Althouse: "High-strung right-wingers who say, for example, that the country might as well embrace polygamy if it’s going to have same-sex marriage..."

June 30, 2013

"High-strung right-wingers who say, for example, that the country might as well embrace polygamy if it’s going to have same-sex marriage..."

"... are not doing themselves any favors. More seriously, this would be a good time for conservatives to take supporters of SSM at their word and insist on stronger cultural as well as legal affirmations of monogamy for everyone. Somehow, though, I suspect that rather than using this as an opportunity to build new coalitions against promiscuity or divorce, we’ll just see a redoubling of resentments."

Writes Daniel McCarthy at The American Conservative.

422 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 422 of 422

doustoi said...: While many have cautioned that Catholic churches will now be forced at the point of a bayonet to marry gay people, the American Catholic church will have a bigger problem with clergy insisting on performing gay marriages in defiance of the pope. American Catholicism has become by and large a boutique "religion" of what makes people happiest and least guilty-feeling. Rome should sell all the real estate, cut loose all the parishes, and put its money into South America and Asia.; 6/30/13, 8:20 PM
chickelit said...: @jr565: Althouse has said that she is fine with gutting the initiative process and direct democracy in California. Prop 8 hurt her most sacred cow. She explained all this a couple days ago. She is after all the Con law expert, even in California. When asked whether she would have been OK with an AG or Governor ignoring a recall initiation in her own state, she chose to remain silent.

This is not the first time she has chosen to remain silent in the face of hypocrisy.; 6/30/13, 8:21 PM
viator said...: SALT LAKE CITY — Members of a Utah polygamist family lauded the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Wednesday to strike down a provision in the federal Defense of Marriage Act, saying it's a step toward changing perceptions of people like them as "second-class citizens."

Joe Darger, who wrote a book with his three wives entitled "Love Times Three: Our True Story of a Polygamous Marriage," said he and his family are celebrating the victory for gay marriage"

Daily Herald; 6/30/13, 8:28 PM
DEEBEE said...: "One man one woman"
Your eyes are getting heavy. And your will soon bue falling into a deep trance,, and when I snap my fingers the letters "wo" will not be visible to you. You will feel herculean strength to fight for the one(s); 6/30/13, 8:30 PM
jr565 said...: Bruce Hayden wrote:
Why not Utah? Even if the majority is against it,a politician for it could ingore the will of the people and any propositions that the people might vote for and grant the marriages.(Gavin Newsom springs to mind).

Utah is weird in this respect. My understanding is that for the mainline Mormon Church, along with a lot of its members, it is a question of apostasy. Their prophet renounced polygamy (arguably to get statehood, but still...), and so schismatic offshoots like the FLDS renounced their prophet and found their own. But since the legitimacy of the Church is based on it having the true line of prophets, it is now a question of which church is legitimate. (Arguably, the Roman Catholic, and probably Orthodox churches have similar problems).

So, if it were ever on the ballot, it would likely fail, with most of the majority Mormons voting against it, despite many being descendants of polygamous marriages. Besides, it likely couldn't get on the ballot before their Constitution was amended first to allow the possibility of polygamy. (And of course ditto for the legislature). Seems that in order to counter the fears of the NE Republicans they were dealing with for statehood that they wouldn't just reverse their stand after being admitted to the union, a prohibition against polygamy was put in their constitution.

this was prior to the redefinition of marriage. There are many polygamists in Utah who are pushing for polygamy. And there are man
Polygamists resentful tht they did give up their religion and marriage to get the state of Utah.

I would think the more liberal polygamists would demand change and say the old non polygamists are old bigots. Change.
A lot can happen and dynamics change when something like gay marriage becomes legal.; 6/30/13, 9:35 PM
jr565 said...: But also Bruce Hayde,n, even if its not popular what's to stop it from taking place if a politicians wants it done.look at how gay marriage made inroads, despite constitutions and propositions saying otherwise. Utah needs a Gavin Newson to get the ball rolling.; 6/30/13, 9:54 PM
Revenant said...: the majority Mormons voting against it, despite many being descendants of polygamous marriages.

