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc."
Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider 
Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?
In the United States, some of the referendums held on the same day as the presidential elections in various States have, for the first time, delivered an outcome favourable to same-sex marriages. It is therefore clear that in western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union.
The group officially has a couple hundred active members, but this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding a poly group in the area.
So says a County Attorney’s declaration filed on May 22, 2012 in a federal case challenging the polygamy ban on constitutional grounds:
A few years ago, when the gay-marriage bandwagon got rolling, some of us argued that “
