Gay Patriot Header Image

Equality for Polygamists

Posted by V the K at 12:45 pm - December 15, 2013.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”

Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the judge’s 91-page opinion cites a series of legal precedents that have gradually redefined marriage, and limited the ability of the state to define it. Almost as though there had been some kind of negative gradient, and the law had been gravitationally drawn to the lower end of the gradient as a result of the lack of adhesion on that gradient.

Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.

e688174fbf46162895e5f9a9505b5c3d

Share

33 Comments

  1. Polygamy gets us into some interesting problems. If a person has 4 spouses, are all 4 entitled to spousal benefit under SS? How about if person dies, leaving 4 spouses? A surviving spouse gets the dead spouses SS if it is larger than his/hers. So 4 surviving spouses get the larger payout? Anybody have any insight on this? & can whichever one of us survives the other marry our 3 daughters thereby avoiding inheritance taxes?

    Comment by Max — December 15, 2013 @ 1:21 pm - December 15, 2013

  2. I’ve already made my views on the significance of civil marriage, or its lack thereof, in the previous post. I’m just going to take this opportunity to vent my frustrations.

    To every single heterosexual who swallowed the propaganda that marriage is about “true love,” who decided that children and their rearing as well-adjusted members of society were not the end of marriage but rather a neat accessory or a headache, who didn’t marry a person they loved but rather a facade or a living sex doll, who got divorced because they realized they married a complete stranger or because “the magic went away”: the disintegration of marriage is on your heads. You sent the ball rolling down the hill.

    You broke the system. And I’m sure people are going to jump at the chance to exploit it and use it to their benefit. If you could suddenly live and have sex with all the people you were mutually attracted to and get paid by the government to do it, why wouldn’t you? If I get the hots for a couple guys and some bureaucrat asks if I want a tax credit because of it, why shouldn’t I take it?

    Don’t’ take this to mean that I am happy with this situation. I’m not. But I think pressing forward full-steam ahead is the only option that’s still open to us, and I see no reason to whine and complain about it. Overload the system. Crash it. Burn the whole damned condemned building to the ground with a wild party and then rebuild it as it once was before the insanity kicked in. And have a great time doing it. Like those shows on DIY Network! 🙂

    Comment by Sean — December 15, 2013 @ 1:56 pm - December 15, 2013

  3. What’s the over/under on what’s next? My money’s on being allowed to marry “non-human” companions.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — December 15, 2013 @ 5:01 pm - December 15, 2013

  4. @ Bastiat Fan

    Well we went from “Does the sex of the partner really matter?” to “Does the number of partners really matter?”, so my money is on “Do the ages of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the genetic proximity of the partners really matter?”, followed by “Does the species of the partners really matter?”, but I think we have a good 50 to 100 years on that last one.

    How long do you think it will be before we’re hearing about a 30-something single dad and his teenaged identical twin sons having a three-way wedding?

    Comment by Sean — December 15, 2013 @ 6:06 pm - December 15, 2013

  5. How long do you think it will be before we’re hearing about a 30-something single dad and his teenaged identical twin sons having a three-way wedding?

    As much as it pains me to say it, there’s probably s**t like that out there already – the news media just haven’t found it yet.

    Comment by perturbed — December 15, 2013 @ 6:27 pm - December 15, 2013

  6. I wrote a paper about this several years ago when I was still in law school. The same arguments used to justify gay marriage could also be used to justify polygamous marriages. Because this is about equality — how can you deny anyone the right to marry the persons that they love?

    Comment by Conservative Guy — December 15, 2013 @ 6:47 pm - December 15, 2013

  7. My money’s on being allowed to marry “non-human” companions.

    I saw a really sexy carburetor the other day. Imagine the tax advantages.

    Comment by Ignatius — December 15, 2013 @ 6:52 pm - December 15, 2013

  8. And if anyone remembers, there were promises made up and down in the 1990’s by the ‘civil unions for gays’ crowd that there would never be any push made for gay marriage.
    How many times do some people have to be lied to before they stop believing these ‘promises’?

