Despite claiming gay marriage is "not a big issue" to him, O'Reilly issued a smorgasbord of gay marriage misinformation
SUMMARY: On his radio and television shows, Bill O'Reilly offered up numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations while discussing the Senate's consideration of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.
On the June 5 broadcasts of his Fox News television show, The O'Reilly Factor, and his nationally syndicated radio show, The Radio Factor, Bill O'Reilly offered up numerous falsehoods and misrepresentations while discussing the Senate's consideration of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. Despite claiming, on his radio show, that he does not "care" about gay marriage, that he does not "think it's a threat to the union;" and that same-sex marriage is "not a big issue" to him, O'Reilly argued extensively in apparent opposition to same-sex marriage on both of his shows. He repeatedly suggested that the legalization of same-sex marriage would lead to other "alternative" marriages like polygamy; claimed that the Netherlands has allowed humans to marry animals; misrepresented the effects of legalized same-sex unions in Scandinavian countries; and baselessly suggested same-sex parenting is harmful to children.
Human to animal nuptials
Continuing a pattern of linking same-sex marriage to bestiality, O'Reilly claimed, on his radio show, that in the Netherlands, if "[y]ou want to marry a duck ...you can do it over there." He offered no evidence to support his claim.
O'Reilly has repeatedly warned that legalizing same-sex marriage will lead to interspecies nuptials, as Media Matters for America has noted. So far, his predictions include marriages between humans and goats (here and here) and between humans and ducks. Additionally, O'Reilly has sought to bolster his theory by highlighting the story of a British woman, Sharon Tendler, who "married" a dolphin in Jerusalem in January, in a "modest ceremony" that, according to the Associated Press, Tendler "acknowledged had no legal bearing."
Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands
On both his shows, O'Reilly misrepresented marriage statistics in three Scandinavian countries -- Sweden, Norway, and Denmark -- as well as the Netherlands.
In addition to claiming that the Netherlands permits formal man/beast relationships, O'Reilly also suggested on The O'Reilly Factor that the Netherlands' legalization of gay marriage has "change[d]" the country by leading to an increase in out-of-wedlock births. During a discussion with William N. Eskridge Jr. and Darren R. Spedale, authors of Gay Marriage: For Better or For Worse? What We've Learned from the Evidence (Oxford University Press, June 2006), O'Reilly stated that the "conclusion you have come to ... that there hasn't been that much change" in countries that have legalized gay marriage, is wrong because "in the Netherlands ... births outside of marriage" have "doubled." In fact, "out of marriage" births have increased steadily since 1995, six years prior to the legalization of same-sex marriages.
Later in the show, after his interview with Eskridge and Spedale, O'Reilly misrepresented their findings, arguing to Democratic strategist and Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers that Eskridge and Spedale's research found that the legalization of same-sex relationships had an effect on "regular marriage." O'Reilly stated, "[A]s I talked to the authors of the book, there's no question, based upon their research, which is gay friendly," that in societies that have "embraced gay marriage, regular marriage" has "declined."
But, the authors found no such cause and effect. To the contrary, their research found that in countries that recognize same-sex relationships in some legal form, the rate of heterosexual marriage actually increased, while divorce rates decreased, as they made clear during their appearance on the June 5 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK. And your conclusion you have come to, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that there hasn't been that much change.
But in the Netherlands, there has, and births outside of marriage, that's doubled. But in the rest of the countries -- Denmark, Norway, Sweden -- Mr. Eskridge, it's basically the same. Although in Norway, this is very interesting, in the southern part of Norway, more conservative part of the country, births outside of marriage much lower than the liberal northern part.
ESKRIDGE: Well, interestingly, Mr. O'Reilly, what we found in Denmark, which has had registered partnerships since 1989, the marriage rate had actually been falling in Denmark until '89. The divorce rate had been rising.
O'REILLY: Right.
