Re: If same-sex 'marriage' is legalized, why not polygamy?

Brent Norman

Andrealphus

Re: If same-sex 'marriage' is legalized, why not polygamy?

RobertVB

From:	Brent Norman
Subject:	Re: If same-sex 'marriage' is legalized, why not polygamy?
Date:	20 Jan 2005 12:20:03 -0800

Rob Wade wrote:
> If same- 'marriage' is legalized, why not polygamy?
>
>
> By Michael Foust
>
>
>
>
> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Late last year, months after the landmark
> Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, two Utah
> polygamists filed suit in state court, asking that their
relationships
> with multiple wives be validated by the government.
>
> Laws against polygamy, they said, are unconstitutional.
>
> "Everyone should be free unless there's a compelling state interest
> that you shouldn't be," John Bucher, one of the lawyers, told The
> Salt Lake Tribune. "The state is not able to show that there's such
> an evil to polygamy that it should be prohibited."
>
> As the nation continues to debate same- "marriage," some have
> begun examining the logical extension of its legalization. If the
legal
> benefits of marriage are awarded to homoual men, then why aren't
> they also given to, say, three polygamists?
>
> "There isn't a single argument in favor of same- marriage that
> isn't also an argument in favor of polygamy -- people have a right
> to marry who they love, these relationships already exist ... we have
> no right to deny the children of their protections," columnist Maggie
> Gallagher, an outspoken supporter of a federal marriage amendment,
told
> Baptist Press.
>
> Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic policy studies at The
Heritage
> Foundation, said she sees no "logical stopping point" if same-
> "marriage" is legalized.
>
> "This is the dissolution of the parameters around marriage," she
> said. "You'd be hard-pressed to say, 'Why not any other kind of
> arrangement?'"
>
> Conservatives and traditionalists say the debate over same-
> "marriage" is the result of marriage being separated from its
> religious roots and from procreation. If marriage is not tied to
> childbearing, traditionalists warn it literally could mean anything.
>
> In its landmark ruling on same- "marriage" last year, the
> Massachusetts high court ruled that marriage's purpose is not
> procreation, but instead the commitment of two people to one another
> for life.
>
> That argument troubles Gallagher, who asserts that government
benefits
> are awarded to married couples because they, in turn, benefit society
> by raising the next generation of adults.
>
> "If marriage is only about private love, why is the government
> involved?" she asked, rhetorically. "Why does the government care?
> Why is the [government] involved if you have this view of marriage
> that's just kind of a private, emotional lover's vow? But for some
> reason, you record it in law and it changes your tax status."
>
> The issue of polygamy has been one that has frequently stumped
> supporters of same- "marriage." During a January debate,
> University of Louisville law professor Sam Marcosson, a supporter of
> homoual "marriage," called the polygamy argument a "red
> herring." Candice Gingrich, a homoual activist, made the same
> assertion during an appearance on Sean Hannity's radio program.
>
> Last November on ABC's "This Week," conservative columnist George
> Will asked two homoual men -- Rep. Barney Frank and columnist
Andrew
> Sullivan -- to give him a "principle" as to why polygamy should be
> banned in light of the Lawrence and Massachusetts decisions.
>
> "Some distinctions are hard to draw," Frank answered. "But the
> difference between two people and three people is almost always
clear.
> It is responsible for a society to say, 'Look, you can do what you
> want personally. If three people want to have together, that's
> not against the law. But when it comes to being married and
> institutionalizing these legal relationships with regards to the
> ownership of property and children, then we believe a three-way
> operation is likely to cause difficulty, friction with the
> children.'"
>
> Sullivan responded: "I don't want the right to marry anyone. I just
> want the right to marry someone."
>
> Sociologist Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family said one reason
> same- "marriage" has made advances is because marriage itself is
> viewed as a means of receiving legal benefits.
>
> "If we have to honor the relationship that two guys have, then we
> have to honor the relationship that a guy and his three wives have,"
> Stanton said. "We have to honor the relationship that two
> heteroual single moms have. If we are going to offer health
benefits
> and government benefits to other configurations, why keep anybody
from
> joining together and saying, 'Our relationship is significant,
> too,' regardless of what that relationship is?"
>
> Gallagher said there is "no logical reason" for not awarding
> benefits to polygamists if they are given to same- couples.
>
> The irony of the current debate is that polygamy is rooted far deeper
> in human history -- and is accepted in far more cultures today --
than
> is same- "marriage." Polygamy once dominated the Mormon church,
> and Utah was not given statehood until it outlawed the practice. The
> church officially disavows it now, although estimates say that up to
> 100,000 people in the West still practice it. Worldwide, polygamy is
> legal in some countries and is common among Muslims. Islam's founder,
> Muhammad, had multiple wives.
>
> The United Nations allows employees to divide their benefits among
> multiple wives, as long as they come from a country where polygamy is
> practiced, The Washington Post reported.
>
> Seeing the logical extension from same- "marriage," some in
> America have begun to argue for the legalization of polygamy, too.
> Anthropologist Robert Myers wrote in a USA Today editorial March 14
> that the United States has a "narrow view" of marriage.
>
> "[W]e will allow marriage to any number of partners, as long as it is
> to only one at a time," he wrote.
>
> Gallagher said she believes that polygamy is less of a departure from
> traditional marriage than is same- "marriage." After all, she
> said, it involves procreation.
>
> Of course, Gallagher and other traditionalists aren't arguing for
> polygamy's legalization. They're showing the logical inconsistency
> of same- "marriage."
>
> "The argument in the 19th century that Congress made is that polygamy
> is associated with despotic forms of government, because basically
the
> most powerful men start hogging all the women," Gallagher said.
> "There is something to be said for that. I think it's also
> associated with less investment by fathers in their children. Some
> children get subordinated in polygamous marriage systems. The
attention
> of the father and the family tends to focus on the heir."
>
> Other arguments against polygamy include an increase in child and
> spousal abuse, welfare fraud and forced marriages.
>
> Christians say Scripture has an answer for both polygamy and
homoual
> "marriage" -- in Matthew 19 Christ points to Old Testament law as
> limiting marriage to one man, one woman.
>
> Marshall, of The Heritage Foundation, said the onus must be placed on
> same- "marriage" supporters as to why marriage should not
> include polygamy and other forms of relationships. The polygamy
> question is not a "red herring," she said.
>
> "It seems to me," she said, "that those who are trying to argue
> for the redefinition of marriage should have to answer the question,
> 'What is the logical stopping point after this?' It seems to me
> that that question should be turned around, and the ones who are
> answering it should be the ones who are proposing the redefinition of
> marriage."

