Hoover slams O'Reilly for suggesting that if same-sex marriage is legalized, "polygamy is then going to run rampant"
May 11, 2009 9:19 pm ET
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
-
-
-
Misleading talking point that Owens "ran against the health care bill" spreads from right-wing blogs to Fox
November 07, 2009 12:06 pm ET -
Rove, Fox & Friends' Briggs falsely claim Pelosi broke promise to have health bill available for 72 hours
November 07, 2009 9:56 am ET -
Hannity asks if "the environmental agenda" is "an attack on capitalism itself?"
November 06, 2009 10:45 pm ET -
-
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
by Karl Frisch - November 06, 2009 -
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
by Greg Lewis - November 06, 2009 -
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
by Eric Boehlert - November 03, 2009
|
|
||
Connect & Share
© 2009 Media Matters for America. All rights reserved.
  |
||
Don't really see that "running rampant" do you? So why would gay marriage suddenly make polygamy more attractive?
There's just no need there. The state is not likely to complicate the legal system by recognizing multiple marriages and establishing second-, third-, fourth-class citizens even if there was an argument for necessity, and they're absolutely not going to do it without that argument.
Lets face it robrob... the right-wing is going to do all it can to tie in gay marriage with that of polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality, and incest...
Of course... anyone with an actual working brain knows full well that none of those have anything in any way, shape, or form with gay marriage...
But like I said... facts and details mean nothing to closeted homosexual right-wing fundamentalists!
I believe the gay issue would be more effectly moved forward if we all reconsidered how government should treat with more than one person. How should government reward or penalize marriage/partners and/or should it? The economic effects and simple permissions laws are the source of most of the frustration. Why not actually fix the laws and remove most of the issues? Some of them are patently idiotic (e.g. can't declare a person to be your nearest releative for hospital visits). Simply listing all the laws that deal with "marriage" would be a start. I have not yet see such a list.
By doing this, we might come up with firm rational reasons for writing laws that could not be construed to cover incest or bestiality - at least not for 100 years or so, until law twisting reaches a new plateau.
It's also important to note that there are strong arguments that the other behaviors are abusive. Pedophilia, for instance, is clearly so. You're not going to find justification for something that's harmful just because something that's condemned in the Bible gets secular recognition. Those are two completely different standards.
I also wonder who's going to make a large-scale public push for something like bestiality rights? Laws like that aren't going to change just because people in Congress are just bored one day or something. There has to be some groundswell of support involved.
How about marriages of convenience? I've actually seen that as an argument against gay marriage, but it doesn't work because straight people can do that anyway. It's all the same because you're still only establishing a single person as your partner. Anyone can marry a foreigner to give them citizenship, for instance, but then that person can't marry someone else. That makes it naturally undesirable for someone to do. But if polygamy is sanctioned, then why can't I marry 60 foreign women and give them all citizenship? How's anyone going to verify that a marriage is genuine, asking about sexual habits? "Once every couple of months. My schedule is pretty full, you know." Is it unreasonable to think that I might not be able to remember all of their birthdays or favorite songs, or be able to answer any other question that can be asked to establish that there's an actual relationship going on?
Here's another one:what happens if a woman leaves her fellow wives and marries another man, then the original husband dies? There was no reason for divorce, so there was no divorce. Does she still have rights to a share of that estate? How do you prove that she wasn't still a "partner", or that the relationship was hostile, based on the testimony of other women that have a financial stake in kicking her out of the mix? Normally when one gets divorced and remarried, that's it. The intent is clear, ties have been broken. The previous husband's current wife would be the default benefactor, and there would be no basis for a legal challenge from a previous partner.
And how do you differentiate between someone with multiple partners in one household and a "Mr. Pennypacker" situation? Does the government have to go through the effort of verifying that multiple partners know about each other, or would it simply sanction that sort of behavior as well? If it's not sanctioned, then what's to stop some wives from claiming that another wife never lived in the household and therefore has no standing?
There's just no need for any of this. It opens up multiple cans of legal worms for no good reason.
RE: the rest of it: You raise MANY, MANY very good questons about the legal implications of plural marriage. I never said we could just 'do it' and not have to establish some parameters to addres these very concerns. And while I'm not going to answer all of them (or indeed ANY of them) I maintain that all these things COULD be addressed, and that almost all could be addressed applying a fairly simple, logical approach in adapting our current laws, with easy common-sense compromised coming fairly quickly for most issues.
My main objection with scoiety disallowing plural marriage is that the argument is never presetned the way you have just done. (And I still maintain that these issues could be addressed.) But it's usually just presetned as 'wierd' and there's no real, honest debate.
As for the whole "why open the legal can of worms" question? BECAUSE THIS IS AMERICA. WE ARE (SUPPOSED TO BE) FREE TO LIVE AS WE CHOOSE PROVIDED THAT WE ARE NOT IMPINGING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS TO DO THE SAME. If even ONE person wants a legal accomodation for their lifestyle and this accomodation does not adversly effect anyone else, then (within the bounds of consenting adults) WHY NOT MAKE THIS ACCOMODATION?
Islam and First-Temple-era Judaism both institutionalized
one man-many wife marriages. And the great epic of Hindu culture, the Mahabarata, revolves around five brothers married to the same woman. (Admittedly, that's an unusual situation, but it's not condemned, either.)
I know you recognize there are issues, my point was mainly that it's much more complicated than just taxes or divorce. There are many scenarios which would have to be worked out in great detail before this could be implemented.
People don't have rights based on whims. As I've said many times, if homosexuality is a choice, then society is not obligated to sanction it. The question of what is traditionally accepted by society becomes pertinent. The issue of how people are treated becomes relevant as well. A child with two parents of the same sex may very well get mocked mercilessly in school. If that's a matter of pure choice, then it's perfectly reasonable for society to disapprove of it, and therefore not sanction such arrangements. The same sort of thing goes for polygamy. There are a ton of psychological concerns at play. There are domination issues, cult-like elements, the treatment of women as property more than as loving partners, etc. If people want to live like that on their own, there's nothing you can do about it, but the state absolutely is not compelled to give it any legal recognition.