ESKRIDGE: And the rate of non-marital births went up from 11 percent in the early '70s to over 45 percent in the late '80s. And the interesting thing is after Denmark recognized same-sex unions, the marriage rate went back up, the divorce rate fell, and the rate of non-marital children stabilized. And in the last five years, it's stabilized at a lower level than in 1989.
O'REILLY: All right, Professor, but --
ESKRIDGE: So, one of the things we show in the book is that the situation from a traditional point of view actually improved in Denmark.
[...]
ESKRIDGE: But the point is that, in Sweden, we've seen some of the same trends that we saw in Denmark. So, in Sweden, the rate of marriage had been plummeting before 1994, when they adopted same-sex unions. The rate of marriage has been increasing in Sweden since 1994.
[...]
O'REILLY: I think we can draw this -- this is what I'm drawing from all of your data. The gay marriage, per se, the marriage of homosexuals, doesn't really impact on straight marriage for those who want a traditional union.
But it does, Mr. Spedale, it does lead to a more libertine or permissive society in the sense that marriage itself then is de-emphasized as we see in Sweden. And more and more people cohabitate.
SPEDALE: No. I think that's not true. I think exactly we saw the opposite. And that's why these statistics are so interesting. In Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, in each of those countries, after they passed their gay marriage type laws, their registered partnership laws, the rates of heterosexual marriage went up per capita. The rates of heterosexual divorce went down.
Same-sex parenting
During his discussion with Powers, O'Reilly also baselessly claimed "that children ... are better off with a mom and a dad in a traditional married state." In fact, studies have consistently found that children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects to psychosocial development. In 1995, the American Psychological Association (APA) released a report compiling summaries of numerous students on the effects of same-sex parenting on their children. The report concluded:
[T]here is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
In 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics reported on the psychosocial development of children reared by same-sex parents. The report noted:
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.
And concluded: "Parents' sexual orientation is not a variable that, in itself, predicts their ability to provide a home environment that supports children's development."
Additionally, in June 2004, the APA announced its opposition to "legislation proposed at the federal and state levels that would amend the U.S. Constitution or state constitutions, respectively, to prohibit marriage between same-sex couples." In doing so, the APA noted:
Gay and lesbian parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide healthy and supportive environments for their children. Lesbian and heterosexual women do not differ markedly either in their overall mental health or in their approaches to child rearing. Nor do lesbians' romantic and sexual relationships with other women detract from their ability to care for their children. Recent evidence suggests that gay and lesbian couples with children tend to divide child care and household responsibilities evenly and to report satisfaction with their relationship.
[...]
Studies of various aspects of child development reveal few differences among children of lesbian mothers and heterosexual parents in such areas as personality, self-concept, behavior, and sexual identity. (The limited data on the children of gay fathers suggests similar findings.) Evidence also suggests that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with peers and adults. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.
Same-sex marriage as a civil rights issue
Responding to a caller's assertion that gay marriage is a civil rights issue comparable to previous state bans on interracial marriage, O'Reilly claimed that such arguments don't "hold up" because "most of the country did not want Jim Crow laws." Continuing, O'Reilly asserted: "Most of the country was appalled by the apartheid in the South, and it was obvious to the federal government that they had to intervene. There was no outcry throughout the rest of the country against righting the wrongs of civil -- of the denial of civil rights."
But, in fact, contrary to O'Reilly's assertion that "[t]here was no outcry" over "righting the wrongs of civil ... rights" and his suggestion that the majority of the population opposed racially discriminatory laws, when the Supreme Court ruled in 1967 that laws banning interracial marriage were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia, the vast majority of the country opposed interracial marriages. According to a 1968 Gallup poll (subscription required), 73 percent of the public disapproved of interracial marriage. In fact, it was not until 1997 -- 30 years after the Loving ruling -- that the Gallup poll showed a majority of Americans approved of such marriages.