If anything, polygamy arguments are stronger than same marriage
arguments - rather than it being a human rights issue, it could be a
freedom of religion issue.

From:	Andrealphus
Subject:	Re: If same-sex 'marriage' is legalized, why not polygamy?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:22:32 GMT

Brent Norman wrote:
> Rob Wade wrote:
>> If same- 'marriage' is legalized, why not polygamy?
>>
>>
>> By Michael Foust
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Late last year, months after the landmark
>> Lawrence v. Texas decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, two Utah
>> polygamists filed suit in state court, asking that their
>> relationships with multiple wives be validated by the government.
>>
>> Laws against polygamy, they said, are unconstitutional.
>>
>> "Everyone should be free unless there's a compelling state interest
>> that you shouldn't be," John Bucher, one of the lawyers, told The
>> Salt Lake Tribune. "The state is not able to show that there's such
>> an evil to polygamy that it should be prohibited."
>>
>> As the nation continues to debate same- "marriage," some have
>> begun examining the logical extension of its legalization. If the
>> legal benefits of marriage are awarded to homoual men, then why
>> aren't they also given to, say, three polygamists?
>>
>> "There isn't a single argument in favor of same- marriage that
>> isn't also an argument in favor of polygamy -- people have a right
>> to marry who they love, these relationships already exist ... we have
>> no right to deny the children of their protections," columnist Maggie
>> Gallagher, an outspoken supporter of a federal marriage amendment,
>> told Baptist Press.
>>
>> Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic policy studies at The
>> Heritage Foundation, said she sees no "logical stopping point" if
>> same- "marriage" is legalized.
>>
>> "This is the dissolution of the parameters around marriage," she
>> said. "You'd be hard-pressed to say, 'Why not any other kind of
>> arrangement?'"
>>
>> Conservatives and traditionalists say the debate over same-
>> "marriage" is the result of marriage being separated from its
>> religious roots and from procreation. If marriage is not tied to
>> childbearing, traditionalists warn it literally could mean anything.
>>
>> In its landmark ruling on same- "marriage" last year, the
>> Massachusetts high court ruled that marriage's purpose is not
>> procreation, but instead the commitment of two people to one another
>> for life.
>>
>> That argument troubles Gallagher, who asserts that government
>> benefits are awarded to married couples because they, in turn,
>> benefit society by raising the next generation of adults.
>>
>> "If marriage is only about private love, why is the government
>> involved?" she asked, rhetorically. "Why does the government care?
>> Why is the [government] involved if you have this view of marriage
>> that's just kind of a private, emotional lover's vow? But for some
>> reason, you record it in law and it changes your tax status."
>>
>> The issue of polygamy has been one that has frequently stumped
>> supporters of same- "marriage." During a January debate,
>> University of Louisville law professor Sam Marcosson, a supporter of
>> homoual "marriage," called the polygamy argument a "red
>> herring." Candice Gingrich, a homoual activist, made the same
>> assertion during an appearance on Sean Hannity's radio program.
>>
>> Last November on ABC's "This Week," conservative columnist George
>> Will asked two homoual men -- Rep. Barney Frank and columnist
>> Andrew Sullivan -- to give him a "principle" as to why polygamy
>> should be banned in light of the Lawrence and Massachusetts
>> decisions.
>>
>> "Some distinctions are hard to draw," Frank answered. "But the
>> difference between two people and three people is almost always
>> clear. It is responsible for a society to say, 'Look, you can do
>> what you want personally. If three people want to have together,
>> that's not against the law. But when it comes to being married and
>> institutionalizing these legal relationships with regards to the