    Comment by Jman1961 — December 15, 2013 @ 7:02 pm - December 15, 2013

  9. You know that makes you a BIGOT, Jman. /sarc

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — December 15, 2013 @ 7:10 pm - December 15, 2013

  10. How many times do some people have to be lied to before they stop believing these ‘promises’?

    The social left knows theses are lies, just like “No one really is pro-abortion,” and “No one is trying to confiscate your guns.” But they know if they were honest about their agenda, they would be defeated overwhelmingly.

    Comment by V the K — December 15, 2013 @ 7:43 pm - December 15, 2013

  11. @ #7

    I don’t know if you play many video games, but in “Mass Effect 3,” your ship’s pilot becomes *very* interested in your ship’s AI after she puts herself into a very comely female body. He’s pretty openly salivating over her. At one point, you have the option to encourage the AI to give him what he wants (i.e., her; hey, it’s the middle of a galactic war for survival, love who you want!) or flat-out tell her that a human-AI has way too many ethical complications to work. On top of that, one male crew member comments on how attractive the AI’s body is, and one female crew member is explicitly said to have a robot fetish and fantasizes about sex with the AI’s body.

    So yeah, that carburetor is probably going to be legal in a century.

    Comment by Sean — December 15, 2013 @ 7:53 pm - December 15, 2013

  12. Wow, it’s just like ‘Archer’ predicted.

    http://youtu.be/4TR4ufW_V_o

    Comment by V the K — December 15, 2013 @ 8:11 pm - December 15, 2013

  13. @ #12

    Oh, V. You make me laugh. I think that’s sufficient grounds for us to get a tax cred- I mean, married. Yes, married, I love V the K very dearly, your honor. No gaming of the system for financial gain here, your honor! 🙂

    Comment by Sean — December 15, 2013 @ 8:19 pm - December 15, 2013

  14. […] is Gay Patriot layin’ down the intelligent commentary on the progressive left in our country being at the […]

    Pingback by Religio-Political Talk (RPT) Bans Against Polygamy Unconstitutional: `We are Slouching Towards Gomorrah` ~ Robert Bork — December 16, 2013 @ 12:38 am - December 16, 2013

  15. The whole David Epstein incest affair ant nowhere fast because he is Progressive and the Progressive way is always correct.

    Now lets get back to all those many, many liberal gays who responded with emotional trauma flaring to my comments on this site that gay marriage would logically open the door to a world of other unions in the name of love.

    Oh, look! A hole in the dam. Let’s make it bigger!

    Comment by heliotrope — December 16, 2013 @ 10:00 am - December 16, 2013

  16. n fact, nowhere in the judge’s 91-page ruling do the words “same-sex marriage” appear. What the judge DID cite is Lawrence V Texas, which overturned statewide bans on sodomy by declaring that all consenting adult Americans have a right to sexual privacy in their own homes. But the pesky truth is unimportant over at Breitbart, not even to “senior legal analyst” Ken Klukowski. And guess what Klukowski’s day job is? Funny how they never mention that at Breitbart, huh?

    Comment by rusty — December 16, 2013 @ 2:53 pm - December 16, 2013

  17. http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=BY10F03Ken Klukowski
    Director, Center for Religious Liberty

    Ken Klukowski serves as Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council. Klukowski is a contributor to many media outlets, including Fox Forum at FOXNews.com, BigGovernment.com and Townhall.com and is a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union.

    Comment by rusty — December 16, 2013 @ 2:56 pm - December 16, 2013

  18. Regardless of how you feel about polygamy, I don’t think you need to worry about marrying your carburetor, your “non-human” companions, or your identical teenage boys. None of them can give consent.