From the June 5 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK. So, Bush is, you know, made a pretty good case that this isn't about gay marriage, it's about telling judges you can't do this. Now, they do it in abortion, they do it in a lot of other issues. And it is clear the people of the United States want heterosexual marriage between two people, all right, to have a special position in our society. That is clear by a referendum in California and a referendum in Oregon -- two very liberal states. The referendum said we want to keep heterosexual marriage as a standard for what marriage should be.
Now, do I care about -- does Bill O'Reilly care about gay marriage? No. I don't care. All right. If you're gay and you want to get married, I suggest you go to Canada and get married. They'll marry you there. Or have a commitment ceremony and get your -- get your picture in The New York Times 'cause they'll put your picture in there. All right. Do whatever you want that makes you happy. I don't care.
Do I think it's a threat to the union? No. Gay marriage, to me, not a big issue. But I will tell you this. If gay marriage becomes a reality, then polygamy has to be legalized, because you can't say one alternative group is OK and the other isn't. That's not equal protection under the law. So, if you legalize gay marriage, then polygamy has to be legalized.
[...]
O'REILLY: And if you go to Holland, you'll go to all these other places, you'll see that. The courts there'll let anybody get married to anybody. You want to marry a duck? You can do it over there. OK. And it's basically, we don't really care. Whatever makes you happy. This is the Western Europe model you can do.
Now, here, we're much more traditional -- much more traditional. So, that's what this is all about. It's about telling judges that you cannot basically say what the definition of anything is going to be -- overriding the will of the people.
In Massachusetts, they won't even let the folks vote on it. All right. That oppressive Supreme Court in Massachusetts made the ruling and they won't let the folks vote. They're stopping the folks from voting. That's not democracy.
[...]
CALLER 1: I just wanted to say, and not in a confrontational way, but I really do believe that it is a question of bigotry when people don't agree with gay marriage, because I don't believe that it is an attack on the institution of marriage. I don't buy the whole activist judge BS. I just really think that it's people repulsed by homosexuality or they're ignorant to it. And I think that, one day, we'll look back in the history books, like we do on slavery, and say, "I can't believe our country didn't stand up for the people" --
O'REILLY: All right, let me ask you a question. Let me ask you a question, [caller].
CALLER 1: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
O'REILLY: Do you believe that because Americans don't want polygamy that they are bigoted toward polygamists?
CALLER 1: But I don't think it's fair to equate homosexual --
O'REILLY: Why?
CALLER 1: -- homosexuals as polygamists because homosexuals are everywhere, Bill. I mean, they're not just like this weird little clique that -- that only exist in freaky little --
O'REILLY: OK. But -- but, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
CALLER 1: I mean, I think that --
O'REILLY: It's -- it's a choice -- it's a choice that you make. I mean, you can argue you were born --
CALLER 1: No.
O'REILLY: -- you can argue you were born homosexual, but these people, these polygamists, will say, "Hey, I was born wanting to have two or three wives. That's a natural state of affairs. I'm attracted to more than one woman. And my Bible tells me" -- 'cause they all hide behind that, the polygamists do -- "that I have a right to do this. This is what the Lord wants."
So, it seems to me, [caller], with all due respect to your position, which I understand, that you're being selective. Because if you say that you're bigoted, if you oppose gay marriage, then you have to say you're bigoted if you oppose polygamy. Because there's no -- there -- there isn't any difference. They're both alternatives to the societal norm of heterosexual marriage.
E.D. HILL (co-host): And you can't claim that there is, you know, they're not enough so it doesn't count. There are more, you know, gays --
O'REILLY: Well, let, let me put it this way. There would be more polygamists if it were legal, than gays, because I know a bunch of people would say, "Hey." I mean, you know.
HILL: You kidding?
O'REILLY: "Yeah!"
[...]
O'REILLY: If what you say is true, that traditional marriage will fall and homosexual marriage will gain parity, why is it, in very liberal states like California and Oregon, that people vote it down time after time after time. Why?