>> ownership of property and children, then we believe a three-way
>> operation is likely to cause difficulty, friction with the
>> children.'"
>>
>> Sullivan responded: "I don't want the right to marry anyone. I just
>> want the right to marry someone."
>>
>> Sociologist Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family said one reason
>> same- "marriage" has made advances is because marriage itself is
>> viewed as a means of receiving legal benefits.
>>
>> "If we have to honor the relationship that two guys have, then we
>> have to honor the relationship that a guy and his three wives have,"
>> Stanton said. "We have to honor the relationship that two
>> heteroual single moms have. If we are going to offer health
>> benefits and government benefits to other configurations, why keep
>> anybody from joining together and saying, 'Our relationship is
>> significant,
>> too,' regardless of what that relationship is?"
>>
>> Gallagher said there is "no logical reason" for not awarding
>> benefits to polygamists if they are given to same- couples.
>>
>> The irony of the current debate is that polygamy is rooted far deeper
>> in human history -- and is accepted in far more cultures today --
>> than is same- "marriage." Polygamy once dominated the Mormon
>> church, and Utah was not given statehood until it outlawed the
>> practice. The church officially disavows it now, although estimates
>> say that up to 100,000 people in the West still practice it.
>> Worldwide, polygamy is legal in some countries and is common among
>> Muslims. Islam's founder, Muhammad, had multiple wives.
>>
>> The United Nations allows employees to divide their benefits among
>> multiple wives, as long as they come from a country where polygamy is
>> practiced, The Washington Post reported.
>>
>> Seeing the logical extension from same- "marriage," some in
>> America have begun to argue for the legalization of polygamy, too.
>> Anthropologist Robert Myers wrote in a USA Today editorial March 14
>> that the United States has a "narrow view" of marriage.
>>
>> "[W]e will allow marriage to any number of partners, as long as it is
>> to only one at a time," he wrote.
>>
>> Gallagher said she believes that polygamy is less of a departure from
>> traditional marriage than is same- "marriage." After all, she
>> said, it involves procreation.
>>
>> Of course, Gallagher and other traditionalists aren't arguing for
>> polygamy's legalization. They're showing the logical inconsistency
>> of same- "marriage."
>>
>> "The argument in the 19th century that Congress made is that polygamy
>> is associated with despotic forms of government, because basically
>> the most powerful men start hogging all the women," Gallagher said.
>> "There is something to be said for that. I think it's also
>> associated with less investment by fathers in their children. Some
>> children get subordinated in polygamous marriage systems. The
>> attention of the father and the family tends to focus on the heir."
>>
>> Other arguments against polygamy include an increase in child and
>> spousal abuse, welfare fraud and forced marriages.
>>
>> Christians say Scripture has an answer for both polygamy and
>> homoual "marriage" -- in Matthew 19 Christ points to Old
>> Testament law as limiting marriage to one man, one woman.
>>
>> Marshall, of The Heritage Foundation, said the onus must be placed on
>> same- "marriage" supporters as to why marriage should not
>> include polygamy and other forms of relationships. The polygamy
>> question is not a "red herring," she said.
>>
>> "It seems to me," she said, "that those who are trying to argue
>> for the redefinition of marriage should have to answer the question,
>> 'What is the logical stopping point after this?' It seems to me
>> that that question should be turned around, and the ones who are
>> answering it should be the ones who are proposing the redefinition of
>> marriage."
>
>
> If anything, polygamy arguments are stronger than same marriage
> arguments - rather than it being a human rights issue, it could be a
> freedom of religion issue.

