Stepping Up

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And so it begins:

Kody Brown is a proud polygamist, and a relatively famous one. Now Mr. Brown, his four wives and 16 children and stepchildren are going to court to keep from being punished for it.

The family is the focus of a reality TV show, “Sister Wives,” that first appeared in 2010. Law enforcement officials in the Browns’ home state, Utah, announced soon after the show began that the family was under investigation for violating the state law prohibiting polygamy.

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law.

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults.

I'm in favor of gay marriage for the same reason I'm in favor of legal polygamy, legalized adult incest, and all the rest - the state really shouldn't be telling anyone else who they can and cannot be in a recognized relationship with, full stop. Unfortunately, I've found that many who agree with gay marriage do not feel the same way about these other types of adult relationships.

Why is it that "equal marriage" only exists for many when it deals with their idea of reality? Should hardcore advocates of gay marriage be lining up behind the Brown family in solidarity and support of their situation? If you believe the US Constitution allows for, if not outright mandates, gay marriage, do you feel the same way here?

Comments

[hikarugenji.livejournal.com]

My feeling on marriage is that the default assumption should be that a marriage is legal, and it should be the government's responsibility to show a compelling interest to prevent it. So for instance, it's not too hard for the government to show a compelling interest to prevent a man from marrying an 8-year old girl.

I know there are people who have claimed that polygamy is harmful to the women involved (and these claims have come from non-fundamentalist Christian sources). But whether you could really show a compelling interest in preventing them I don't know. I've known two people in polygamous relationships and they seemed happy.

[new-wave-witch.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, I've found that many who agree with gay marriage do not feel the same way about these other types of adult relationships.

"Many," really? I have to wonder who you're talking to, because I can't recall ever knowing someone who supports same-sex marriage to have an either/or opinion on marriage laws like that.

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Because those other types of marriage have more of a taboo than gay marriage does. People just don't think about those things unless there's some controversy that forces them to. The reason more and more people are becoming more accepting of gay marriage is because it's been all over the news and they've been forced to talk about it and reevaluate their stance.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

I've known gay marriage proponents to think that these types of marriage movements would hurt the gay marriage movement, though. But then they're just placing their own preferences for marriage above those of the polygamists, et al.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Gay marriage corrects a fundamental inequality in civil rights. Polygyny (because you know no Mormon woman will ever request to marry 5 men) is a violation of civil rights. The only means I'd support it is if like the Muslims we approve this only if the man can provide equally for all of his wives in all matters. Particularly in financial, conjugal, and child-support ones. If they can do that and want the fuss, then they can be as much a child of Father Abraham as they want to be. The really hilarious part is that polygamists have a better case for this religiously than anyone else.....

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Not really. If anything it would produce theological debates for those fanatics that would be supremely embarrassing. If King David, a man after God's own heart had 16 wives why can't people today? God evidently didn't see an issue with it.....

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

For ages, I've been looking for a way to marry Doris. At long last!

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It's not just Mormons. I personally know a foursome (two male, two female) that is not religious at all and are all quite happy together. And no, it's not two couples. Why do we care if the man can provide for his wives? If they want to live like that, the state has no right to say otherwise. The only issue is contractual obligations to children in case of dissolution.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The really interesting bit will be what happens when the Religious Right starts debating about why God rewarded Abraham with 2 wives, Jacob with 4, David with 16, Solomon with 700 but people today have to follow the words of a former sex addict on why sex was evil and icky (not just gay sex, sex period). I really want the Fundies to explain that one. It's high time we had a debate on the Biblical meaning of marriage.....XP

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The law does. At least when we define law as protecting the weak from the avarice of the strong. But if God hates gays, to judge by the Old Testament he has no problem with polygamy.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I've found that many who agree with gay marriage do not feel the same way about these other types of adult relationships.

Who?

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you should look down a few comments.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

I actually am not agreeing with your statement that many in favor of gay marriage are against polygamy. The main group being vehemently against polygamy are the Mormon LDS group themselves. No one will be so bitterly agitating against mormon fundamentalists (polygamy practicing groups are called this in Utah) as members of LDS church.

Personally I don't mind multi-marriage being legal, but make a note that if that should happen it has to go both ways, polyamorous women should have equal rights to have many husbands.

Mormon fundamentalists (as the polygamists are called often) carry with them a multitude of other issues that you aren't addressing in this post, but which affect people's opinion on Mormon polygamy.

1) They select sister wives at very young ages, basically under aged girls, to a high degree. It is also part of the culture.

2) Women, are of course not allowed to marry multiple men, nor are young boys treated in the same way as young girls on the marriage market. (although young boys undergo other challenges)

3) Fathers of children from polygamous relationships have a problematic history of not being able to pay child support and relying on the state to take care of the kids. Utah is full of cases with such "fathers in hiding", as the culture of polygamy is practiced in pretty poor rural places more than anything else.

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

You are wrong on so many levels here it is rather funny.

1 st) Sexist much? I mean the entire thrust of your stance is that women need a man to provide for her.

2 nd) How is gay marriage any less of a fundamental inequality than plural marriage?

3 rd) Perhaps you should go read the article again, they are not suing for legal poly marriage, they are suing to have their living situation decriminalized.

4 th) So it is only legal for a man to have 2 wives if he can support them and all the children, however a monogamous couple can have 18 kids and be on welfare as a result without anyone saying anything?

