Print
E-mail
Same-Sex Marriage: Opening The Door To Polygamy
By Gregory J. Sullivan, For The Bulletin
With the decision by the Iowa Supreme Court and an enactment of a statute Vermont Legislature sanctioning same-sex marriage, a great deal of commentary, filled with understandable but unwarranted optimism, has appeared on the possibility of same-sex marriage being legislated in additional states, including New Jersey.
Advocates are dismissive of the slippery-slope argument — that is, by allowing same-sex couples to marry, then any restrictions on a parent marrying his child or his couch will logically fall. Such views are easily ridiculed if not rebutted, but the next logical step in this debate — namely, polygamy — is not readily dismissed and must be honestly considered by those who favor same-sex marriage.
We tend to think that culture wars are a unique affliction of our unsettled age. In the 19th century, however, the country was engulfed in a moral struggle not only against slavery but also — and often with comparable fervor — against Mormon polygamy. From Joseph Smith’s revelation in the early 1830s that included plural marriage to the official repudiation of this teaching by the Mormon Church in 1890, Mormons were furiously persecuted and relentlessly prosecuted for their practice of polygamy.
The platform of the Republican Party in 1856 famously called for the prohibition in the territories of “those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” Moreover, the state constitutions of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah all have provisions banning polygamy and Congress required these anti-polygamy provisions as a condition of admission to statehood in all these states except Idaho.
This constitutional struggle over polygamy culminated in 1878 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. United States. A bigamist named George Reynolds was prosecuted in the Utah territory. Reynolds sought a conduct exemption to the criminal prohibition of polygamy based on the guarantee of the free exercise of religion under the first amendment. With the correct observation that the practice of polygamy is incompatible with American political institutions, the Court determined that the prohibition was well within the authority of Congress in the territories.
Mormon polygamy was defeated by a culture stable enough in its understanding of public morality, particularly at the elite level, to thwart this great challenge. That understanding has essentially vanished today.
Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm. Then what is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity with their own teachings.
What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other?
With the exclusively libertarian premises that are relied on today for such questions, the case for polygamy is stronger than that of same-sex marriage. For the libertarian, any case against polygamy is based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. After all, most people know homosexuals. How many polygamists does anyone know? Perhaps such irrational opposition should be stigmatized as “polyphobia.”
With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem. Instead of mocking opposition to same-sex marriage as the irrational product of a benighted religious tradition, advocates must be forced to confront the inescapable logic of their own argument. If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.
Gregory J. Sullivan is a lawyer who resides in Bucks County. He can be reached at Gregoryjsull@aol.com.
Advocates are dismissive of the slippery-slope argument — that is, by allowing same-sex couples to marry, then any restrictions on a parent marrying his child or his couch will logically fall. Such views are easily ridiculed if not rebutted, but the next logical step in this debate — namely, polygamy — is not readily dismissed and must be honestly considered by those who favor same-sex marriage.
We tend to think that culture wars are a unique affliction of our unsettled age. In the 19th century, however, the country was engulfed in a moral struggle not only against slavery but also — and often with comparable fervor — against Mormon polygamy. From Joseph Smith’s revelation in the early 1830s that included plural marriage to the official repudiation of this teaching by the Mormon Church in 1890, Mormons were furiously persecuted and relentlessly prosecuted for their practice of polygamy.
The platform of the Republican Party in 1856 famously called for the prohibition in the territories of “those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery.” Moreover, the state constitutions of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Utah all have provisions banning polygamy and Congress required these anti-polygamy provisions as a condition of admission to statehood in all these states except Idaho.
This constitutional struggle over polygamy culminated in 1878 when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. United States. A bigamist named George Reynolds was prosecuted in the Utah territory. Reynolds sought a conduct exemption to the criminal prohibition of polygamy based on the guarantee of the free exercise of religion under the first amendment. With the correct observation that the practice of polygamy is incompatible with American political institutions, the Court determined that the prohibition was well within the authority of Congress in the territories.
Mormon polygamy was defeated by a culture stable enough in its understanding of public morality, particularly at the elite level, to thwart this great challenge. That understanding has essentially vanished today.
Proponents of same-sex marriage invariably wonder what harm would be presented by allowing couples of the same sex to marry. Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged. But our intellectual elites who dominate the courts, the universities and the editorial offices of newspapers are animated by a radical individualism on social issues and they have no concern at all for public morality and refuse to acknowledge any such harm. Then what is the case against polygamy? Allowing a man (or woman) to enter into plural marriage will not prohibit others from marrying in the monogamous tradition. It would not interfere with that arrangement in any way. Churches would still be free to marry couples in conformity with their own teachings.
What is more, it should be acknowledged that, unlike same-sex marriage, plural marriage has a long and established tradition throughout many parts of the world. Finally, with the easy availability of unlimited divorce, serial polygamy is already thoroughly commonplace in Europe and America. What is the difference between taking three or four wives at once or one after the other?
