1

All of the major world religions - Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Christianity – have condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses.

The same holds true for most every culture on earth....

I’ve yet to hear an advocate for the redefinition of marriage ....

2

Joe,

If making gay marriage legal is the slippery slope to making polygamy legal, is the reverse also true? I don't think it is but am wondering what you think.

3

Excellent post, Joe. The biblical ideal of monogamy is clearly put forth in Scripture, even when deviations from it were tolerated. The fact that much woe attended these polyamorous situations is always present in the cases where these events are recorded.

At a time when 37% of children are born out of wedlock, and many more will not reach adulthood with the two parents they started out with still married to each other does not portend well for our future, especially for the children who will be caught in these situations which are something other than God's ideal. Anything that other than God's ideal is ipso facto less than God's ideal.

4

When the facts are taken into account, the reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that homosexuals have a legal right to marry someone of the same gender then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.

The reason to oppose polygamy is quite simple, two does not equal one. A partnership with one person is not the same as a partnership with two people. That is not an arbitrary fact. An arbitrary fact would be something that has no impact on the issue at hand.

If we use business partnerships as an example, an arbitrary fact would be that your partner likes to wear gaudy Christmas sweaters in January. A non-arbitrary fact would be that the business's net income would have to be divided not between you and one other person but between you and two other people. If you had purchased a 50% stake in an enterprise only to discover your control was only over 1/3 of the enterprirse you'd have a cause of action to sue for fraud. If Joe's argument is correct, that the difference between 2 and 3 is 'arbitrary and based on personal preference' there would be no case.

So this has nothing to do with personal preference. 3+ relationships are more complicated than 2 person relationships. That doesn't mean that 3+ relationships might have benefits that outweigh the added complications (in the business world we would be a lot poorer today if partnerships were only permitted between no more than two owners).

5

Boonton, I am sickened by your multiphobia.

6

Wait - where is it that Christianity has condoned the practice of taking multiple wives? Had you said "Judeo-Christian" history, I would have seen your point; Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and others took multiple wives (although you can see how much trouble that caused for each of them). In what sense would you say that Christianity has endorsed polygamy?

7

Be that as it may, the argument for or against polygamous marriage DOES NOT revolve around whether or not it's really the same thing as gay marriage. Not surprisingly many who would support polygamy are actively hostile to gay relationships. Fundamentalist Mormons, unorthodox Biblical literalists, Muslims & others all have arguments for why the law should recognize their flavor of polygamy but they are not supportive of gay marriages.

The equation of gay marriage with polygamy is really a false choice fallacy. The argument attempts to convince a person that if they reject polygamy then they must reject gay marriage. Since most people in Western countries do not want polygamy and are uncomfortable with the idea of it they would choose rejecting a package of polygamy bundled with gay marriage even if they don't have clear reasons for objecting to gay marriage alone.

8

Another test that I've used to illustrate the problem with Joe's argument is simply asking how various aspects of marriage would work in a state that adopts gay marriage and then in one that adopts polygamy.

Joe can't honestly say he does know how, say, divorce would work in a state like Mass. that suddenly gets gay marriage. A gay married couple there would divorce under the laws of Mass that already exist regarding divorce. It's no different than when barriers to interracial marriage were dropped. Plenty of people opposed black-white marriages but it was easy to know how black-white marriages would divorce, how they would pass on debts and property, how they would share responsibility for medical decisions and other things. They would simply use the pre-existing 'template' that white-white or black-black marriages use.

But what if Mass.'s SC takes Joe at his word and tomorrow tells the state that because gay marriage is permitted so must polygamy. How would such an institution work? If one person leaves a three person marriage does it become a two person marriage? Or do the two remaining people also terminate their marriage and if they wanted to be together they would have to create a new two person marriage? What happens if one person is sick and the two people he is married two disagree on medical decisions?

Here the existing 'template' breaks down. In two person marriages such issues cannot arise. If you look at all those cultures that Joe cites that had or have polygamy you'll see different answers to those questions. Which one does Joe think we have a 'right' to? The hippie 'free love' polygamy, the Muslim polygamy with its various checks and rules, the Mormon polygamy where wives were 'assigned' by church leaders?

If gay marriage leads automatically to polygamy then why are these questions so hard to answer for polygamy but easy for gay marriage? Because polygamy is truely something different while gay marriage is just a different flavor of fundamentally the same thing. That's not to say you cannot support something different and also object to a different flavor. Lobster is different than ice cream. I like both but won't eat rasburry flavored ice cream. But you can't pretend they are all the same thing when they are clearly not.

9

There are two different points that I think can be made here along the lines of what Joe is saying. One is that if you think it's unconstitutional to outlaw gay sex via certain arguments, it necessarily follows that you should accept polgamous and other polyamorous sexual behavior by the same reasoning. This is patently so if the argument is simply that people should be able to do what they want behind closed doors provided that it's consensual (as the point is often put). Of course the argument also requires allowing incest. But that argument isn't really about marriage. It's about sexual behavior. There are arguments that don't have this problem (e.g. restricting the behavior you allow further to allow one but not the other, which takes coming up with the relevant principle to justify that restriction), but the point is worth making because many people give the broader argument without accepting its implications. This is the actual issue Justice Scalia was dealing with, since Lawrence wasn't about marriage but about whether it's constitutional to outlaw certain kinds of consensual sexual behavior. On the argument that was being given, you also are constitutionally required to allow polyamory and incest (between consenting adults; don't conflate incest with child molestation, as many people insist on doing in response to this argument).

Second, there's the marriage issue. If you refuse to allow restriction of marriage to one man and one woman to allow gay marriage, you must also refuse to allow restriction of marriage to one man and one woman with respect to other issues, and polyamory and incestuous marriage are in the game. This again depends on the particular argument. Some such arguments do allow one and restrict another, but you have to make sure you get the argument right. It can't be just about consent, because polyamory can involve consent, and it can't be just about harm, because on liberal principles incest doesn't necessarily harm anyone given the possibility of abortion if conception occurs.

10

Jim You mean, a re-redefinition?

Touché’ ; )

Actually, since monogamy was the original design I would say it is a re-re-redefinition of marriage.

Baggi If making gay marriage legal is the slippery slope to making polygamy legal, is the reverse also true? I don't think it is but am wondering what you think.

While it could, I don’t think it necessarily does. After all, polygamy has been around for centuries in various cultures yet it is only recently—and in a culture where bigamy is outlawed—that same-sex marriage has taken root.

Boonton The reason to oppose polygamy is quite simple, two does not equal one. A partnership with one person is not the same as a partnership with two people. That is not an arbitrary fact. An arbitrary fact would be something that has no impact on the issue at hand.

Let’s restate that: “The reason to oppose same-sex marriage is quite simple, marrying a person of the same sex does not equal marrying someone of the opposite sex. A partnership with a person of the same sex is not the same as a partnership with someone of the opposite sex. That is not an arbitrary fact. An arbitrary fact would be something that has no impact on the issue at hand.”

Your “arbitrary fact” requirement does not hold. Homosexuals, after all, have the same rights as other people: to marry a person of the opposite sex. Changing the definition requires adding a non-arbitrary fact, which is the same thing that occurs when we throw polygamy into the mix.

Alexander Scott Wait - where is it that Christianity has condoned the practice of taking multiple wives?

Well, in Mormonism. Duh. ; )

(Only kidding. Seriously. I’m only joking.)

Polygamy has never been the primary form of marriage in Christianity but it has certainly been “condoned.” For example, in a letter to the Saxon Chancellor Gregor Brück, Luther stated that he could not "forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict Scripture." (Re: Wikidpedia entry on Polygamy)

Boonton The equation of gay marriage with polygamy is really a false choice fallacy.

No one is equating gay marriage with polygamy. What we are saying is that you can’t arbitrarily exclude polygamy if you accept same-sex marriage. As you seem to admit, people can reject polygamy even if they have no “clear reason” for doing so. Well, people reject same-sex marriage also. Do they need a clear reason or not?

