First, some background. Using data from Scandinavia and the Netherlands, conservatives such as Stanley Kurtz argue gay marriage undermines the institution of marriage, increasing single-sex parenting, thus upping welfare costs borne by taxpayers, even taxpayers opposing gay marriage. Leftists dispute both the numbers and the claimed causal link. Conservatives, especially conservative lawyers, also claim gay marriage is impossible to distinguish legally from legalized polygamy; that one would invariably legitimate the other. Some gay marriage advocates dispute the link. A few concede they favor both gay and plural marriage.
What's the point? This, from Brussels Journal:
[I]n the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal “married” both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.Obviously, this tends to vindicate the much-disputed link between gay and plural marriage. Are we sliding down the much-mooted "slippery slope?"
“I love both Bianca and Mirjam, so I am marrying them both,” Victor said. He had previously been married to Bianca. Two and a half years ago they met Mirjam Geven through an internet chatbox. Eight weeks later Mirjam deserted her husband and came to live with Victor and Bianca. After Mirjam’s divorce the threesome decided to marry.
But, I hear you say, a polygamous civil union isn't marriage. Possibly, but not to the newlyweds:
Victor: “A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage.”One hundred twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court upheld state prohibitions on polygamy (Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878)). I've wondered whether Reynolds remains good law. I've predicted activist liberal judges would invoke the unpredictable "living Constitution" to decriminalize both polygamy and adult incest within a few years. Now that the Supremes' ok-ed use of foreign law, make that a few months.
More:
A different prediction from SC&A: "This turn of events is going to put a huge burden on wedding planners."
(via Michelle Malkin)
7 comments:
Great roundup of links. It is an important issue that, as you say, will no doubt be debated here, soon enough.
Until reading your post, admittedly, I was stuck on the 'whine with dinner' aspect- "But you said you loved ME more..."
*sob, sniffle*
I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
Q: what's the penalty for bigamy?
A: two wives.
Ha ha ha, women are so horrible and awful that being married must be hell.
Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong. And if we're going on 125 year old tradition, my voting in the last election was illegal.
Well, Anon, as a woman I can say that the idea of two husbands is no thrill at all. I hardly think that is a male-hating thing to say.
So I don't take offense at a man saying two wives would be too much.-
And they say conservatives are humorless. . .
What about the other part? The 125 years of non-polygamous history? I don't think you really have a leg to stand on there.
Anony:
Criminalized sodomy was a centuries-old law before Justice Kennedy vaporized it with "liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions," whatever that means. And San Francisco County Judge Richard Kramer interpreted California's Constitution -- written one year after the Reynolds decision -- to void prohibitions on gay marriage in a 1979 statute and a 2000 voter referendum.
The 27 year old Roe v. Wade is the left's linchpin; its litmus test is a pledge to treat Roe as holy writ; its sine qua non is unwavering deference to stare decisis preserving Federalized legalized abortion forever. Everything else -- execution of minors and the retarded, applying Freedom of Association to private organizations like Rotarians and Boy Scouts, striking a blow against discrimination by insisting colleges discriminate against military recruiters -- is variable until some judge somewhere reaches the pro-liberal result.
Anony, your comments are neither wise nor learned. But perhaps I've misjudged you. So in the spirit of friendly debate, riddle me this: if homosexuality becomes a "suspect class," making constraints on gays subject to the due process and equal protection requirements of the 14th Amendment, how could the Reynolds holding endure? Put differently, how does an 1878 Supreme Court case differ from an 1879 state constitution?
Post a Comment