With the exclusively libertarian premises that are relied on today for such questions, the case for polygamy is stronger than that of same-sex marriage. For the libertarian, any case against polygamy is based on nothing more than ignorance and fear. After all, most people know homosexuals. How many polygamists does anyone know? Perhaps such irrational opposition should be stigmatized as “polyphobia.”
With numerous Mormon fundamentalists (excommunicated Mormons who practice polygamy) in this country and increasing immigration from Islamic countries where polygamy is enthusiastically practiced, plural marriage is not a concern based on hysteria or conjecture. Indeed, the intellectually casual embrace of same-sex marriage by its advocates is remarkably oblivious to this problem. Instead of mocking opposition to same-sex marriage as the irrational product of a benighted religious tradition, advocates must be forced to confront the inescapable logic of their own argument. If marriage is to be deconstructed to satisfy a “right” that never occurred to anyone until the day before yesterday, then certain ineluctable ramifications must be addressed.
Gregory J. Sullivan is a lawyer who resides in Bucks County. He can be reached at Gregoryjsull@aol.com.
 |
 |
|
| A Pantywaist Appeasing President | On Climate And Health, Beware Of Easy Formulas |
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of thebulletin.us.
davids12345 wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:39 PM:
" citybythebay: What stupid argument is that: hey, polygamy should only be recognized if there is a movement behind it. And by the way, who said polygamy would be a male-multiple-female thing? Is same sex marriage only for male-male relationships? You say that polygamy because of being practiced in other countries does not apply here. Is that the logic gays apply for their cause? Don't they say that gay marriage is not a concern as long as it does not violate the right of others, why polygamy would violate anyone's rights? Also, since when marriage became a numerical argument? One and one is ok, one to many is not. Is that the best gays have to say? Aren't they the ones who say that as long as the adults are in consent in a relationship (such as in male-male, female-female couples) they should be allowed to marry? Why if many women are in a consent relationship with one male? If they are being abused, surely, that's wrong, but if they consent, then why not? Let me ask you a question: if a movement of polygamists protest and asks for their rights not to be violated, and their marriages to be recognized, what would be YOUR response? Would they be allowed? Why or why not? Forget about gay marriage and answer that "
eeeeeeeli wrote on Apr 24, 2009 2:18 AM:
" I find the comparison between same-sex marriage and polygamy to be fascinating. One thing I consistently have failed to hear answered is what specific evidence is there of any harm done by consenting adults in these relationships, either to each other or their children?
Mr. Sullivan dodges this burden completely when he writes:
"Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged."
Notice he points to zero evidence for what specific harm may actually done. Upon what basis is this "natural law" placed? How exactly is the "common good" undermined? And how precisely is our "moral ecology" damaged? These are all tellingly cheap rhetorical euphemisms, offering nothing upon which to make a firm case.
If you are opposed to something, by all means, continue to do so. But don't engage in deliberate discourse unless your words mean something worthwhile. "
Mr. Sullivan dodges this burden completely when he writes:
"Of course, by ignoring sexual complementarity and violating the natural law, the common good is undermined; in other words, our moral ecology will be damaged."
Notice he points to zero evidence for what specific harm may actually done. Upon what basis is this "natural law" placed? How exactly is the "common good" undermined? And how precisely is our "moral ecology" damaged? These are all tellingly cheap rhetorical euphemisms, offering nothing upon which to make a firm case.
If you are opposed to something, by all means, continue to do so. But don't engage in deliberate discourse unless your words mean something worthwhile. "
You must register with a valid email to post comments. Only your Member ID will be posted with the comments.
Registered users sign in here: |
Become a Registered User |
citybythebay wrote on Apr 18, 2009 3:16 PM:
Marriage is a civil institution which is part of the family law, an inescapable system which touches all of us, and recognizes rights and obligations between people based on how they are related. Strangers have few rights. Blood relatives more and marriage creates primary family bonds between spouses because of the importance of the relationships to each spouse.
Gay couples have persuaded legislatures and courts that their long-term committed relationships with their partners are sufficiently analogous to the long-term committed relationships between a man and wife that they should be treated the same for rights and obilgations, either through marriage or otherwise.
If people like Mr. Sullivan want to argue against this recognition on this slippery slope argument, they need to sustain the burden of showing that we are compelled to recognize multiple partners as analogous to two. In such an intimate relationship, numbers are not arbitrary.
Citing a mormon past (in which women were legally subjugated to men) or the practice in other countries, to evaluate the danger of polygamy at present also does not get him there. The sexual revolution and the explosing of the women's moment occurred in this country over 40 years ago, and at the same time, women, racial minorities and gay folks demanded full inclusion in society. Many things change for women, including control over their property and access to education and the professions. No army of folks advocating adult polygamy has shown up in this age demanding liberties, and with women having these options, I suspect their willingness to share a spouse with anyone is minimal.
Polygamy is a separate matter from same-sex marriage recognition and we can take up arguments to expand the marriage analogy if and when they arise. But raising this argument as justification for denying same-sex marriage, when there is no serious movement for polygamy and there is not likely to be one strikes me as utterly pretextual and intellectually dishonest. "