CALLER 2: Well, it -- the same -- the same kind of argument you can say why blacks and whites weren't allowed in the South to marry each other and even the ministers were preaching against it --
O'REILLY: Doesn't hold up. That doesn't hold up.
CALLER 2: Well, the fact is --
O'REILLY: Because, wait, wait, wait, [caller]. It doesn't hold up because most of the country did not want Jim Crow laws. Most of the country was appalled by the apartheid in the South, and it was obvious to the federal government that they had to intervene. There was no outcry throughout the rest of the country against righting the wrongs of civil -- of the denial of civil rights.
But here, in the most liberal states, you have voters going out and saying no. So, what you have then is a country firmly behind giving heterosexual marriage an elevated place for stability, I believe. Firmly behind it. Every poll shows it. Every state shows it.
Yet, the will of the people here is being overturned by one or two judges who say, "I'm smarter than everybody else. I'm going to make law." That's what this is all about.
From O'Reilly discussion with Powers on the June 5 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: OK. Now Kirsten, as I talked to the authors of the book, I -- it would -- there's no question, based upon their research, which is gay friendly, by the way, all right, that societies that are embraced to gay marriage, regular marriage, OK, has declined and cohabitation has increased. Is that a byproduct of gay marriage?
POWERS: Well, I don't think we know what causes stuff to happen in different countries. I mean, it could be that there is just a trend that's going on already where people, like they were saying, are cohabitating. People are becoming more sort of liberal with their ideas of what relationships are and so, they're just not getting married. We don't -- we don't know that the connection is --
[...]
O'REILLY: Well, OK. But I think the bottom line on this, Kirsten, is that children, I think you would agree, are better off with a mom and a dad in a traditional married state. Would you not agree with that?
POWERS: I don't think there is any evidence to support what you just said.
O'REILLY: Really?
POWERS: I think two gay people can raise a child perfectly well.
O'REILLY: As well as a man and woman?
POWERS: And look at -- look at the foster care system. All these kids who are with heterosexual couples who are being -- who are being --
O'REILLY: I want to get this on the record. So, you believe that -- you believe that same-sex people can make -- raise a child as well as a man --
POWERS: Absolutely. Yes.
O'REILLY: Then why would nature have a man and a woman?
POWERS: I don't know. All I know is I know gay people who have raised children, and they've turned out wonderfully.
O'REILLY: OK.
POWERS: So, I mean, I've seen it with my own eyes.
You would think he would check the facts before going on the air and sounding like a complete dumbass. In an earlier post, TEX hit it right on the head--Divorce is the biggest threat to marriage.
BO wants to make gay marriage sound like something that is wrong and obscene by likening it with beastiality. But it does raise the question--Can 2 ducks of the same sex get married legally?
But I bet they won't serve pate' at the reception
You would think that except for one thing...ITS BILL O"REILLY
If he did he might find out that there more to the universe than him and his pathetic self.
I love it; the clown goes into a tactical retreat, and runs smack-dab into the Court Reporter, who dutifully reads back to him all the various things he has said on the issue, leaving him only one way to run...
"Shut up!"
As the tide turns, I'm sure a lot of these clowns are going to be haunted by the stuff that fills the MMFA archives.
It's a tried and true O'Reilly tactic for him to claim he's on one side while arguing the other. He does the same thing with the death penalty. He makes the broad claim that he's against the death penalty, yet he frequently calls for the death penalty when commenting on specific cases. Clearly he opposes gay marriage, but he thinks he can continue to claim "fair and balanced" if he says he doesn't.
--Same as when he often says "I'm not a Republican, I'm a regestered independent."