Or both.

--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."

Albert Einstein

From:	RobertVB
Subject:	Re: If same-sex 'marriage' is legalized, why not polygamy?
Date:	Thu, 20 Jan 2005 22:33:23 -0800

In article <1106252403.503881.39370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Brent Norman wrote:

> If anything, polygamy arguments are stronger than same marriage
> arguments - rather than it being a human rights issue, it could be a
> freedom of religion issue.

Not really - Same gender couples can already be religiously and
privately married. The current same gender issue is about equal
license to the civil contract of 2 person marriage, nothing more.
If there were no civil contract of 2 person marriage same gender
marriage requests would be a non issue - all parties would have the
same access - none. As it stands special civil rights are being given
to one 2 person marriage and not the other.

Polygamists with opposite gender first spouses already have access to
the 2 person contract of marriage. I know 3 Mormon polygamist families
and 1 Islamic here in the US, first spouses are holders of the civil
contract, subsequent spouses are just religiously married. As to equal
access to the 2+ civil contract of marriage, there already is - none,
i.e. there is no civil contract of 2+ marriage to petition for equal
license.

Of course polygamists could ask that a 2+ contract be created for their
benefit but then they would have to convince the state of the need for
same. The SCOTUS at the Reynolds decision found that the polygyny form
of polygamy as practiced by Mormons and other religious sects would
institutionalize unequal rights within the marriage and as such would
be contrary to the 'equal rights' principle of the US Constitution as
well as other concerns. But the first alone would be enough to still
preclude civil polygamy contracts and really has absolutely nothing to
do with same gender marriages and their petition to have equal license
to the already existing 2 person contract of marriage.

--
"...when all the noise quiets down, in that moment we should see our way clear
to allowing same- couples to marry for the same, selfish primitive reasons
that we do: to not be alone, to have a steady source of comfort in our lives,
to belong to someone who has promised to be there for us tomorrow and tomorrow
and tomorrow."

"After all, what else is marriage for?"

-- Robert Lerose, 2004 winner - 'Great American Thinkoff' contest