    Comment by Alan — December 16, 2013 @ 3:26 pm - December 16, 2013

  19. Rusty intimates (but does specify) that something about Ken KluKowski’s “day job” is lacking. Here is his bio from Breitbart:

    Ken Klukowski is a national-bestselling author, constitutional lawyer and media contributor. He is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, and a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union. He has also been published by Politico, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal, among other outlets. Klukowski has authored briefs on constitutional issues across the country, including the one adopted by the U.S. district court in striking down Obamacare in its entirety. He has authored seven law review articles, and been cited by multiple federal and state courts. A frequent media guest, he has appeared on national television and radio shows. A national bestselling author, his most recent book is Resurgent: How Constitutional Conservatism Can Save America, published by Simon & Schuster. A native of Indiana, he received his bachelor’s degree from the University of Notre Dame, studied history and political science at Arizona State University, and earned his law degree from George Mason University where he was a journal editor. He currently lives in the Virginia suburbs of D.C.

    Try as I might, I can not see where Ken Klukowski’s “day job” is lacking in gravitas, accomplishment or propriety.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 16, 2013 @ 7:00 pm - December 16, 2013

  20. My money’s on being allowed to marry “non-human” companions.

    If and when we invent the Warp Drive and some passing Vulcans take notice, a human and a non-human might indeed have “standing” to sue for legal recognition of their marriage. This might also hypothetically occur via some sort of “I, Robot” scenario involving self-aware AI that has attained legal personhood (it should surprise no one to learn that there are Geordi/Data slash stories floating around on the Innerwebs).

    But barring any such sci-fi developments, “can a man marry his cat or his toaster?” falls into the same category of blithering silliness as “can a man marry himself?” — the answer to both is “No,” but it has nothing to do with legal permissibility.

    Rather, the answer must be “No” because the very concept of a “One-Person Contract” has no recognized definition in law — it’s something akin to Dividing By Zero. (There is such a thing as a “Unilateral Contract,” but under such contracts, the existence of a second party is nonetheless taken as given.)

    P.S. IANAL and I will duly submit to a spanking if my above assertion is wrong!

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 16, 2013 @ 7:03 pm - December 16, 2013

  21. This might also hypothetically occur via some sort of “I, Robot” scenario involving self-aware AI

    Oops, I hadn’t read Sean’s #11 making the same point.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 16, 2013 @ 7:06 pm - December 16, 2013

  22. How long do you think it will be before we’re hearing about a 30-something single dad and his teenaged identical twin sons having a three-way wedding?

    Well, why not? Identical twins are unholy lusūs naturae with but a single soul split in half between them, whom God suffers to exist upon His clean Earth only because they offer amusement and sport to us normal folk, that we might more greatly appreciate the blessing of our own naturalness. Therefore, the intrinsic evil of incest is effectively cancelled out when identical twins are involved, especially if the twins are over 18 and really hot.

    St. Augustine explained this very thoroughly in one of his treatises, though I don’t have the exact writing at hand and am relying on memory. (The broader context had something or other to do with hippopotamuses, IIRC.)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 16, 2013 @ 7:24 pm - December 16, 2013

  23. 8. And if anyone remembers, there were promises made up and down in the 1990′s by the ‘civil unions for gays’ crowd that there would never be any push made for gay marriage.

    I actually don’t remember that at all, Jman1961.

    At least, it wasn’t quite like that. The 1993 Hawaii case Baehr v. Miike effectively announced at the outset that the debate was going to be about “gay marriage”. The “civil union” concept was invented and put forth later (by Vermont, in 2000) — as a sort of compromise, only after the “gay marriage” debate was well under way.

    You make it sound as though there had been some sort of nationwide push for “gay civil unions” that became the proverbial Camel’s Nose In the Tent — or, to use a different metaphor, you make it sound as though Teh Gheys took a mile after the Hetero Majority had naively given them an inch.

    But in fact, “gay civil unions” were a comparatively late development, and not an early wedge.