5 th) So allowing a woman to marry the man of her choice is violating her civil rights? But denying her that right is protecting them? You have a very screwed up view of civil rights.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

1) No, the entire trust of my stance (tee hee you said thrust of my stance/Beavis and Butthead) is that the legal basis for polygamy would follow the Muslim idea, and the guess that the religion which brought us Orrin Hatch isn't going to accept polyandry.

2) Simple: gay men and lesbians marrying two by two is no more illegal than black men and white women or white men and black women marrying. Any argument against gay marriage has already been used against interracial marriage since before the Civil War.

3) It was criminalized by the Republicans.....

4) Citations for this other than Pals with Saddam and Nun Rapers Ronny Ray Gunn?

5) No more so than the Republican Party which defines equality under the law for gays very twistedly, to judge by their attempts to end-run the Supreme Court and revive sodomy laws.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

I really don't give a damn if someone marries their office chair. It's a load of hooey to me, but if he gets off on it...

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Not only that, now you can marry several of them!

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Um..cases with "fathers in hiding" having thirtysomething kids from far more than 2 wives are not uncommon.


However you want to serve this as a comparison to monogamous marriages, it still comes down to two problems:

multiple partners (often more than 2 wives) in a culture of child bearing, make the amount of children rise exponentially. And if you want the state to help out in providing (as the mothers of the "fathers in hiding" do), then why shouldn't the state set out some rules for it, if they legalize the system? Providing for these children is a rather big issue in Utah.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

I support both, now what?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

The difference is the miniscule secular support for polygamy as opposed to religious support. If 99% of polygamy is practiced by fundamentalists, then it's a religious institution and violates the separation of church and state.

If there's massive secular support for polygamy, and the things sealwhiskers mentioned are addressed, I don't see why not. I would just be going against history at that point.

I don't really see that happening, though.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

It really isn't too hard to separate different kinds of possible "marriage" and do away with the "slippery slope" argument. The simple standard: is it between consenting adults?

1. Marriage between a man and a woman: already legal.
2. Marriage between two men or two women: obviously should be legal.
3. Marriage binding more than two people: as long as all involved are consenting adults, it shouldn't be anyone else's business. The only major problem I have with it is if marriage is still an institute of the state, doing tax benefits and shit like that might get complicated. (This is one reason I'm in favor of removing marriage from the government. One civil union between any two of the members of the "marriage", and let the rest be done in a private institution.) Also, as was pointed out above practicing polygamists often force underage females into marriages which is simply disgusting and really was the reason I was opposed to any form of polygamy at first.
4. Marriage between an adult human and an animal: The animal cannot legally consent, so it should NOT be legal.
5. Marriage between an adult and a child, or between two children: since they do not fit the legal definition of "adult" and are not psychologically mature, then they should not be allowed to legally marry (or have a civil union, or whatever).
6. Marriage between a person and an inanimate object: it would be a waste of resources to recognize such a union on a legal level; if you want to be "married" to your refrigerator in the private sector knock yourself out but I think it's bloody bizarre.

But yeah, I think many people in favor of gay marriage are also in favor of legal, consensual polygamy. (I'd never do it myself but...) In the case of Kody Brown, though I find his culture to be strange and would never make the choice any of his wives made, they are welcome to make that choice themselves if that's what makes them happy, and for the state to decide for them what kind of living arrangement they're allowed to have is intrusive.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

I don't think its any of the US Constitutions damn business one way or the other.

But that is just me.

[mijan.livejournal.com]

I support marriage arrangements between any combination of legally consenting adults. Force, coercion, mental incapacity, and other restrictions would apply (same as in any marriage).

While I disagree on a personal level with the religious belief that a man should have multiple wives (but not the opposite), I will not deny someone the right to have that marital arrangement *IF* all parties involved actually WANT it. If it's what makes them all happy, then I fully support their right to form that family unit, and to have the legal backing to protect that family.

I have friends who are polyamorous (different from polygamy in that it's not a patriarchal arrangement). I've know triads and quads who have been together for YEARS. Decades in one case. All in the relationship are consenting and happy. Why should they not be able to protect their families?

Seriously, the "one man, one woman" arrangement is NOT a universal standard for marriage in all cultures. Not even close. It might be the most common in this day and age and society, but it's not the only arrangement that's been the standard for all societies.

So, to reiterate, I believe that marriage arrangements should be open to all combinations of consenting, mentally competent, human adults.

I would actually want to strike down the laws that allow those under the age of 18 to legally wed if it were up to me. They can't even legally vote, smoke, or get their own credit card, for cripe's sake. So, no "kids" in marriages. And the argument about "marrying" your dog, cat, blow-up doll, or any other such nonsense is a complete red herring, as none of those things can sign a legal contract, much less legally consent to anything.

For those who wish to argue "but how many people can go on your health insurance policy?" stuff... I personally believe we should have universal health care, end of story. But in our current system, because health care is private, I would have no problem with each person being able to designate more than one other adult on a policy. I mean, they've still got to pay the premiums, right? And isn't it a GOOD thing to have more people insured, rather than uninsured? Or hell, insurance isn't marriage - maybe the law could allow you to designate one (and only one) adult of your choice, plus your offspring.

Anyway, that's enough rambling. Those are my opinions.

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

Women have much better sense than that. :P

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ditto.