You gotta love an exchange like this: ESKRIDGE: "in Sweden, the rate of marriage had been plummeting before 1994, when they adopted same-sex unions. The rate of marriage has been increasing in Sweden since 1994"
O'REILLY: "[Same-sex unions] lead to a more libertine or permissive society in the sense that marriage itself then is de-emphasized as we see in Sweden. And more and more people cohabitate. "
How he can completely misunderstand, or simply lie, about someone elses previous statement is what gives him his superpower: the ability to pretend he knows what he's talking about. That stuff about interracial marriage is pretty funny too - anyone discussing marriage must surely know that public opinion was heavily in favor of allowing a ban on interracial marriage, at the time the Supreme Court struck it down. But not O'Reilly - he's as clueless as usual. Or just lies.
With all the problems plaguing this country this peripheral issue doesn't deserve the attention it's getting. Gay issues should not be a priority. It's Liberals that made Homosexuality, Gay Rights and Gay Marriage a priority in the first place. Now they have the audacity to claim Conservatives are using it as a distraction. What a bunch of hooey!
Liberals have put the agenda and interest of approx 10% of the population along side more important issues that concern 100% of the population such as national security, the economy, heath care, education. States defined marriage as being between a man and a woman and because of few Liberal activist judges these laws are being overturned, against the wishes of the majority of the citizenship.
Bill O'Reilly made an excellent point when he said: "But I will tell you this. If gay marriage becomes a reality, then polygamy has to be legalized, because you can't say one alternative group is OK and the other isn't. That's not equal protection under the law. So, if you legalize gay marriage, then polygamy has to be legalized."
I fully expect Liberals will get behind polygamy next. It's an issue that fits their M.O. They seem only to eager to champion sexual issues (the more deviant the better) rather than concentrate on more pressing issues and what is truly important to most Americans. {Here's a hint, it ain't Tom and Dick or Mary and Sally being able to marry.}
I'm sure you or people like you said during the Civil Rights movement, "Aw, it's the coloreds that are sturrin' up all this trubble! It's their own fault if the police have to turn firehoses on 'em!"
Is that about right?
"Liberals have put the agenda and interest of approx 10% of the population along side more important issues that concern 100% of the population such as national security, the economy, heath care, education."
So why does our conservative president want an amendment whose only purpose is to restrict what that 10% of the population can do? Heck, why did we even get rid of slavery if only a fraction of the population was of African descent?
---"They seem only to eager to champion sexual issues (the more deviant the better) rather than concentrate on more pressing issues"---
It's the Republican Senate and House that have championed a consitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, in a desperate attempt to make it The Issue in order to placate their base. Iraq, energy, health care----these important topics are currently taking a back seat to this collosal waste of time.
The Massachusetts State Supreme Court interpreted their state constitution to mean that the state could not deny same-sex couples the right to marry. An independent judiciary can only be independent if it is not consumed by the vagaries of fleeting public opinion. If Brown v. Board of Education occured in 1896, would you indict the decision because it was out of step with popular opinion?
Liberals want to bring an era of tolerance into the public sphere, and not allow the demonization of the private behavior of social groups just because a majority finds it unappealing, although such behavior is of no threat to their way of life.
Far from seeking to impose different lifestyles on the rest of us, liberal advocay groups seek peace for the disenfranchised GLBT population that has itself been the victim of social conservatives seeking to impose THEIR view of behavior on them. Taz, you are an idiot, plain and simple.
On the Amendment Itself
OK. So, Bush is, you know, made a pretty good case that this isn't about gay marriage, it's about telling judges you can't do this.
If this were anywhere close to the accurate, the proposed amendment would reflect it. It is possible, after all, to draft an amendment that reads, "The judicial branches of the federal and state governments shall not construe homosexual marriage as a right guaranteed by either this or the respective state constitutions."
On Polygamy
But I will tell you this. If gay marriage becomes a reality, then polygamy has to be legalized, because you can't say one alternative group is OK and the other isn't. That's not equal protection under the law.
