William A. Jacobson:
Not that there’s anything wrong with it (?).
Long ago, and far away, we predicted that once the legal standard for equal protection of the law as to marriage became ”love” and consenting adults, without regard to gender, there would be no rational basis upon which to limit the number to two:
- The Gay Marriage Slippery Slope Is Back
- On what rational basis does NY State now deny polyamorous clusters the right to marry?
- Polyamory – at least be honest about it
That is the argument put forth by Prof. Martha Nussbaum, “Polygamy would have to be permitted”:
Now, via BuzzFeed, Polygamists are emboldened to speak of their love and demand legal rights in the wake of the Supreme Court’s DOMA decision, Polygamists Celebrate Supreme Court’s Marriage Rulings:
The Supreme Court’s rulings in favor of same-sex marriage Wednesday were greeted with excitement by polygamists across the country, who viewed the gay rights victory as a crucial step toward the country’s inevitable acceptance of plural marriage.
Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.
“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”
“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.”
Noting that the court found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because the law denied marriage rights to a specific class of people, Darger said, “Our very existence has been classified as criminal… and I think the government needs to now recognize that we have a right to live free as much as anyone else.” …
But polygamists in the United States, where bigamy is a crime, have taken cues from the marriage equality movement, and the few public champions of the lifestyle have deliberately positioned themselves as libertarian-minded gay rights advocates as well. Following gay rights activists’ lead, polygamist families — like the Browns, with their TLC reality show Sister Wives, and the Dargers, who came out with a book last year — have come forward to convince the American public that their lifestyle can be wholesome and normal.
The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.
Matt Lewis notes:
After all, why shouldn’t marriage equality apply to them, too?
The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.” Polygamists couldn’t agree more.
USA Today notes, Polygamists find promise in Supreme Court decisions, that the polygamist movement still does not have the political power to effect legal change:
If polygamy becomes legal Utah’s biggest welfare fraud will be ended.
As it is now, only a man’s 1st living wife is his legal spouse.
All of their children are HIS responsibility.
BUT each of his other wives can register for housing, SNAP (food stamps) welfare and medical as well as more because HER children are considered to be fatherless.
Her situation is accessed based only on her income which is nil.
Some of the LDS polygamists (mostly in the south of the state) suck the system pretty heavily.
It is considered that polygamist extra wives and children get over 35% of every welfare dollar in this state.
@Nan G: Nan, while I have never been for polygamy, I now think it’s fair for all of them to be legally married. If there are no longer any rules about who or what can be married to who or what, then why is/should there be a limit to how many? The definition of a marriage is apparently not in the constitution and the Supreme court has already ruled that the Federal government has no jurisdiction and also the the persons living in a state (Ca) have no say in what’s legal, so who/what is there to prevent polygamy. Apparently if 6 people choose that as their lifestyle, why is it up to any government to say no?
@Redteam:
I agree with you, Redteam.
The supporters of the recent ruling are claiming all that should be required is LOVE and the participants being consenting.
So, it opens the door wide for polygamy.
Today was the annual leave the Mormon Church day.
Hundreds took to the media to explain why they left this year.
Mostly it was lack of doctrinal policy toward accepting gays.
Ironically, just the other day the LDS sent groups to march in solidarity when gays were permitted to be boy scouts.
So, official policy and real-life practice seem to be at odds.
@Nan G:
It opens the door for more than polygamy, Nan.
Example: a woman has an estate that, if left to her son, he would be required to pay the “death” tax on. But if they are both consenting adults, what is to prevent them from “marrying” and paving the way for the son to avoid the inheritance tax when she dies since he would be the surviving spouse? Nothing. You see, if the woman is beyond her child bearing years, then there is no possibility of harm to a child that would be born of such an incestuous relationship. Or why could not brother marry brother, sister marry sister, etc.? The possibilities are endless.
It also becomes a way to put an unlimited amount of people in line for corporate benefits, oops! I forgot, Obama Care is soon to replace all the medical plans. Well union members will soon be marrying everyone but the family dog, well on second thought?
@retire05 & Skookum:
It sounds like you are both arguing against allowing more people to marry simply because doing so will effectively eliminate the preferential financial benefits received by what is now a minority of the population: heterosexual married couples. Retire05: The “death tax” is enormously unpopular, particularly among Republicans. Surely you don’t mean to make it a central justification of restricting other social institutions (marriage)? Similarly, Skookum: Wouldn’t you better argue for elimination of those corporate benefits all together, rather than get bogged down litigating the endless contenders? Seems to me the Republican approach is characterized by removing benefits, safety nets, special treatment and the like, not crying over sharing the spoils of being a member of an exclusive and preferred minority.