Statistically speaking, pretty much everyone's descended from polygamous marriages.; 6/30/13, 10:46 PM
Paul Ciotti said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 11:04 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/30/13, 11:09 PM
Mark D. said...: As has been noted in these comments, plural marriage is now inevitable as a consequence of broadening the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages. If the dignity of relationships and the "all the matters is love" aspect control (and to Justice Kennedy and the liberals on the Court, they do), then bisexuals will have to be permitted to marry multiple spouses. Otherwise they can't fully express their sexuality and their dignity within the marital relationship. And that's the name of the game now, that's what marriage ala Kennedy is now about.

And once it becomes part of the normative institution of marriage for bisexuals, it is going to be impossible on equal protection grounds to keep it from everybody else. Add in some Free Exercise of religion propaganda (from fundamentalist Mormons and Muslims who wish to practice their religion's traditional marriage customs) and it is pretty close to a done deal.

So, in Althousian fashion, it is just time to get over it, admit that it is coming, and adjust to the new reality I guess. I don't like it -- I'm a traditionalist when it comes to marriage -- but now that we have crossed the same-sex marriage Rubicon, I don't know what stops the march to the gates of Rome when it comes to plural marriage.; 6/30/13, 11:29 PM
Anonymous said...: The core problem, whether McCarthy realizes it or not, is that no matter what sort of affirmations or protections conservatives might negotiate in practice in accepting SSM, whether with regard to monogamy or religious liberty or any other provision, they're dead letters if the government chooses not to defend or enforce the statute. The only way this has value is if conservatives think the statute will be honored, and that's a proposition that has taken a major hit this spring.

Given what we've seen this year, from upstate NY law officials publicly refusing to enforce the SAFE Act, to the IRS/NSA shenanigans, I think it's a fair perception that government officials have rather less respect for what the law says than they ought. In that scenario, negotiating is a fool's errand if you believe the other party intends to abrogate its side of the deal shortly after you concede what they want.

There's no way the court system can possibly manage to sort it all out if widespread disregard of laws by elected officials becomes the norm (and it will cut both directions if that does happen, it will all depend on the prevailing local politics).

That said, this is an issue that generally has had way too much emotion around it, and I don't see that changing. Most of the marital questions can be resolved by asking 2 questions:

1) Can a person marry anyone they want?

It's possible to say yes, but on a practical level, I think most would agree that requiring all parties to be adults is a minimum restriction. That leads to:

2) What are the restrictions?

And, I suppose, in light of the Court's recent decision, since not all states are likely to agree on the restrictions, there's also a third to add:

3) Must something allowed in one state be allowed in them all?

Polygamy was referenced in the article, but one could equally see this problem arising from unequal divorce statutes, or some place eventually allowing marriage to pets, dead people, or blood relations.; 6/30/13, 11:52 PM
Unknown said...: I haven't had time to read all the comments, and I apologize if someone else said it, but,

How would someone who accepts gay marriage argue against polygamous unions (assuming that they would want to so argue)?; 6/30/13, 11:56 PM
viator said...: If "as has been noted in these comments, plural marriage is now inevitable as a consequence of broadening the definition of marriage" then what's next after polygamy and polyandry?

I expect the newest trend will be towards the lowering of age of consent. Most recently teenagers have been infantilized be removing their rights and responsibilities and relegating them to an extended adolescence.

But recent fatwas by senior Muslim clerics and trends in schismatic Mormon polyandrous families indicate a taste for young wives. And since the definition of wives these days includes males look for pressure to build for boys and girls to be thrown into the marriage pot.; 7/1/13, 5:15 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Unknown-- the gist of the anti-polygamy argument appears to be: "But Polygamy is ICKY. And it's not a real marriage!"

But since Kennedy rejected DOMA because he assumed that these sentiments motivated its signers, it seems that the legal precedent is on the side of "Icky and real marriage are no reason to deny someone the right to marriage."

When we've tried to dig into the more historical and rational purposes for marriage, the other side throws a hissy fit and calls us all evil haters.

So....they're drawing the line at polygamy because they LIKE gays and don't like polygamists.; 7/1/13, 7:17 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Jr--- except that if religious beliefs on the nature of marriage aren't enough to stop gay marriage, why should they stop polygamous marriage?

I mean, clearly we just have a case of the prudish majority religion in a state punishing some poor minority who only wants to be able to create their own meaning! Totally unfair!; 7/1/13, 7:19 AM
Alexander said...: So... the Democrats congressman were for DOMA, A Democrat president signs DOMA, and then they all cheer saying they only agreed to it because they knew it wouldn't stand.