Now that's curious! Seriously, look at this statement carefully. It invokes an interpretation of the Constitution, namely, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. O'Reilly has essentially done what the so-called activist judges - the ones he maligns - are obliged to do when such an issue confronts them: construe the meaning of the Constitution.
If a state legislature legalized gay marriage, and a polygamist challenged the law in court, would O'Reilly then claim that the judges "have to" mandate the inclusion of polygamy? (Oh, I know...O'Reilly would have no problem contradicting himself or rationalizing this away.)
More importantly, if anyone agrees that there is a violation of Equal Protection inherent in legalizing only same-sex marriages without legalizing other alternative forms of marriage, why is it not equally obvious that legalizing only heterosexual marriage is itself a violation of Equal Protection.
O'Reilly seems to believe that all alternative forms of marriage should be treated equally poorly, while "traditional" (a misnomer if ever there were one) marriage should be put on a legal pedestal. I guess all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
On His Misinformation
Unfathomable. Predictable, but unfathomable.
My Take
Our founding document says that each of us is created equal, and endowed with inalienable rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Personally, I would have no problem leaving all marital arrangements to private contracts. Each person or group of persons should be free to pursue happiness as long as they are not infringing upon the rights of non-consenting others to do the same. So indeed, as a matter of liberty, as a matter of the pursuit of happiness, I indeed believe that gay marriage and polygamous marriages should be legal. Simply make it a matter of contract law.
However, to the extent that the government sees fit to bestow certain rights - literally thousands of rights - upon people who enter into a certain kind of contractual relationship, those rights must be dispensed equally. They must have neither a discriminatory intent nor a discriminatory impact. There is a fundamental discriminatory impact to keeping gay marriage illegal. An entire segment of society is denied the right to enter into a contractual relationship with the persons they love - a relationship ultimatley connected to their happiness - and denied all the rights that accompany that contract.
The Troglodytes like to throw out the Polygamy boogey man as if we're all supposed to recoil in horror. Personally, I say, who cares? If a man wants to have 6 wives, and can reach an agreement with all of them, then why not? By the same token, if a woman wants 6 husbands, and they can all agree, why not? If 3 men and 3 women want to all marry each other, more power to them. Non of these arrangements would affect those in traditional marriages ONE IOTA. I challenge any conservative to demonstrate otherwise.
My guess is that most people would find polygamy impracticle and unattractive, so I doubt that many would try it.
Polygamy and same sex marriage cannot be incorporated as the same. The problem with polygamy is that it is not just a choice of life style, in many cases it is considered a cult. Look at the polygamy situation of Warren Jeffs, he is now on the FBI's most wanted list. Not because he simply has more than one wife, but because of the possibility of sexual child abuse and a cultish arrangement that poligamy has allowed him to develope. The situation of poligamy can be a dangerous one. Pre-teen to teenage girls are offered up to marry poligamists of any age, without any concent at all. They live in private communities and are claimed to be brain washed by the husbands in charge. Teen age boys are exiled out of these communities out of fear of competition by the elder males over their female peers. Gay marriage does not offer anything close to this sort of danger. Poligamy is about control and power, sometimes even pedophilia (the exact charge Warren Jeffs is up for). The road of poligamy leads to dangerous circumstances and situations. Gay marriage does nothing of the sort. The methodology behind gay marriage and poligamy are completely different, hence they cannot be compared in this manner.
Just how large of a beastiality population is there in this country? Not only that, how many of them would be willing to "come out of the closet" in order to vote to legalize such a legislation? It has taken how many years for the homosexual community to gain the respect and approval that it now has? And yet still there are those who fear of coming out of the closet even still today. I think the beastiality community has a VERY LONG way to go in popularity before any legalization comes to fruition. Just another group of people that the Neo-Cons will try to scare the masses with.
