Late last year, months after the landmark Texas decision striking down anti-sodomy
laws, two Utah polygamists filed suit, asking that their relationships with
multiple wives be validated by the government.
Late last year, months after the landmark Texas decision striking down anti-sodomy
laws, two Utah polygamists filed suit, asking that their relationships with
multiple wives be validated by the government.
Laws against polygamy are unconstitutional, they said.
“Everyone should be free unless there’s a compelling state interest
that you shouldn’t be,” lawyer John Bucher argued in presenting the
suit.
“The state is not able to show that there’s such an evil to polygamy
that it should be prohibited.”
As the nation continues to debate same-sex “marriage,” some have
begun examining the logical extension of its legalization. If the legal benefits
of marriage are awarded to homosexual men, then why should they not also be
given to others – like polygamists?
“There isn’t a single argument in favor of same-sex marriage that
isn’t also an argument in favor of polygamy – people have a right
to marry who they love; these relationships already exist; … we have no right
to deny the children of their protections,” noted columnist Maggie Gallagher,
an outspoken supporter of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only
between a man and a woman.
Jennifer Marshall agreed.
Indeed, there is no logical stopping point if same-sex marriage is legalized,
said Marshall, director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation.
“This is the dissolution of the parameters around marriage,” she
warned. “You’d be hard-pressed to say, ‘Why not any other kind
of arrangement?’”
Conservatives and traditionalists say the debate insists the same-sex marriage
debate is the result of marriage being separated from its religious roots and
from procreation. If marriage is not tied to childbearing, traditionalists warn
it literally could mean anything.
There is reason for their concern.
In its landmark ruling on same-sex marriage last year, the Massachusetts high
court ruled that marriage’s purpose is not procreation but represents the
commitment of two people to one another for life.
That argument troubles Gallagher, who explained that government benefits are
awarded to married couples because they, in turn, benefit society by raising
the next generation of adults.
“If marriage is only about private love, why is the government involved?”
she asked rhetorically. “Why does the government care? Why is the (government)
involved if you have this view of marriage that’s just kind of a private,
emotional lover’s vow? But for some reason, you record it in law, and it
changes your tax status.”
Indeed, Sociologist Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family said one reason the
same-sex marriage issue has made advances is because marriage itself is viewed
by some simply as a means of receiving legal benefits.
“If we have to honor the relationship that two guys have, then, we have
to honor the relationship that a guy and his three wives have,” Stanton
said referring that view to the question of polygamy. “We have to honor
the relationship that two heterosexual single moms have.
“If we are going to offer health benefits and government benefits to other
configurations, why keep anybody from joining together and saying, ‘Our
relationship is significant, too,’ regardless of what that relationship
is?”
Gallagher agreed, saying there is “no logical reason” for not awarding
government benefits to polygamists if they are given to same-sex couples.
The irony of the current debate is that polygamy is rooted far deeper in human
history – and is accepted in far more cultures today – than is same-sex
marriage.
Polygamy once dominated the Mormon church, and Utah was not given statehood
until it outlawed the practice. The church officially disavows it now, although
estimates say that up to 100,000 people in the West still practice it.
Worldwide, polygamy is legal in some countries. Indeed, the United Nations
allows employees to divide their benefits among multiple wives, as long as they
come from a country where polygamy is practiced.
Seeing the logical extension from same-sex “marriage,” some in America
have begun to argue for the legalization of polygamy, too. Anthropologist Robert
Myers wrote in a USA Today editorial on March 14 that the United States simply
has a “narrow view” of marriage.
“(W)e will allow marriage to any number of partners, as long as it is
to only one at a time,” he wrote.
Gallagher herself said she believes that polygamy is less of a departure from
traditional marriage than is same-sex marriage. After all, it does involve procreation,
she said.
Of course, Gallagher and other traditionalists are not arguing for polygamy’s
legalization. They simply are seeking to show the logical inconsistency of same-sex
marriage.
Meanwhile, Christians say Scripture has an answer for both polygamy and same-sex
marriage. They cite Matthew 19, in which refers to an Old Testament law that
speaks of man leaving his mother and father and clinging to his wife and becoming
one flesh with her.
That limits marriage to a man and a woman, they say.
It also places the onus on same-sex marriage supporters to explain why marriage
should not include polygamy and other forms of relationships, Marshall insisted.
“It seems to me that those who are trying to argue for the redefinition
of marriage should have to answer the question, ‘What is the logical stopping
point after this?’” she said. “It seems to me that that question
should be turned around, and the ones who are answering it should be the ones
who are proposing the redefinition of marriage.” (BP)