And now we're all supposed to line up, shake hands. Then, Democrat congressmen will vote for Defense Against Promiscuity Act (DAPA), A Democrat president will sign DAPA...

Sounds like Lucy and the football to me.; 7/1/13, 8:05 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: Obviously, gay marriage is just the latest step in the war on poverty...

In 'Coming Apart' Charles Murray outlined how the death of marriage among the lower classes has locked them into a cycle of poverty.

Well, if marriage can mean anything we want it to mean, than we can just declare all those baby-mommas "married," and voila! The marriage gap disappears!

Since the marriage gap causes poverty, we'll then eliminate poverty!

Gay marriage will save us all!; 7/1/13, 8:20 AM
Anonymous said...: How would someone who accepts gay marriage argue against polygamous unions (assuming that they would want to so argue)?

There is some discussion in the comments to the linked McCarthy article. But McCarthy himself does not make a case. He just notes that Americans are mostly unsympathetic to polygamy and the liberal state "is inclined to atomistic individualism" so liberals can think in terms of an individual marrying another individual of the same sex but not entering a group arragement.

Never mind that DOMA was settled in part on the basis of "antipathy" towards a group, but clearly the antipathy only matters if it is towards a group liked by liberals.

In other words, gay marriage movement is ill-thought-out, unprincipled and intellectually dishonest. They want what they want regardless of consequences or consistency and if you disagree, you are a stupid bigot loser -- as Althouse repeatedly hectors.; 7/1/13, 9:22 AM
Dave said...: "jk565 said...they can argue its unconstitutional and not enforce it which is what Brown did."

Sadly, you seem unable to comprehend what happened in California.

1. Prop. 8 was the governing law from November 2008 until last Friday afternoon. No state official failed to "enforce" it. No same-sex marriages were performed.

2. When Prop. 8 was found unconstitutional by Judge Walker, both Gov. Schwarzenegger and Gov. Brown refused to defend the law and the court agreed that it was their right to do so.

3. In the absence of state officials willing to defend the law, only a party injured by Prop. 8 being overturned would have standing. The advocates of Prop.8 suffered no injury, so they did not have standing and were rejected by the Supreme Court.

Finally - regarding DOMA - similar to the Prop. 8 case, the Obama administration determined that DOMA was not constitutional and stated that they would no longer DEFEND it, but they would ENFORCE it until such time as the court or legislature overturned it. Had House Republicans not decided to defend DOMA in the Supreme Court, it would have probably been treated like Prop. 8 and not been ruled on by the court. Thanks to Bohner and friends, however, SCOTUS overturned DOMA with an opinion that many think lays the groundwork for future LGBT advances.

Now you can go back to your irrelevant, irrational rants - what's next "man on dog" or polygamous parrots?; 7/1/13, 11:38 AM
jr565 said...: Dave wrote:
2. When Prop. 8 was found unconstitutional by Judge Walker, both Gov. Schwarzenegger and Gov. Brown refused to defend the law and the court agreed that it was their right to do so.

3. In the absence of state officials willing to defend the law, only a party injured by Prop. 8 being overturned would have standing. The advocates of Prop.8 suffered no injury, so they did not have standing and were rejected by the Supreme Court.

And yet since it wasn't overtuned until the Supreme Court overturned it was still the law of the land.; 7/1/13, 12:10 PM
jr565 said...: The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals moved weeks ahead of schedule to allow gay marriage by lifting a hold it had placed on same-sex unions while Prop 8 was being appealed at the Supreme Court.

"We haven't even had an opportunity to see what other options are available to us to uphold the will of the people with Prop 8, but the 9th Circuit has jumped the gun and forced same sex-marriage back on California," Andrew Pugno, general counsel for ProtectMarriage.com, said.

"I think the main issue is that we do not have an appellate court in California or anywhere that has ruled Proposition 8 to be unconstitutional,"
At the very least it was being appealed by those who passed it, and still the law of the land. And the govt, by not defending it, made it so that it couldn't even be appealed.; 7/1/13, 12:14 PM
jr565 said...: So, Dave, the governor and govt lifted its hold weeks ahead of schedule and started hadnding out marriages certificates while the appeal process was still underway. Then when it got to court assured that those appealing the decision had no standing by not defending the law (granted one they didn't agree with).
Are you going to be ok, when repubs do the same thing with laws you value as a liberal?; 7/1/13, 12:17 PM