11

The reason to oppose polygamy is quite simple, two does not equal one. A partnership with one person is not the same as a partnership with two people. That is not an arbitrary fact. An arbitrary fact would be something that has no impact on the issue at hand.

Boonton--Sounds like you've arbitrarily decided that opposition of same-sex marriage is arbitrary, but oppopsition of group-marriage is not.

If you had purchased a 50% stake in an enterprise only to discover your control was only over 1/3 of the enterprirse you'd have a cause of action to sue for fraud.

But how does this apply to 3 or more people who want to voluntarily enter into a marriage with each other?

12

Joe:

Let’s restate that: “The reason to oppose same-sex marriage is quite simple, marrying a person of the same sex does not equal marrying someone of the opposite sex. A partnership with a person of the same sex is not the same as a partnership with someone of the opposite sex. That is not an arbitrary fact. An arbitrary fact would be something that has no impact on the issue at hand.”

Indeed you have accomplished the restatement of your argument. But is this statement true? Consider the test I presented of how easily the current legal 'template' of marriage can be applied to homosexual couples but trying to apply it to polygamous groups leaves one with numerous questions that have no obvious answers.

It seems pretty clear that SSM can be incorporated into the law without a meaningful change to marriage as it exists as civil law. Polygamy, though, cannot be so incorporated. Again that doesn't hold that either should or shouldn't be incorporated but it does demonstrate that the two are not so linked that they *must* be packaged together...

No one is equating gay marriage with polygamy. What we are saying is that you can’t arbitrarily exclude polygamy if you accept same-sex marriage. As you seem to admit, people can reject polygamy even if they have no “clear reason” for doing so. Well, people reject same-sex marriage also. Do they need a clear reason or not?

Yet you declined to hold the reverse (if you accept polygamy then you have no reason to reject same-sex marriage). If one could logically accept polygamy but reject SSM then why shouldn't the opposite be true?

This seems to boil down to an argument of "if you change one thing then there's no reason to oppose any other changes no matter what".

For your last question no people do not need a clear reason to accept or reject anything however if such is going to be policy then clear reasons should be presented for why something is rejected or accepted. To use the case of interracial marriage, you can reject it 'personally' (such as in the case of Bob Jones University or the Nation of Islam) but if you demand the law also should reject it then "I have no clear reasons I wish to present" is a very weak argument.

13

But how does this apply to 3 or more people who want to voluntarily enter into a marriage with each other?

It doesn't but what are you asking? People can already voluntarily come together and agree to share expenses, responsibilities and so on. The law, though, has created a legal template for a certain type of relationship between two people. The argument for polygamy is not an argument to let people use the template but to create a brand new legal template. Maybe it won't be created from scratch but it's pretty hard to pull off a plausible argument that it wouldn't be a different template for a different type of relationship than what is currently available.

Likewise there are legal templates that have been created for common business arrangements such as partnerships, corporations etc. How about people who want to form a communistic commune? To my knowledge there are no legal templates for that. To organize such a thing you'd probably have to get lawyers to draw up a lot of customized contracts and even then you'd likely have some serious challenges. However society has simply not found that there are enough people trying to make communes to make it worthwhile to draw up some easy legal templates.

Is this denying people something they have a right too? If they can find a way to make it fit they can use the templates of incorporation or partnerships to form their commune but if they can't I don't see it as an arbitrary denial of anything.

14

Boonton--Sounds like you've arbitrarily decided that opposition of same-sex marriage is arbitrary, but oppopsition of group-marriage is not.

I have decided that but not in an arbitrary manner :)

Same-sex marriage clearly fits the current legal 'template' quite easily. Polygamy does not.

This does not mean there cannot be other arguments mounted against SSM. Adult incest, for example, might also be able to fit the current legal template for marriage . There are, IMO, good public policy reasons to reject even consensual adult incestuous marriages.

I'm unimpressed by the public policy reasons given to oppose same sex marriages. Children are not an issue since SSM do not produce children so any SSM raising children would be due to the failure of hetrosexuals to care for the children they make (think adoption), a small number of same sex couples could have children artifically or through surrogates but this happens even without same-sex marriage. Likewise even with children marriage probably is an advantage since it provides more stability for the children being raised not less. It is probably better for hetrosexual marriages too since homosexuals who try to marry hetrosexuals to 'fit in' more often than not end up harming everyone involved.

15

The law, though, has created a legal template for a certain type of relationship between two people

No, it has created a legal template for a certain type of relationship between a man and a woman. Two men or two women don't equal a man and a woman.

The argument for polygamy is not an argument to let people use the template but to create a brand new legal template.

Well, since polygamy has a multi-millenial long legal tradition, I don't see how it forces the creation of a new legal template, unlike same-sex marriage which has almost no legal tradition.

How about people who want to form a communistic commune?

How would a communistic commune differ from a non-communistic one;)?

To my knowledge there are no legal templates for that. To organize such a thing you'd probably have to get lawyers to draw up a lot of customized contracts and even then you'd likely have some serious challenges.

Or you could just go the same-sex marriage route and just have a simpathetic judge order it. Call it the Jean-Luc Picard school of jurisprudence ("Make it so.").

16

I'm a bit more libertarian on this one than are most evangelicals.
While I do (Biblically) view "gay" marriage as act of sin, the idea of polygamy, though outside the type presented in the Bible, is not necessarily "sin". Clarify me if I'm wrong on this, butI do not recall any restriction in the Bible except as regard both mature church leadership and the type that the church *should* use to present the nature of God's relationship with the church per Ephesians.
IOW, the church has within itself a definition of marriage and family, from the Bible, which should never change. But to impose that on society, that's a different question.
WRT local church membership: Would we reject from membership a person who comes from another country but has multiple wives? I hope not. But should that person be in church leadership? Clearly (Biblically), no.
I still see another concern: What is happening to our (or may happen to any) society that rejects morality (of any sort), this is disintegration. It's not a change of morality, which would leave us still stable, but a rejection of absolutes in favor of democratization.

17

ucfengr

No, it has created a legal template for a certain type of relationship between a man and a woman. Two men or two women don't equal a man and a woman.

That's a bit like saying the 'corporation template' cannot work for corporations whose names begin with z and end in t. Why? Actually looking at the template doesn't reveal anything that says it can't be done.

You might have an argument if marriage law laid out specific roles by gender. Then there would be confusion as to how to apply the law to same sex marriages but legally marriage law is gender blind as far as I know. In theory, at least, a man can end up with custody of kids in a divorce or a woman can end up paying a husband alimony.

Well, since polygamy has a multi-millenial long legal tradition, I don't see how it forces the creation of a new legal template, unlike same-sex marriage which has almost no legal tradition.

Hit may have such a long tradition. Communes do too but the fact remains that modern society doesn't have much in way of a legal template for either.

How would a communistic commune differ from a non-communistic one;)?

Well I guess a commune where one guy owns everything and everyone else is just a guest would be a non-communistic one. Many cults would fit that definition...I suppose Hefner's Playboy Mansion does too :)

Or you could just go the same-sex marriage route and just have a simpathetic judge order it. Call it the Jean-Luc Picard school of jurisprudence ("Make it so.").

Maybe but a square peg still doesn't fit in a round hole. The judge could order incorporation law to accept communistic communes but that wouldn't alter the fact that they are so different it would probably be impossible to implement such an order without having to write a whole new law. Ditto for a judge ordering polygamy. But not ditto for a judge ordering SSM.

18

I basically agree with your point, Joe. For me, the principle is that consenting, competent adults should be able to marry whomever they please. That opens the door to both same-sex marriage and polygamy. I can live with that.