    It’s true that in some states, “civil union” or “domestic partnership” laws were later transformed into “same-sex marriage” laws. But I would argue that the traditionalists who wanted to safeguard the historic definition of marriage deserved to lose, to some extent, at least insofar as they failed to be aggressively proactive about endorsing same-sex domestic partnership legislation nationwide. (Which is to say, they followed those conservative leaders who chose the path of stinginess — “gay couples aren’t entitled to ANY level of legal recognition” — rather than making an attractive counter-offer.)

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 16, 2013 @ 7:55 pm - December 16, 2013

  24. I actually don’t remember that at all, Jman1961.

    At least, it wasn’t quite like that.

    You hedge your bet immediately after your opening refutation.
    That alone is telling.
    My recollection is that it was quite like that.
    And I’m talking about public pronouncements made during that time, not specific legal cases.

    As for “those conservative leaders who chose the path of stinginess”: no doubt many of them knew what the intentions of the ‘domestic partnership’ crowd were, the ends they wished to achieve, and where all of this would lead: DOMA was deep-sixed by the Supremes in July, and less than six months later we have a judge who has ruled that polygamy is OK.
    As well as a number of lawsuits filed by some hyper sensitive queer folks who no doubt knew of business proprietors who would happily make them their “gay wedding” cakes, create their “gay wedding” floral arrangements, and take their “gay wedding” portraits, but chose to target those businesses that might very well not, so that they:
    a) could get their 15 minutes of fame, and their wretched faces in the news
    b) shove it down the throats of people who hold more traditional beliefs about the institution/sacrament of marriage (you know, the ones that have been at the foundation of civil societies for centuries)
    c) feel morally superior to others (a prime objective of virtually all liberals and leftists, no matter what the subject)
    Odd that it would be you who invoked the “inch/mile” maxim.
    Looks like that’s exactly what this is.
    But the backlash cometh. And I’ll be with the folks ‘lashing back’.
    If all of this is destined to ‘not end well’, and I’m of the belief that it certainly won’t, I’m going to make sure that it ends much less well for the folks who are bringing us to that inevitable point.
    There’s only so long that any society can allow the most vocal banshees to receive the most attention, to make the rules, and to trash all of the morals, principles, values, traditions and institutions that civil societies have been built on (again, for centuries) before the whole thing is destroyed.
    We passed that point in this country some time back.

    Comment by Jman1961 — December 16, 2013 @ 9:17 pm - December 16, 2013

  25. Regardless of how you feel about polygamy, I don’t think you need to worry about marrying your carburetor, your “non-human” companions, or your identical teenage boys. None of them can give consent.

    How long do you think that will stop so-called “progressives?” These are deeply disturbed, angry individuals. And they have “critical theory” to support their delusions.

    Comment by Bastiat Fan — December 16, 2013 @ 9:42 pm - December 16, 2013

  26. […] have argued against a clear delineation that nature has honed, such as gender… is useless. Gay Patriot eruditely explains that is one, then the other (take note the emphasized portion near the […]

    Pingback by Religio-Political Talk (RPT) How Polygamy Hurts Society by Makes Girls/Women Chattel, and Stopping Boys from Turning into Healthy, Productive Men — December 17, 2013 @ 12:03 pm - December 17, 2013

  27. You hedge your bet immediately after your opening refutation.

    You can call it “hedging my bet”; I call it “giving the opponent a chance to save face by rephrasing his claim in more qualified language.”

    At any rate, I finally got around to actually reading the link to Breitbart, where the judge’s opinion is summarized in more detail. And I’m guessing that I’m not the only thread commenter who had failed to read the full story, since no one has yet brought up the point that the current case hinged on whether Utah can criminalize polygamous cohabitation. (I.e., the issuance of polygamous marriage licenses did not enter into it.)

    In other words, this Brown v. Buhman ruling has little to do, in terms of case law, with the SCOTUS decision that struck down Section 3 of DOMA, but much more to do with Lawrence v. Texas, insofar as the question of criminal penalties was not relevant in the DOMA case.

