On June 26, 2015, SCOTUS decreed that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right and people have been warning that polygamy would soon follow. Of course, the “marriage equality” are saying that is just nonsense that polygamy is not going to happen and these are their reasons why.
1. The battle for same-sex marriage was won, both in courts of law and in the court of public opinion, by framing the goal as “marriage equality”—that same-sex couples should have access to the same rights and privileges as their heterosexual counterparts
Oh because enough people in the public wanted it, it happened. Well, as long as you are so fond of ripping off my history there was no public outcry for interracial marriage. Mrs. Loving did time in jail for marrying her husband. Yeah, we had the Civil Rights movement by the time the 1967 decision came down but that was more about economic and political freedom. When King died he was on his way to deal with a strike concerning garbage men, not the right to marry a White person. Malcolm X well for most of his civil rights career he thought Whites were devils so he definitely wasn’t advocating interracial marriage. Yet despite not having great public support SCOTUS voted in favor of the Lovings. So that argument doesn’t really hold water. Good try though.
So if that is the case, then polygamy could be legalized without overwhelming public support. Especially since the Church can say it is their religious right found in sacred text all over the world and same-sex marriage can’t.
By contrast, the entire existing structure of modern marriage is designed for a dyad. DeBoer argues that there were similar practical objections to same-sex marriage—for instance, having to discard marriage license forms with the words “husband” and “wife” and replacing them with ones that list “Spouse 1” and “Spouse 2.” But this onerous task hardly compares to the massive overhaul multi-partner marriage would require: including revising the rules on post-divorce property division or survivor benefits for three, five, or 10 people instead of two; adjusting child custody arrangement for multiple legal parents; and determining who has the legal authority to make decisions for an incapacitated spouse.
So what? So it gets more complicated why is that a concern of mine? It doesn’t affect your marriage does it? The point is the dyad she speaks of is based on the binary nature of marriage which includes 2 people-a male and a female. The number two by itself has no significance. David had 8 wives. He gained his first wife after defeating Goliath. And those were just his wives we are not counting the hundreds of concubines. Now I am sure keeping track of all those women and their offspring, not exactly a cakewalk but hey we can do it! And by allowing gay adoption, surrogacy and invitro fertilization we have already opened the door to multiple legal parents. Even in heterosexual couples we already deal with that. If I marry my cardiologist, who has three children, I become their legal stepmother. Now they still have a birth mother as well and if she marries another man, he becomes their legal stepfather. So now we have multiple parents with legal custody. The courts already have to figure this out, so that is another invalid argument.
Let’s look at my family. My mother was married to my sister’s father, had her and got divorced. She met my father and they had my brother, they then adopted my other brother after a two-year battle, finally they adopted me. So technically you have 7 parents involved in creating a family of four. Birth certificates had to be changed, court cases had to be fought, there was a lot of legal paperwork in creating this family, but the court dealt with it and if polygamy is passed they will just have to learn to deal with it. How they deal with it is not my concern. It wasn’t yours when we had to change all our marriage licenses for you.
3. It’s not just that sorting this out is difficult. The bottom line is that as a practical matter, it’s simply impossible for plural partners to have the same rights and benefits currently enjoyed by two spouses, gay or straight. It’s likely that every group marriage would essentially have to be customized.
Okay, so it is going to have to be customized anyway because the minute you bring children into the marriage, you will have to define if the surrogate mother is going to have any rights to the child, if the couple is gay. Or if you a lesbian couple, you will have to figure out how the sperm donor will factor in. Will it be someone you know or will you use a sperm bank? If it someone you know will he be the father legally? What if you have multiple kids by multiple donors, how will that work? Every gay marriage is going to be customized. It cannot be standardized like a heterosexual union because when you involve kids you HAVE to involve a third party, it is not optional. Whereas, children from a heterosexual are automatically thought to be created from that union alone. So if we are customizing it for a gay couple, why can’t we customize it for those practicing polygamy?
And who says it is impossible for plural partners to have the same rights and benefits-you? This is nothing but contract law. For instance, if I want to bequeath my entire estate to my cat, I can. Or if I want to split it between my son and my three hot, young lovers, I can do that too. So let’s say I am married to my three hot lovers, if I want to make one the primary beneficiary and the other two alternate beneficiaries in case something happens to hot stud #1, I can do that. All that is needed for any contract to be valid is a meeting the minds, an offer, acceptance, and consideration. As long as those four things are met I can make a contract for almost anything. So as long as it is not illegal and the person is of age, I am good to go.
Lastly, if this is convoluted it is because the government is involved with marriage. If the government had it remain a religious institution, you wouldn’t have to worry about this.
4. There is another difference. Attempts to stop same-sex marriage floundered partly because no one could show how male/female unions would be harmed or even affected by same-sex ones. Legalizing multiple spouses, on the other hand, would immediately affect every couple by opening a potential door to new partners in the marriage. Yes, this would presumably require everyone’s consent, but at the very least, those who want monogamy would have to explicitly stipulate this, and even then a monogamy clause could probably be renegotiated later.
So what business is it of yours? What do you honestly think everyone who gets married from this point on is going to all of a sudden want to practice polygamy? That it is insane. You are not just bringing in a new sex toy, you are saying I am going to take care of both of you until death do us part! How many men do you think are going to want to do that? Why do you think hey have mistresses instead of multiple wives? And a lot of things are re-negotiated later, even prenups. So what does it matter to you if down the line, a couple decides to bring in another spouse, how does that affect your marriage? If you guys are happy with monogamy, good for you, why are you bringing your morality into it? It has nothing to do with your marriage and therefore won’t harm it.
How about gay marriage, doesn’t that open up the opportunity for my spouse to leave me for a man and marry him instead? Heck, Netflix has a whole series about that very scenario. Of course, it does, so maybe we shouldn’t have gay marriage since it will encourage abandonment of heterosexual spouses. The idea that every man (or woman) is just going to want to take on the financial and legal obligations of another spouse once polygamy is instituted is sheer lunacy.
5. Some have also suggested that polygamous marriage should have a greater claim to legitimacy than same-sex marriage since it is far more rooted in history. But that argument misses a key factor in the cultural shift on same-sex marriage: gender equality as a central value of modern society. Historical polygamy is strongly linked to male dominance and female subjection—while monogamy arguably formed the basis of the transition from patriarchal authority to companionate partnership that eventually paved the way for same-sex unions.
What? I don’t even know how to address this because it is utter garbage. This is nothing more than saying, it is okay for us but not for you!
And finally, this gem:
6. In a free society, the private sexual choices of adults should not be criminalized. But they are not automatically entitled to cultural approval or societal support systems.
Hold up wasn’t that our very argument about gay marriage? Now you are going to try to use it against polygamists. It doesn’t fly. Again that is nothing more than discrimination against a group they do not approve of.
And now for the kicker: http://www.krtv.com/story/29450937/montana-polygamist-family-applies-for-marriage-license