I think the truth is that polygamy, if made legal, would still be extremely rare in this country. As it is, people can now live with anyone and in any arrangement they choose. We have in this country millions of couples (heterosexual and homosexual) cohabitating without the benefit of marriage. How many situations of polygamy do we have? Besides the Mormon-offshoot cults, how many Americans live in a polygamous-type situation? I know many gay and staright unmarried couples, but I don't know of any polygamous adults. Do you, Joe? Even when polygamy was fully accepted by the Mormon church, the vast majority of Mormon men only had one wife. Part of that is a simple matter of math, but part is the fact that most women (and men) do not want their spouse to have another lover.

I would, of course, disagree with Scalia's prediction of a complete breakdown in society. One could argue that polygamy would provide more social stability as it could conceivably result in a decrease in single parenting and consequently, poverty.

19

Yes, polygamy is coming back to western culture. Pointing out the silliness of the legal routes by which it's coming back won't change a thing. But rather than wailing and gnashing teeth over the inevitable loss of (yet another) Biblically foundationless cultural expectation, how should evangelicals respond?

How should polygamous converts be welcomed into evangelical churches? How should a family moving from monogamy to polygamy be treated? What servanthood and leadership roles, if any, should polygamous men and women be allowed? How should a church determine if a man has the character and resources to be allowed to take a second wife and have the marriage be recognized? What sort of followup should happen? How will churches restructure themselves as communities so that when trouble happens in a marriage it is known and can be dealt with and the problems solved sans divorce?

There are two major assumptions I think will have to change in american evangelicalism to effectively deal with this upcoming issue: first, the assumption that what the state recognizes the church generally recognizes, and second, that joining a church does not give the church a right to probe the member's life on a continuing basis.

Evangelical churches will have to make it very clear that the rules in church are very different from the rules of the state, and show an effectiveness in grilling candidates for membership or leadership to test their character. Otherwise, I think the term "evangelical" will become the 21st century's "mainline protestant".

20

Crazy
There are two major assumptions I think will have to change in american evangelicalism to effectively deal with this upcoming issue: first, the assumption that what the state recognizes the church generally recognizes, and second, that joining a church does not give the church a right to probe the member's life on a continuing basis.

Where have you been? This isn't anything new. For a long time now the Catholic Church has been very clear regarding people who divorce and remarry. They do not recognize the divorce and only consider the original marriage to be valid. Even if the two people were not married in a Catholic Church.

Why would it not be reasonable to assume that a Church would have higher standards in regards to the sacraments it recognizes than the state?

21

“Liberty presumes an autonomy of self,” claimed Justice Anthony Kennedy, “that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.”

I have not seen a coherent logical argument come from the anti-gay marriage side that can contradict Kennedy's reasoning either. Other than the "gays are icky" rationale.

Whenever conservative social conservatives or other anti-gay people talk about gays and lesbians there is always an underlying mythology that runs through their discussion.

Its an assumption that our presence is either a sign of a decadent pleasure-seeking civilization or that we are causing the corruption of civilization, or both. They do not rejoice at that fact that gays and lesbians are for the most part, no longer thrown in jail, forced into mental institutions or just simply hanged upon discovery of their presence in the local neighborhood.

This background meme about gays and lesbians is the reason for the prevalence of the slippery-slope polygamy arguments so often heard from religious social conservatives. Not any serious actual concern about polygamy that is based on logic or facts. The underlying prejudice is the primary motivation.

Its what ruins their credibility and moral authority on the subject.

22

Boonton, the template of "male and female" is much stronger than a template of "two". History and biology speak longer and louder than just deciding "two", which makes justification of polygamy much easier than same sex "marriage". As you point out, two makes some things easier than three, but four is also viable: take a vote, majority wins. It all depends on the template. Your template may not be arbitrary, but it is certainly convenient. Historically, the current template of "two" is not based on a particular number, but on the concept of one man/one woman, which equals "two". It's actually a horse-and-cart argument.

The argument really breaks down with your statement: People can already voluntarily come together and agree to share expenses, responsibilities and so on. This was the justification for gay marriage. After all, if two people of the same sex can do everything that you list (I'm guessing that "so on" includes having sex), why should they not have their relationship recognized as a marriage? So, what if three people..? Can you imagine three people a day, walking in and saying that they want to get married??? (Apologies to Alice's Restaurant). Why should three people who agree to a situation be denied the right of marriage if they want to be married? "Two" isn't a strong argument against it.

I suspect that the opposition to polygamy is based on two issues:
1. Polygamy to date has required male dominence, which is anathema in our culture. No culture to date recognized equality in polygamist relationships.
2. Americans are not likely to accept any and all definitions of marriage. Throwing up the abitrary template of "two" instead of "male/female" makes liberals think that gay marriage will be more acceptable.

23

Boonton, the template of "male and female" is much stronger than a template of "two". History and biology speak longer and louder than just deciding "two", which makes justification of polygamy much easier than same sex "marriage".

That's all well and good and the history of communes goes back hundreds, even thousands of years and makes corporate law look as young as a newborn baby. Nevertheless, there's a very good legal template for corporations and nothing good for communes. You are free to argue that we need to come up with something for communes out of respect for their long, if unsuccessful, history. Right now, though, you're talking about two different things.

The argument really breaks down with your statement: People can already voluntarily come together and agree to share expenses, responsibilities and so on. This was the justification for gay marriage. After all, if two people of the same sex can do everything that you list (I'm guessing that "so on" includes having sex), why should they not have their relationship recognized as a marriage? So, what if three people..?

True and people can cohabitate without actually getting married. Nonetheless it is difficult and expensive to simulate marriage through legally enforcable contracts and such. Yes a man and woman can live together just like a married couple but marriage let's one partner sue for support should the other leave. The law often involves handling situations where people are no longer getting along.

Go ahead and show me how you can use private contracts and agreement to make something like marriage but with 3 people instead of two? All the questions I pointed out at the start will crop up.

Yes you can say the 3-person relationship should be recognized. You can even say it should be recognized as marriage but that doesn't change the fact that you have to build a different legal template for it. Perhaps this would not be the case if our template for marriage was based on our legal systems from thousands of years ago but it is the case now.

24

Boonton--Your argument against polygamy seems to be that it will be a little more difficult to resolve some of the legalities involved than it will be for same-sex marriage. When has that ever been a reason to deny someone their civil rights? The reality is that there are some legal issues involved in same-sex marriage that don't quite fit the same legal template that we have for traditional marriage, especially with respect to children, but for some reason objecting to those is arbitrary.

25

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

26

Joe, while I normally appreciate the fact that your style is loose and unfettered, this time it's apparent that you really don't have a clue of what you're talking about.

Histrionics aside, Lawrence v. Texas was about what people have a right to do in the privacy of their bedrooms. The implications for what rights and privileges the state has to accord to the gay community, or by extension the plural marriage community, are tenous at best. Are courts beginning to recognize some level of legal protection for the gay community? Absolutely. But if you want an idea of where that trend is headed, you'd be better off reading Romer v. Evans as opposed to Lawrence v. Texas. Justice Kennedy, in his meandering dicta, may be interesting to read but he's not providing a blueprint for the future. Kennedy just wants to be the Justice Jackson of our generation.

The future, in my opinion, is that sexual orientation, like gender, will someday merit some form of intermediate scrutiny. This is because, for better for for worse, being gay has become an IDENTITY that people are recognizing as deserving of legal protection. This, and only this, is what will ever form the basis for gay marriage (or civil unions) and provides for the legal distinction between gay marriage and polygamy. Where are the arguments that people are born hard-wired to desire multiple marriage? Where are the arguments that people can't help but enter into multiple partner relationships? There are none. Polygamy, as we understand it currently, is a preference, plain and simple. That's why it has no traction in legal circles. While the gay community is viewed as being more like gender, polygamy is viewed as more like rock-climbing or stamp collecting. Could that change? Perhaps. But that would require massive shifts in what we understand about polygamy. Until that happens, the slope isn't as slippery as you might imagine.