    It seems to me that if you want to identify where this cultural “slippery slope” began, one must go back at least to McLaughlin v. Florida — the SCOTUS case which ruled that states could not criminalize interracial cohabitation/dating.

    Granted, the polygamy decision does not actually cite McLaughlin v. Florida as precedent, unless I missed something in skimming through the 91-page brief — presumably because McLaughlin was decided on fairly narrow Equal Protection grounds (the Florida law was deemed unconstitutional in part because it did not address such permutations as White/Asian or Black/Amerindian, but only prohibited Black/White pairings).

    Nonetheless, McLaughlin and Brown v. Buhman have one thing in common: they’re both thoroughly unsympathetic to “the majority has traditionally considered it distasteful” arguments.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 17, 2013 @ 8:07 pm - December 17, 2013

  28. I call it “giving the opponent a chance to save face by rephrasing his claim in more qualified language.”

    I didn’t have any face to save.
    When push comes to shove, it’s people like me who have the balls to hold the line and have the battle, while wordy, spineless wise-asses like you have your face buried in your computer monitors combing through 91 page legal opinions as if that has any value whatsoever.
    Keep doing the legal analysis; it’s still good cover for the fact that there isn’t a fight to be had that you won’t run away from.

    Comment by Jman1961 — December 17, 2013 @ 8:40 pm - December 17, 2013

  29. As I understand the ruling, it doesn’t change much. It basically permits multiple cohabitation, something that is already legal in the other 49 states. The requirement that you can only have one valid marriage license remains intact.

    This finding is basically a slam dunk after Lawrence

    Comment by Mannie — December 17, 2013 @ 8:58 pm - December 17, 2013

  30. Try as I might, I can not see where Ken Klukowski’s “day job” is lacking in gravitas, accomplishment or propriety.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 16, 2013 @ 7:00 pm – December 16, 2013

    That is because you are judging on objective criteria that operate independently of whether you agree with the person or not, heliotrope.

    Rusty, on the other hand, insists that anyone with whom he disagrees must be stupid, uneducated and irrational, regardless of their actual education, qualifications, or body of work.

    Put simply, rusty is a bigot. Furthermore, he’s a desperate and humiliated bigot thanks to rulings like this and the epic incompetence shown by the unqualified and ignorant fool he and his fellow racists voted into office.

    All we can expect for the next two years are more tantrums from this spoiled brat. He has no capacity for intelligent argument any more; all he can do is scream “racist” and “homophobe” over and over again as he and his emotionally- and intellectually-stunted ideology collapse under the weight of their own stupidity.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 18, 2013 @ 8:55 am - December 18, 2013

  31. it’s people like me who have the balls to hold the line and have the battle

    Um… in what practical, real-world way are you and your big manly balls actually “holding the line” on this issue?

    Also, I would respectfully suggest that anyone who tries to start a ¿Quién es más macho? contest in a gay-blog thread has already lost.

    Comment by Throbert McGee — December 18, 2013 @ 6:11 pm - December 18, 2013

  32. Um… in what practical, real-world way are you and your big manly balls actually “holding the line” on this issue?

    In what practical, real world way are YOU and your (what is it you do, again?…besides windy horsesh*t comments, that is) actually “holding the line” on this (or any other) issue?

    Also, I would respectfully suggest that anyone who tries to start a apply their variation of Godwin’s Law to my comment has already answered the question ¿Quién es más macho?

    And the answer is: it’s never going to be you, Casper Milquetoast.

    Comment by Jman1961 — December 18, 2013 @ 6:24 pm - December 18, 2013

  33. Actually, the question (which YOU asked, for the record) can only be asked rhetorically.
    You first soiled your panties when my war with a former commenter (whatever became of her?) caused you such discomfort and upset that you had to yell “OUCH” in a comment thread.
    Real manly of you.
    I made a statement, almost certainly a true one.
    Sorry if the truth bothers you, but that’s your problem, not mine.

    Comment by Jman1961 — December 18, 2013 @ 6:42 pm - December 18, 2013

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.