Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Uh Oh

Somewhere a conservative is reading this and lamenting what "moral relatavism" and the "slippery slope" of gay marriage has done to America:

Valerie and others among the estimated 40,000 men, women and children in polygamous communities are part of a new movement to decriminalize bigamy. Consciously taking tactics from the gay-rights movement, polygamists have reframed their struggle, choosing in interviews to de-emphasize their religious beliefs and focus on their desire to live "in freedom," according to Anne Wilde, director of community relations for Principle Voices, a pro-polygamy group based in Salt Lake.

In recent months, polygamy activists have held rallies, appeared on nationally televised news shows and lobbied legislators. Before the Nov. 7 elections, one pro-polygamy group issued a six-page analysis of all Utah's state and local candidates and their views on polygamy. "We can make a difference," the group told supporters.


However, the issue of polygamy is alot more complicated that the issue of gay marriage (if you can believe it.) I recommend reading the whole article.

Update: That didn't take long.

6 comments:

erinannie said...

I agree that polygamy is far more complicated than gay marriage. My feelings on gay marriage aside, (not that you know them), the drive to outlaw polygamy is just one more argument for why the States need to define what constitutes a marriage. "One man, one woman."

Xanthippas said...

In fact, polygamy is illegal in every state I believe. So presently there is hardly any need to modify a state constitution to ensure that it remains outlawed. Though of course such amendments may be passed as bulwark against legalization, the fact is that bans on gay marriage and perhaps someday on polygamy-if they are struck down at all-will be struck down on 14th Amendment due process grounds, and state amendments would be irrelevant.

Dew said...

Arguably, if polygamy (which I choose to define as voluntary marriage between persons over the age of 18) were legal, states and the Federal government would save millions of dollars a year on food stamps, WIC, and welfare. Since the fact that thousands of women are classified as unwed single mothers (when in fact they're living in a compound with plenty of able-bodied people working for a living) means they're given various forms of public assistance that should go elsewhere (like, to people who really don't have any other resources), I say let 'em marry whomever they CHOOSE, and that applies equally to all pairs or groups of consenting ADULTS. No more child brides; no more fundamentalist-sanctioned rape.

Nat-Wu said...

I hardly see why it's any of the government's business whatever consenting adults might want to do. As long as they don't require the employer to support benefits for three wives or whatever...

Xanthippas said...

That's the moral relativism talking Nat-Wu!

Nat-Wu said...

Yes, it's morally relative to assert equal freedom for all equally no matter how that goes against what some guy wrote a few hundred years ago in a book supposed to be the word of god.