So that provides the legal justification for making a distinction between gay marriage and polygamy. And that's what you're questioning. You can't understand how people are able to make a legal distinction between the two. Because, really, you can't make a complaint that people would simply want gay marriage and not polygamy, since that's what you're doing when you talk about your disapproval of gay marriage. You can talk about tradition or what-not, but it's basically an "ick" factor. So it's unfair if you can say "ick" to gay marriage, but can't allow people to say "ok" about gay marriage, but "ick" to polygamy.

In sum, the slippery slope argument, as articulated by Scalia in the Lawrence dissent, is overstated and poorly reasoned.

This comment, of course, doesn't even address the MASSIVE policy differences between gay marriage and plural marriage as already addressed above.

Is anyone that posts comments here a lawyer? Or am I the only one?

27

Marco,

Nice shot there at the end, implying we can't have an opinion unless we are a lawyer (like you). Please excuse my uneducated comment to follow.

I disagree that the slope isn't as slipperly as you claim. I've seen, just in my short life-time, the total acceptance of homosexuality and the "hard-wired" argument, which is nonsense.

Do you really think that argument will not be applied to polygamy? Look at society at large and the drive for men in particular to sleep with as many women as possible. You don't think they will use what is "normal" in society to claim we are "hard wired" that way. I see them making that argument much more successfully than homosexuals have been able to.

Homosexuals hate it, but I like to bring up the idea of pedophiles when arguing about homosexuality. If we say homosexuals are hard-wired, then how can we say pedophiles are not.

I sure do think it's a very slippery slope.

Again, I'm not a lawyer like you, so please just take my opinion for what it's worth.

28

Marco: Here's another uneducated guy--just a cheese maker this time--chiming in where only lawyers are qualified to tread.

Get your nose out of law books and look around yourself. No argument for multiple sexual partners being hard wired?!? Where have you been? It is manifestly clear that without social constraints inculcating the desire for monogamy into young men, the majority them can and will opt for sexual liasons with as many females of childbearing age as they possibly can. Even those who for intellectual reasons override the impulse to promiscuity still have the promiscuous impulse. We Christians believe this is part of the sin nature which man took on at the Fall. It is an easy segue from many men being promiscuous to a few men wanting to "legitimize" their promiscuity by seeking state sanction for maintaining multiple sexual liasons simultaneously on an ongoing basis. Nor is it fanciful to perceive that the arguments presently advanced for homosexual "marriage" could be just as easily put into service for the polygamists.

Note to Marco and Gryph: The fact that many people who have principled disagreement with homosexual or polygamous relationships being recognized by the state also find those practices viscerally repulsive does not weaken the force of their principled disagreement. IOW it possible to think rationally about something which is repulsive. People think rationally and have principled views about all sorts of things that they also react negatively to in a visceral sense. Murder, pedophilia, beastiality and rape spring immediately to mind.

29

Crazy Diamond: Your whole post was rather bizzarre, but one point in particular was striking. How do you harmonize your whole second paragraph with your follow-up comment of,"...second, that joining a church does not give the church a right to probe the member's life on a continuing basis?" So the church needs to dissect potential members' lives and examine every detail under a microscope, but then needs to butt out of those members' lives? Which is it?

30

About being a lawyer... most of the time when it comes up it ends up sounding like I'm the one being insulted. I mean, have you heard any good jokes? :) I only brought it up because this just does happen to be an area where somewhat obscure legal distinctions are helpful.

Regarding arguments put forward about pedophilia and promiscuity, surely you can see a distinction between a generalized disposition present in human beings, qua human beings, towards lust, and the very specific scientific research being done right in the area of sexual orientation. The law would be shattered if it had to make space for every evolutionary impulse present in peopple. But just grant for a moment that sexual orientation is something that you're pretty much born with. That means that you're born with a disposition that will RADICALLY alter your life. You'll have a lifelong desire to be with someone of your same gender, opening up a very specific kind of life, assuming you pursue that desire. That life will be subject to the mockery, disdain, and possibly violent behavior of perhaps the majority of people around you. Can you at least see why that perhaps warrants some legal recognition?

Can the same thing be said about polygamy? Absolutely not. Straight men, no matter how raging with lust they may be, have the legal protection the gay community now desires. It's calleld marriage.

Pedophilia? Maybe. But then, here, we most definitely have not only overwhelming medical consensus that pedophilia is a disease, and homosexuality is not, but also a compelling state interest in the protection of minors.

Point is, if you really want to say there's no principled distinction to be made here, all you need to do is either radically change our culture so as to reshape our current views of polygamy, or get homosexuality back in the DSM IV. Until then, I think there are legal arguments to be made.

Please, also, notice that the both of my posts have been about legal arguments, not a defense of the status quo. That's the big problem around here. Everyone assumes if you don't tow the party line to every dotted i and crossed t, you must be a wiccan. Just because I think that pornography can't be legally censored, in toto, doesn't mean that I think it's a moral thing. In fact, I think it's sinful and repulsive.

31

This comment, of course, doesn't even address the MASSIVE policy differences between gay marriage and plural marriage as already addressed above.

The problem with this statement is that it ignores the "MASSIVE" policy differences between same-sex and traditional marriage, and it portrays the "MASSIVE" policy differences between same-sex marriage and plural marriage as self-evident and unbridgable. Let's look at some of the policy differences that same-sex marriage would entail; in traditional marriage, it is illegal for 2 people who are first cousins to marry or for a father to marry a daughter or a son to marry a mother. I understand the legal justification for not allowing these types of relationships (even though with modern medicine the risk associated with them is pretty insignificant), but what would be the justification for not allowing that type of relationship in a same-sex marriage (It's not that hard to envision two sisters or brothers wanting to marry solely for the legal benefits that accrue to married couples)? There really is none, so then could have a legal regime where it is legal for two brothers to marry, but not a brother and a sister. What about children? Would same sex couples have the same right to adopt as traditional? Suppose two lesbians or gays have a child using a surrogate, what legal relationship would the non-donor partner have with the child, assuming one partner either donated the sperm or egg and the other had no biological relationship? Folks like Boonton and Marco want to ignore the thousands of years of legal tradition allowing polygamy and just arbitrarily say it is unworkable, while at the same time completely ignoring the changes that incorporating same-sex marriage would involve.

32

I think the basic debate got off on the wrong track. Carter is perfectly correct when he says When the facts are taken into account, the reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference.

As I see it, the debate I read here is confusing marriage and legal contracts. Marriage is a sacrament. Marriage is not defined by lawyers or SCOTUS justices, but by God. It is interesting how the legal system has latched on to the sacrament like a remora, but one can easily draft laws to permit any kind of legal bond between sexual partners as it sees fit. The argument that two are covered but three would be more work is nothing more than lawyer bait. I can hear the champagne glasses clinking now as a major need arises to sort out the legal ramifications of N-person sexual contracts and how to draft statutory structures to deal with it.

Is the US headed toward legalizing polyamorous marriage? I believe definitely so. Scalia was correct when he said there were no legal impediments. The only legal impediment has been the historical fact that most of the laws drafted or imported at the birth of the republic were drafted by Christians or imported from Christian societies. Now that the legal profession has decided that judges can change the Constitution without recourse to the amendment process as originally defined, anything is possible, regardless of the desires and interests of the population at large.

I think the real issues are not moral or legal ones, but demographic and economic ones. For example, Social Security law and regulatory structures assume legal sexual contracts drawn along the same general lines as sacramental marriage. Now that this is no longer true, it will definitely have an impact. I haven't looked into the matter, so I can't comment intelligently about whether the impact will be positive or negative, but it seems that adding more people under any "entitlement" program is going to cost more money. So, I think we as a society need to think about this and debate it publicly and openly.

33

Marco,
True, pedophilia is considered a disease by medical opinion, but so was homosexuality until 1975. The American Psychiatric Association takes a vote on a particular behavior to decide what is pathological and what is not.

Not sure they should have this much power.

34

As I see it, the debate I read here is confusing marriage and legal contracts.

I don't think anybody is really confusing anything. The reality is that under our legal system, marriage is nothing more than a legal agreement between two parties. The biggest differences between the two is that consumating a marriage is a lot more fun than consumating a business partnership and generally you don't get to spend two weeks in Hawaii after you consumate your business partnership.

