Gay Marriage.....to polygamy?

My friend and blog partner, Elmer's Brother, sent me the article below, from The Economist, and attached this comment ........"And so it begins. Gay marriages are becoming legal and now the arguments for other non traditional families. And the advocates of gay marriage said this would never happen." (and others said it might)

Please read the article and tell us if you agree........thanks.

Marriage and liberty

Why pick on polygamists?

Jul 22nd 2011, 20:41 by W.W. | IOWA CITY

 

JONATHAN TURLEY, a law professor at George Washington University, is representing the family featured on the reality show "Sister Wives" in their legal challenge to Utah's law against polygamy. It's a big, unusual family. Kody Brown is "married" to four women and father to 16 children. "One of the marriages is legal", Mr Turley writes, "and the others are what the family calls 'spiritual.' They are not asking for the state to recognise their marriages. They are simply asking for the state to leave them alone." Mr Turley goes on to make what I find to be a persuasive case.
The Browns have been subject to a criminal investigation for more than a year, but are not accused of child abuse or any crime other than having a particular kind of unusual family. Mr Turley notes that other families with similarly unusual structures are not picked out for persecution by the law. "It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners", Mr Turley observes. "But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and 'cohabits' with those partners, it is considered a crime." This certainly seems arbitrary. Indeed, the law positively encourages de facto polygamous families to organise into multiple households lacking the cohesion and economies of our culture's idealised single-household family.
Imagine the family of a twice-divorced, thrice-married woman with one child from each union. Let's say she's a stay-at-home mom who has custody of all the kids, and gets child-support payments from her first two husbands. So, children with three different fathers live together in a single household, supported by a portion of three different mens' income. How is this not de facto polyandry? How significant is it, really, that her first two husbands don't happen to live with their kids and her third husband? Suppose they move in. What then? Is it okay as long as they pay rent? As long as they no longer love the mother of their children, or vice versa? I say it's okay as long as everyone involved says it's okay.
Mr Turley wonders why civil libertarians haven't been more vocal in support of the right of polygamists to be left alone:

The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

But isn't polygamy, as it actually exists, a backward practice hostile to the interests of women? What about fundamentalist Mormon compounds in which children are raised in isolation, indoctrinated/brainwashed, teenage girls are married off to their uncles and impregnated, while surplus boys are ejected without the tools to cope with the outside world. Mr Turley replies:

Of course, the government should prosecute abuse wherever it is found. But there is nothing uniquely abusive about consenting polygamous relationships. It is no more fair to prosecute the Browns because of abuse in other polygamous families than it would be to hold a conventional family liable for the hundreds of thousands of domestic violence cases each year in monogamous families.

I think this is the right way to think about it. I would add that conventional monogamous marriage was in fact an abusive, exploitative, patriarchal arrangement until very recently. In 1993, North Carolina was the last state to recognise spousal rape as a crime. (end of article)

(the author of this piece is not named by The Economist.  I can't blame them)

Our Australian blogger friend MK once wrote this comment at another blog and I thought there was a lot to it and so I print it here::
On the subject of gay marriage, from my personal view, the argument against it is the slippery slope one. If you allow two women to marry because they love each other, well you have to then allow 3 women to marry or four men, a brother and sister for example.

Marriage to me is a key component to the success of western civilization, we should not fiddle with it for the sake of satisfying a small minority of people. I know gay marriage alone has not led to the downwards slide of the west, but the overall undermining of marriage, morality and commitment most certainly has made its contribution.
z

How to Destroy a Society...but Jeane Kirkpatrick; Quite an eye opener

The following is from an amazing speech by Jeane Kirkpatrick.   The rest of the excellent speech deals mostly with El Salvador and Russia, and is brilliantly thought out but more 'local' to that era and so I recommend it but haven't quoted more of the speech for that reason.  The very obvious reason I publish the words below is because I don't know that anyone's said better what Leftists around the world are doing and why.  I hope you'll read it and let me know what you think.

To destroy a society it is first necessary to delegitimize its basic institutions so as to detach the identifications and affections of its citizens from the institutions and authorities of the society marked for destruction. This delegitimization may be achieved by attacking a society's practices in terms of its own deeply held values, or it may be achieved by attacking the values themselves. The latter course was undertaken by the fascists and Nazi movements which rejected outright the basic values of Western liberal democratic civilization. They rejected democracy, liberty, equality, and forthrightly, frankly, embraced principles of leadership, obedience and hierarchy as alternatives to the hated basic values of democracy. Unlike the fascists, Marxists, of course, do not attack our basic values forthrightly. Instead, they denounce our societies in terms of our own values. They do not postulate alternative values; they postulate a radical critique of our societies and institutions by expropriating our language, our values. Thus democracies are attacked as not truly democratic, because they cannot guarantee economic equality. The argument follows that this makes political equality impossible and in the absence of political equality, it has been asserted that there cannot be free elections or freedom of any sort. Or the absence of perfect political equality in an electoral system means that the elections are a fraud. Their point is that a regime whose practices systematically betray their basic values is obviously a failed regime. If our practices betray our own deepest values then we fail; we are a failed regime. If we pretend to hallow values which our practices do not perfectly achieve, then we are guilty of falsification. So we are both a failure and a fraud. Obviously, such a regime does not deserve the loyalty or affection of either its citizens or its friends. Thus, if the United States is a fraudulent, falsifying society which exploits its workers and subjugates all in a facade of democracy, then it is obviously not worthy of respect.

Z:  Our country is under assault by Leftists who have the absurd opinion that perfection is attainable and who feel America is not at all worth of respect.    I wish the paragraphs above could be read and discussed in every high school in America today.

z