35

ucfengr

Boonton--Your argument against polygamy seems to be that it will be a little more difficult to resolve some of the legalities involved than it will be for same-sex marriage. When has that ever been a reason to deny someone their civil rights?

I have two responses:

1. As I already pointed out you don't have a civil right to have a legal template built for you. Once built, equal access should be the presumption. If, just like for corporations, we built a template for those wanting to form communist communes then it should be open to all. Look at it another way, corporations are relatively new in the long history of law. There's no civil right to form a corporation but once it is made available it would be illegal to say only whites or only women or only Catholics could form corporations wouldn't it?

2. As someone concerned with civil rights you must know about the concept of varying levels of scrutiny. All laws discriminate against people on some basis. A law saying you can deduct your children on your taxes, for example, discriminates against the childless. A law saying parking for a car is $0.25 an hour but for a truck is $1.00 an hour discriminates against truck owners and so on.

The courts have ruled that various types of discrimination are subject to various levels of scrutiny. At the lightest the state is only required to show that a law has some relationship to a legititmate purpose of government. It doesn't have to show that it does a good job or that its the best possible law. At the highest, called strict scrutiny, the state has to show that not only is the law necessary for a legit. public purpose but that it is the only way to accomplish the goal. Race has been determined to be subject to strict scrutiny, gender a lesser level but still high. So a policy that discriminates on race can be upheld if it meets that tougher test. The classic example I remember from Constitutional Law was a prison that segregates prisoners by race in order to stop a race riot. The discrimination is acceptable because it is the only solution in the very short term to the state's legit. interest in keeping order in the prison.

I've never heard an argument or claim that numbers are a class that should be subjected to anything but light scrutiny. I'd be interested to hear how you would mount an argument that a number is actually a trait of a person rather than a trait of the relationship between persons. If Bob marries Bill, the fact that Bill is male is a trait that belongs to Bill. The fact that Bill happens to be Bob's 1st husband is not, IMO, a trait of Bill but of the relationshib between these two. I don't really see the civil rights argument that Bob is discriminated against if he cannot add Joe to the mix without getting rid of Bill.

In business law there is an entity called the limited liability corporation that combines some of the traits of a partnership with that of a corporation. I don't have the numbers on hand but LLC's have a limit on how many shareholders they can have. I'd be curious to see a sensible argument that this is a violation of civil rights of those who would like to form LLC's with more than the permitted # of shareholders.

The reality is that there are some legal issues involved in same-sex marriage that don't quite fit the same legal template that we have for traditional marriage, especially with respect to children, but for some reason objecting to those is arbitrary.

Care to show us? I like how I use specifics to demonstrate my points, I'd be happy to read some of yours.
Macro
Homosexuals hate it, but I like to bring up the idea of pedophiles when arguing about homosexuality. If we say homosexuals are hard-wired, then how can we say pedophiles are not.

They very well might be. So what? I'm a hetrosexual and I'm pretty sure that I am that because I'm 'hard-wired' to be so. Some of my fellow hetrosexuals are driven to rape, sexual abuse, harassment, or other problematic behavior. Despite the fact they are probably 'hard-wired', they are still responsible for any crimes they committ.

36

Boonton: The Catholic church does as you suggest; mostly, evangelical churches don't. (Although from what I've seen in Catholic churches in North America, even there the leadership tends to be hands-off in a practical sense, whatever fire may get breathed from the pulpit.)

Cheesehead: I'm saying that the current practice of butting out of people's lives, to test character for church support of decisions like marriage, is one that may well have to change. The part you quote is current practice; the part I advocate is the change.

37

As I already pointed out you don't have a civil right to have a legal template built for you

The problem is that the "legal template" (whatever the heck that is) for same-sex marriage is going to be different from the template for traditional marriage. So what you are arguing is that gays have a right to their own legal template, but polygamous folks don't.

A law saying you can deduct your children on your taxes, for example, discriminates against the childless. A law saying parking for a car is $0.25 an hour but for a truck is $1.00 an hour discriminates against truck owners and so on.

Pretty thin gruel here, Boonton. You may as well say that being able to deduct medical bills discriminates against the healthy.

Care to show us? I like how I use specifics to demonstrate my points, I'd be happy to read some of yours.

See post 31. Regarding your use of specifics, you are making a rather large assumption that business law translates easily to family law or civil rights law, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it is a valid assumption. For example, hypothetically as a black man, I am perfectly within my rights not to shop at Wal-Mart because it is owned by whites, but Wal-Mart is not allowed to refuse to sell to me because I am black.

38

A law saying you can deduct your children on your taxes, for example, discriminates against the childless. A law saying parking for a car is $0.25 an hour but for a truck is $1.00 an hour discriminates against truck owners and so on.

Of course, there are valid reasons for allowing parents to take the personal tax deduction for their dependent children and to charge more for trucks (usually applies only to big trucks, not pick ups) to park than cars, but what is the valid reason for saying a man can marry a woman, a woman can marry a woman, and a man can marry a man, but a man can't marry two women or a woman can't marry two men if all parties agree.

39

ucfengr, boonton likes the template because it justifies gay marriage, which he likes, and disallows polygamy, which he dislikes.

I don't know how boonton really feels about polgamy. Maybe he actually finds it abhorrent enough to outlaw, but I suspect the biggest reason for liberals to oppose polygamy is the fear that trying to change the marriage code too much will jeapordize gay marriage. The odds are Americans ain't too keen to call any and all relationships "marriage."

Trying to get all relationships in will resulting in rejecting all changes.

40

but I suspect the biggest reason for liberals to oppose polygamy is the fear that trying to change the marriage code too much will jeapordize gay marriage. The odds are Americans ain't too keen to call any and all relationships "marriage."

I know, but it is fun to watch them squirm as they attempt to come up with evermore complicated reasoning to allow one but not all the others.

41

Marco: "Straight men, no matter how raging with lust they may be, have the legal protection the gay community now desires. It's calleld marriage."

Every adult currently has the same access to the "legal protection" afforded by marriage. Marriage is limited to one man and one woman currently, and ought to remain so. There are no litmus tests imposed upon potential spouses by the state regarding their sexual proclivities, be they herterosexual but monogamous, heterosexual but desiring many partners, homosexual, bestial or pedophilic. Homosexuals are as free to marry as anyone else.

Although employers may currently legally deny benefits to cohabitants of employees that they extend to spouses and children of employees, and Social Security does not extend survivor benefits to unmarried cohabitants, these are the only "protections" afforded to married folk that are denied to homosexuals or other unmarried, cohabiting people. Want to have your homosexual friend inherit your estate when you die? Leave him in your will. Want him to be able to visit you in the hospital? Fill out an advance directive. Want him to be able to make medical decisions for you if you are incapacitated? Fill out a power of attorney for him. Want to leave benefits for him if you die? Buy an insurance policy and name him beneficiary.

Any of the benefits that accrue to married couples can be duplicated by unmarried cohabitants of any gender combination. The only thing not available is unlimited access to benefit packages companies offer their married employees and to the public purse in the form of Social Security.

If you want to see where peoples' real motivation in all this lies, sadly all you need to do is follow the money.

42

I think cheesehead got it 'bout right, fellers. And this is precisely what is not being debated in the public square.

43

The problem is that the "legal template" (whatever the heck that is) for same-sex marriage is going to be different from the template for traditional marriage. So what you are arguing is that gays have a right to their own legal template, but polygamous folks don't.

Not different in a material sense. Here I'm not talking about what you think marriage is in general I'm only talking about civil marriage law. There same-sex-marriage is no different a change than abolishing the old prohibitions on interracial marriage was.

Pretty thin gruel here, Boonton. You may as well say that being able to deduct medical bills discriminates against the healthy.

Indeed it does which makes it pretty hard to give too literal a reading to the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution. If you insist on taking an absurd reading of equal you basically can't have any laws...hence scrutiny scale. For certain types of discrimination the gov't must meet a high hurdle to justify their laws. For others (like deducting medical bills etc.) the bar is set very low.

See post 31. Regarding your use of specifics, you are making a rather large assumption that business law translates easily to family law or civil rights law, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think it is a valid assumption. For example, hypothetically as a black man, I am perfectly within my rights not to shop at Wal-Mart because it is owned by whites, but Wal-Mart is not allowed to refuse to sell to me because I am black.

In post 31 you asked about restrictions against incestous marriages if the partners are same-sex. Your assumption was that the only reason such marriages are forbidden among hetrosexuals was the 'medical risk'...which I'm sure your saying the risk of birth defects. Then you state that you think the medical risk is actually very slim.

First, if banning incestuous marriages is only based on the risk of birth defects then not only could same-sex couples challenge it but also hetrosexual couples who could show that they have no such risk (either because they are infertile or because they are related by adoption and not blood). So again we are looking at an issue that would exist independent of gay marriage.

Second, I believe that the ban on incestuous marriage is based on more than just a presumed medical risk. I believe it is based on a belief that permitting such marriages would undermine family structures. For example, how would a mother treat a daughter or step-daughter if she knew the girl could end up becomming her rival for the husbands affections? Such 'discrimination' by the state does not revolve around race or gender so there is no need to meet the demands of strict scrutiny.

Third, the issue has nothing to do with the 'template'. Same-sex couples would abide by the same marriage laws as hetrosexuals. I see no confusion in implementing the policy. I've pointed out the massive confusion that would happen if you tried to implement polygamy using the current template. Yes some people may lobby for revising marriage policy on the grounds that some couples will not produce children etc. etc. but such a situtation would also apply to hetrosexual couplies.

CorakerNorge
ucfengr, boonton likes the template because it justifies gay marriage, which he likes, and disallows polygamy, which he dislikes.

You then contradict yourself by writing:
I don't know how boonton really feels about polgamy. Maybe he actually finds it abhorrent enough to outlaw, but I suspect the biggest reason for liberals to oppose polygamy is the fear that trying to change the marriage code too much will jeapordize gay marriage.

I'll help clear up your confusion over whether you know or don't know how I feel about polygamy. Most of what I know about polygamy comes from the HBO series Big Love and a moderate amount of reading I did about the topic back when gay marriage was the issue of the day.

I think that a two person relationship provides a proper balance between complication and risk sharing. Two people together are stronger than two people apart because if something happens to one the other will help out. True with three people you now have even more risk sharing. If something happens to two there's still yet another one who can help pick up the slack. However the downside is complication.

Big Love did a very good job showing how much more complicated such a relationship would be. The complication grows expodentially and the only type of person who could really manage such a life, IMO, would be a hectic overachiever like the fictional lead on the series.

In the series, though, the lead Bill's family is a more realistic display of how polygamy really works among fundamentalist Mormons. For the most part they seem to have stability but the cost they pay for that is a very rigid social structure where gender roles are strongly defined and society is very authoritartian (even for men they gain or loose wives depending upon whether their leader likes them or not). While that is a way of dealing with the issue of complication I don't think it's compatatible with a free & developed society.

so if you want to know what I think about polygamy... I don't abhor it. I wouldn't outlaw it like Utah does. I would let people try it if they are doing so voluntarily but like communist communes I don't think it would work except maybe for a tiny portion of people. Because of this I don't see the justification for creating a new legal template for it.

44

I know, but it is fun to watch them squirm as they attempt to come up with evermore complicated reasoning to allow one but not all the others.

Basically your reasoning is "If you have A then you must have B, and C, D, E all the way to Z!".

while I'll give you credit for noting being complicated that's about all you deserve.

Cheesehead
Want him to be able to visit you in the hospital? Fill out an advance directive. Want him to be able to make medical decisions for you if you are incapacitated? Fill out a power of attorney for him. Want to leave benefits for him if you die? Buy an insurance policy and name him beneficiary.

I guess you could say the same thing about interracial couples a few decades ago. They could just buy insurance policies on each other...fill out powers of attorney etc.

Even here, though, you are just getting a poor simulation. A husband, for example, automatically leaves his property to his spouse when he dies. You cannot write your wife or husband out of your will unless you first divorce. You could probably have a lawyer find a way to draw up a contract that would be at least as iron-clad as a marriage to prevent a 'virtual-spouse' from changing their will on a whim but that would probably take a pretty penny.

45

Basically your reasoning is "If you have A then you must have B, and C, D, E all the way to Z!".

Asked and answered. From post 38:

Of course, there are valid reasons for allowing parents to take the personal tax deduction for their dependent children and to charge more for trucks (usually applies only to big trucks, not pick ups) to park than cars, but what is the valid reason for saying a man can marry a woman, a woman can marry a woman, and a man can marry a man, but a man can't marry two women or a woman can't marry two men if all parties agree.

I think that a two person relationship provides a proper balance between complication and risk sharing.

So really it does come down to your personal preference.

46

Boonton: And how, precisely, does your just mentioned scenario differ from fast, easy, no-fault divorce? If you don't want your "virtual spouse" to be able change his will and disinherit you without your knowledge, insert a clause into the wills when you first draft them making any succeeding wills null and void unless they require notification of the "virtual spouse" of his disinherited status. Really, must we change all of our laws and give costly access to larger segments of the public and employers purses to cohabiting people just to save a few hypothetical cases of someone being disinherited without their prior knowledge?

47

For example, how would a mother treat a daughter or step-daughter if she knew the girl could end up becomming her rival for the husbands affections?

I'm sure Jerry Springer could provide countless examples, but seriously there is already the potential for that now (see Woody Allen). The only difference is that the husband and daughter couldn't formalize their relationship (though the step-daughter and step-father could).

48

Marriage should not be taken lightly. This wife beater http://www.columbiacitypaper.com/wife-beater.html rushed into it and look what happened to him.

49

ucfengr

Of course, there are valid reasons for allowing parents to take the personal tax deduction for their dependent children and to charge more for trucks (usually applies only to big trucks, not pick ups) to park than cars, but what is the valid reason for saying a man can marry a woman, a woman can marry a woman, and a man can marry a man, but a man can't marry two women or a woman can't marry two men if all parties agree.

Because quite simply what the law calls marriage today cannot accomodate more than two people. You might as well ask why people with big trucks are not allowed to fly with them. Should flying trucks be invented we could then discuss what type of laws should apply to them but its foolish to pretend the laws we have today can fit flying trucks as well as normal ones.

I think that a two person relationship provides a proper balance between complication and risk sharing.

So really it does come down to your personal preference.

No I was asked what I felt about polygamy and I answered here. For the record I also feel that an ideal marriage should not have an extreme age difference (like a 20 yr old with a 70 yr old) but that doesn't mean that opinion is sufficient to justify a law to prohibit such marriages.

re: incest marriages
I'm sure Jerry Springer could provide countless examples, but seriously there is already the potential for that now (see Woody Allen). The only difference is that the husband and daughter couldn't formalize their relationship (though the step-daughter and step-father could).

Which demonstrates my point. I wouldn't be so sure about the step-father to step-daughter thing. In some states that may be against the law, especially if the step-father adopted the step-daughter.

Cheesehead
Really, must we change all of our laws and give costly access to larger segments of the public and employers purses to cohabiting people just to save a few hypothetical cases of someone being disinherited without their prior knowledge?

First perhaps you should consider becomming a lawyer. You might be able to use your creativity to draft such customized contracts and wills for various types of polygamists and other non-traditionalists. Perhaps if a movement ever does develop to draft a polygamy template suitable for a modern society they will appoint you to the committee!

Second the ironic thing here is that the 'change' is simply allowing people to use what already exists. It would be polygamy that would require a drastic rethinking of the laws. As for the cost of employee health benefits, that is money that is earned by the employee working. If the employer does not feel the employee is worth the cost of covering spouses/partners then they will cut back. If they are then you are complaining about someone using the money they earn as they see fit. Perhaps you could earn a pretty penny writing up contracts for those people trying to set up communist communes too!!!

50

Because quite simply what the law calls marriage today cannot accomodate more than two people.

Well, what the law calls marriage now can't accomodate
2 people of the same sex, but that hasn't stopped a judge from ordering it changed. There really is no compelling legal reason a law that can be changed to allow same-sex relationships couldn't be changed to allow multiple person marriages or any other

51

Well, what the law calls marriage now can't accomodate 2 people of the same sex, but that hasn't stopped a judge from ordering it changed.

No it can quite easily accomodate it. What you are saying is like saying a 'whites only' fountain in the old South couldn't accomodate blacks. No, it could quite easily accomodate blacks. The restriction was arbitrary. It could not accomodate elephants, however. After dozens of posts you still haven't come up with a specific showing otherwise.

There really is no compelling legal reason a law that can be changed to allow same-sex relationships couldn't be changed to allow multiple person marriages or any other

I didn't say it couldn't be changed, you could build a law to accomodate multi-person marriage just as you could build a water fountain that could accomodate humans and elephants. The question at the start of this was whether the gender requirements of current marriage law were or were not arbitrary AND was the limit of marriage to two people arbitrary? The first is but the second is not.

52

I realize that the slippery slope argument is sometimes valid, but in my experience it is only used when one side (the traditional, pro-status quo side) cannot find any good arguments against an innovation. So instead of attacking the innovation (same-sex marriage) itself, they claim that it will lead to something else that is really horrible (polygamy), which will in turn open the door to something even worse (incest), which will inevitably lead to the downfall of Western civilization.

Back in my days as a minister, one church leader seriously argued against allowing a hymn to be sung during communion because it would inevitably and inexorably lead to belly dancers on the communion table.

I think the burden of proof is on those using the slippery slope (aka camel's nose in the tent or thin end of the wedge) argument to prove their case. Ultimately, I think we must look to the underlying principle(s) at stake. In this case, I believe it is the freedom that competent, consenting adults should have to arrange their private relationships as they see fit. To paraphrase Jefferson, whether my neighbor has 1 wife or 20 wives neither breaks my arm nor steals my wallet. I realize that evangelicals argue that SSM will somehow affect them financially through Social Security or other indirect ways, but these arguments are weak and wither in the face of the principle of liberty (would we deny interracial marriage on the basis that it would affect the Social Security system?).

I wish evangelicals would be honest and state the real reason they oppose SSM. It has nothing to do with Social Security or tradition or polygamy or the collapse of civilization. It has everything to do with their belief that homosexual behavior is sinful.

This brings us to another vital principle at stake: the separation of church and state. Even the Puritans understood this principle on the subject of marriage. They saw marriage as a civil act and forbade ministers from performing such ceremonies. They understood the idea of "two kingdoms" better than modern evangelicals. (BTW, what would the Puritans think of the evangelical success in restoring "Merry Christmas" to Wal-Mart greeters? They outlawed the celebration of Xmas as popish and pagan.) Boonton has drawn a good analogy with the matter of divorce. Though many churches condemn and/or forbid divorce (except under certain circumstances), I don't know of any widespread movement to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing divorce. In terms of social consequences, divorce is a far bigger disruption to the lives of children and welfare of society than SSM.

So, for the sake of honest dialogue, let's focus on the issue at stake, not imagined consequences, and let's be truthful about the reasons behind our positions.

53

Boonton: "First perhaps you should consider becomming a lawyer. You might be able to use your creativity to draft such customized contracts and wills for various types of polygamists and other non-traditionalists."

In your snarky dodge of the real point you have swerved into the truth. All the litigiuousness that accompanies all the various grievence mongers in our society diverts huge amounts of talent and money into lawyering which then leads to additional expenditure of talent and money in attempts to shield individuals and corporations from the tax and liability consequences of all the litigation that happens or that is threatened. Just imagine where this country would be if smart guys like Marco had to go out and earn an honest living! ;)

ex-preacher's jump-the-shark moment: "Back in my days as a minister, one church leader seriously argued against allowing a hymn to be sung during communion because it would inevitably and inexorably lead to belly dancers on the communion table." I guess if I was raised in a church like that I would probably have a crisis of faith and become an angry liberal, too.

Seriously, ex-, neither Joe nor any other Christians are trying to hide the fact that we think that homosexuality is sinful. What we are saying is that like other sins, homosexuality has extremely negative consequences and that granting the imprimatur of state sanction to sinful behavior and equating it to marriage would be corrosive to the social order. And your attempt to present the Puritans as folk who would approve of homosexual "marriage" or least have no objections is risible.

54

Cheesehead,

This nicely illustrates why 'templates' are useful for common things that people do. Imagine how much more money lawyers would make if every couple had to hire one to draw up a customized 'marriage contract'?

As for the moral issues of 'endorsing homosexuality' by having legal provisions for same-sex marriage.... I would point out that it is better for both gays and straights for there to be a social tool that promotes monogamy for gays. Not having any legal provision for marriage makes promiscuity easier for gays. Because committments are not legally binding people only have reason to abide by them when they feel like it. You can pretend that 'no-fault' divorce makes divorce easy but it remains expensive and awkward when compared to the breakup of a non-marriage relationship. Also having legal provision for gays discourages gays trying to marry hetrosexuals to 'fit in'. This is a truely a problem for 'the children' since it is a surefire way to produce children inside an unhappy and unstable marriage.

Laws are not made to teach people what is right nor to endorse their decisions. You go to a pretty poor Church if it is telling you all you have to do to be a moral person is stay out of trouble with the law.

55

I'm curious as to which people here think is worse, a gay man who has sex with numerous men or a gay man who is in a monogamous relationship with a single man. It almost seems some religious conservatives think the former is better than the latter. To me this seems to be premised on the idea that being gay is just a lifesyle choice that can be switched with just a bit of self-control. Hence random sexual encounters are better because they don't lead to difficulties giving up 'the life'.

To put it another way, I would imagine the Catholic Church would rather have a candidate for priesthood have had some hetrosexual activity consisting of one night stands or prostitutes than a long term relationship with a woman. Why? Because the long term relationship is more complicated to give up while a string of incidents can be dismissed as sewing one's oats or youthful folly.

56

Boonton: "I would point out that it is better for both gays and straights for there to be a social tool that promotes monogamy for gays." Except that in the real world this is not what happens. Canada legalized homosexual "marriage" about three years ago, and only a few thousand homosexual couples flocked to their local court houses to get "married." Either there are a lot fewer homosexuals out there than they want us to believe, or for the most part they are not interested in getting married, just in changing the definition of marriage.

"I'm curious as to which people here think is worse, a gay man who has sex with numerous men or a gay man who is in a monogamous relationship with a single man." They are both sinful.

57

Follow up question for Boonton: do you really think that a significant percentage of folks who define their identity by homosexual preference are really interested in lifelong, mutually monogamous relationships and that the only thing holding them back from this is that they cannot obtain state sanction for these relationships? If so, I have some Florida real estate I would like to sell to you, and I'll let go cheap because we are such good friends. ;)

58

I doubt that, especially since a minority of hetrosexuals define themselves that way. The existence of marriage, though, probably does decrease promiscuity although it doesn't eliminate it. I think men probably will always be more active than women so hetrosexual couples will probably be in the middle with male-male couples more and female-female less.

Note that interracial marriages are still relatively rare, so what?

"I'm curious as to which people here think is worse, a gay man who has sex with numerous men or a gay man who is in a monogamous relationship with a single man." They are both sinful.

I didn't ask if they were or weren't sinful, I asked which was worse. I'm skeptical that you really consider them both so exactly equal in worseness that you can't say one is worse than the other.

59

"Except that in the real world this is not what happens. Canada legalized homosexual "marriage" about three years ago, and only a few thousand homosexual couples flocked to their local court houses to get "married." Either there are a lot fewer homosexuals out there than they want us to believe, or for the most part they are not interested in getting married, just in changing the definition of marriage."

I would be very interested to know on what hard data you are relying to make this assessement...seems like an uninformed opinion to me...care to prove me wrong?

60

As it turns out Canada's government (http://www.statcan.ca/) does not publish statistics on numbers of homosexual "marriages" performed, at least not that I could discern. I read a Canadian Post article a few months after the enabling legislation passed which said, as I recall, about 3,000 homosexual unions had been performed. So Lud, why don't you produce the statistics to prove my assertion wrong. Or perhaps your doubt of my assertion is the thing that is uninformed here.

61

Boonton: "I didn't ask if they were or weren't sinful, I asked which was worse." I guess before we started arguing about which is worse or which is better we would have to see some evidence that the one choice (two mutually monogamous homosexual men in a lifelong relationship) actually exists. As it stands this would be like debating which is worse: malaria or a disease which causes you to break out in purple and green spots and causes you to grow a second head. The logical fallacy here is called hypothesis contrary to fact.

62

So basicaly all you re basing this on is an article from the canadian post written a few months after gay marriages became legal in canada that said that allready 3000 gay marriages had been performed by then and from that you are concluding that MOST (meaning the majority of) gays and lesbians are only interested in changing the definition of an institution in which you say dont dont want to partake anyway...is that the jist of it or is there more...?

63

From cnn.com on December 8, 2006:

"More than 12,000 marriage licenses have been issued to gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to Canadians for Equal Marriage, a group that supports same-sex marriage."

64

I guess before we started arguing about which is worse or which is better we would have to see some evidence that the one choice (two mutually monogamous homosexual men in a lifelong relationship) actually exists.

So you're saying out of the millions of gay people in the world they are all have an equal number of partners? Exactly? Both gay men and gay women?

65

And be aware that now the idea of a civil union (not married marriage) is now being offered to heterosexuals in California (or at least the bill has been presented to the State Assembly). This would remove God from marriage, and further blur the line between right and wrong.

66

"And be aware that now the idea of a civil union (not married marriage) is now being offered to heterosexuals in California (or at least the bill has been presented to the State Assembly). This would remove God from marriage, and further blur the line between right and wrong."

Now thats a fine exemple of twisted troll logic if ever there was one.

67

ex-preacher: "More than 12,000 marriage licenses have been issued to gay and lesbian couples in Canada, according to Canadians for Equal Marriage, a group that supports same-sex marriage."

OK, so using numbers from an advocacy group that probably are inflated, of the 600,000 marriages performed in Canada since homosexuals were first allowed to participate in 2003, 12,000 have been to homosexuals. Let's see, that's 2% of weddings performed during the first rush of legalization when presumably a backlog of pent-up demand for weddings among homosexuals was being satisfied. No word in your factoid about how many of those marriages were performed for non-Canadians, further diluting the pool of homosexual Canadians getting married. According to the BBC hundreds of those couples came from the US and Israel. So either there just aren't as many homosexuals in the population as they want us to believe, or they just aren't that interested in settling down and making their liasons legal.

Boonton: "So you're saying out of the millions of gay people in the world they are all have an equal number of partners? Exactly? Both gay men and gay women?" Huh?!? Get back to me on that one when you can pull together a coherent sentence.

Lud: "Now thats a fine exemple of twisted troll logic if ever there was one." Speaking of trolls...

68

I don't see the connection between the number of couples who get married and the justice of same-sex marriage. If it's right to legalize same sex marriage, then it's the right thing to do regardless of the number of couples who get married. Would you say that interracial marriage should be abolished based on the low numbers of interracial couples who get married?

69

ex-preacher: You earn quite a few points for correctly reasoning through the sequence that if A is the just thing to do, but it is sparsely utilitzed, that does not negate the injustice of then denying A.

However you lose half of those points by assuming rather than demonstrating that providing state sanction to homosexual liasons is the just thing to do.

You lose the rest of those points plus a few for obtuseness in missing the point of the argument. Namely, that for the most part homosexuals are simply not that interested in attempting to make permanent any one particular pairing in which they may find themselves. And this is especially the case with male homosexuals. First you come up with statistics from a dubious source claiming a whopping number of homosexual "marriages" in Canada. Then when those claimed numbers are shown to be quite small in contrast to the total number of marriages performed in Canada, you retreat to shrieking about the injustice of basing decisions about what ought to be legal on how much it occurs when legal (an argument that absolutely NO ONE is making). Aside from sloppy thinking, this is also an example of moving the goal posts.

70

I never claimed there was a huge group of homosexuals who had married in Canada. All I did was provide a quote that I had read recently at cnn.com.

I have not moved the goalposts. Go back and you'll see that I have consistently said this is about two principles:

1. (from post #18) "For me, the principle is that consenting, competent adults should be able to marry whomever they please. That opens the door to both same-sex marriage and polygamy. I can live with that."

2. (from post #52) "This brings us to another vital principle at stake: the separation of church and state"

You seem to think that a valid argument against allowing any homosexuals to marry is that many homosexuals don't want to get married. Many heterosexuals don't want to get married either. So what? How many homosexual couples wanting to get married would it take for you think it's worth allowing them to do so? For me, the answer is one.

71

Another example of fuzzy thinking is equating homosexual unions with interracial marriage. Those of you who keep bringing up "interracial marriage" would be well advised to define "interracial." Sure, you may point to a Swede marrying a Zulu, but what happens when you begin moving the points of origin closer together? Is a Dane marrying a German "interracial"? What about a Norwegian and an Italian? An Englishman and an Iranian?

The concept of "interracial marriage" is truly an artificial construct, because there is only one race on the face of this planet: human. We are all descendents of the same two original parents, and as Christians we assert that there is not and never shall be a subset of the human race which will evolve beyond the rest of us and cease to be able to breed with the race from which it evolved.

OTOH, there is a clear and distinct division between what we commonly refer to as "men" and "women." Perverse use of medical technology can efface the outward signs of maleness or femaleness, but that does not change the fact each individual is either fully male or fully female, and this is genetically immutable.

The attempt to smear opponents of state sanction of homosexual unions by with association with opposition to "interracial marriage" founders on the facts surrounding each scenario. The concept of race is at its core an evolutionary materialistic dogma, not a Christian one.

72

ex: "I never claimed there was a huge group of homosexuals who had married in Canada. All I did was provide a quote that I had read recently at cnn.com."

And I never claimed that the number of homosexuals wishing to avail themselves of state sanction for their liasons impinged upon whether or not our marriage laws should be changed. All I did was observe that in actual practice the homosexual lifestyle does not result in many of its adherents desire to make their pairings permanent through legal sanction.

73

Let's see, that's 2% of weddings performed during the first rush of legalization when presumably a backlog of pent-up demand for weddings among homosexuals was being satisfied.

Let's see...if we use the old Kinsley stat of 10% of the population being gay (which has long since been ditched by all but the most vocal advocacy groups) that would be 20% of the gay population using marriage. A more conservative figure of 5% would make that 40%. If you believe only 1-2% of the population is gay then you have a whopping 50% or more marriage rate.

Again this reduces to a big so what. Decades after interracial marriage bans were dropped most people still marry within their race. That says nothing in defense of the original bans.

From a public policy perspective gay marriage might significant reduce problems of promiscuity if many take advantage of it...or it may do nothing if people don't. We have upside and no downside.

Namely, that for the most part homosexuals are simply not that interested in attempting to make permanent any one particular pairing in which they may find themselves. And this is especially the case with male homosexuals.

Actually I believe it's just the opposite for female homosexuals. Don't they often end up in more stable relationships than even hetrosexual couples? It's interesting how female homosexuals are often totally dropped from this debate...they do actually exist, though, in realms other than internet porn.

Another example of fuzzy thinking is equating homosexual unions with interracial marriage. Those of you who keep bringing up "interracial mar