Gay marriage can be considered for legalization as opposed to beastiality based on the simple notion that gay marriage demands consentual agreement between two partys, as does the sexual aspect. It is the opposite concerning beastiality. The term beastiality should be interpreted as ANIMAL RAPE. How can any pro-beastiality individual claim that beastiality sex is consentual? If the animal is not interested, wouldn't that be considered rape? And since there is absolutely no way for anyone to determine whether or not an animal would consent, therer is no legal standing to claim beastiality is lawful. Bottom line - THERE IS NO ARGUMENT HERE!
The two are so far apart in complexity, they scarcely merit discussion in the same sentence.
This guy nails it. (Seriously, a good read.)
There is really no comparison! [ ] Polygamy and same sex marriage cannot be incorporated as the same.
That much I agree with. The two are not identical, either as concepts or as practiced.
But that doesn't mean practitioners of both wouldn't have liberty interests in their preferred marital arrangements.
The problem with polygamy is that it is not just a choice of life style, in many cases it is considered a cult. Look at the polygamy situation of Warren Jeffs, he is now on the FBI's most wanted list. Not because he simply has more than one wife, but because of the possibility of sexual child abuse and a cultish arrangement that poligamy has allowed him to develope. The situation of poligamy can be a dangerous one. Pre-teen to teenage girls are offered up to marry poligamists of any age, without any concent at all. They live in private communities and are claimed to be brain washed by the husbands in charge. Teen age boys are exiled out of these communities out of fear of competition by the elder males over their female peers.
I hope that's not really your legal argument. First of all, people have the right to join cults. Not to be forced into them against their wills, but to join them consensually. More importantly, however, nothing about polygamy per se requires such horrific circumstances. Indeed, the behavior you reference should not be legal, but not because it involves polygamy. Rather, the obvious evil is the harm caused to non-consenting people.
In the context of marriage and sexual relations, consent is (or should be) everything. Each person is equally entitled to pursue happiness in any manner that does not infringe on the rights of non-consenting other to do the same.
Two consenting members of the same sex (should) have the right to enter into consensual marital contracts.
Three or more consenting persons (should) have the right to enter into consensual marital contracts.
No person has the right to marry a child, force a child to marry him or even have sex with a child, as a child, by definition, has not matured to the age of consent.
Marriage between humans and animals is an absurd concept, as animals can not consent or even communicate sufficiently to enter into any contracts at all.
Gay marriage does not offer anything close to this sort of danger.
Well, of course it doesn't. Though I would hasten to point out that two-person marriages, either heterosexual or homosexual, can indeed become abusive and domineering - to the point where one partner withdraws his or her consent to the partnership, but the other becomes a live-in stalker. Is this part and parcel of marriage? No. Gay marriage? No. But it happens. Under your logic above about polygamy, shouldn't marriage be illegal altogether?
Maybe next time he will say that the War on Christmas doesn't bother him.
... just saw "PAINT YOUR WAGONS" again on Turner. If you can get past Clint Eastwood singing, you have the "practical" arrangement of one woman with two husbands. Who gives a damn, if it works for them?
Why not a chicken?
What's with this guy and this fear that if we allow gays to marry it's a slippery slope, leading to bestiality? That's a very long stretch. He and Senator Santorum of PA are too fixed on this man/beast thing. They're really starting to scare me.
I watched "The Daily Show" the other night and watched Jon Stewart tear Bill Bennett's arguments apart concerning the gay marriage issue. He used two things to win his argument. Logic and passion. Why aren't the real newsmen as gifted interviewing their guests? It's a very sad day for this country when the fake news is about hard hitting stories and finding the truth and the real news is all about the glitter and fluff.
Chickens have sharp beaks. OUCH!
Polygamy will never become legal because it would cause total upheaval in so many other areas of the law:
-will, trusts, probate, intestacy, inheritance rights, etc.
-child custody, palimony, alimony, child support, etc.
-immigration (gee, can I marry 50 people and sponsor them for a green card?)
-taxation (I'm filing married with one wife, married separate with another...)
-auto/life/health/disability insurance (I have 30 wives and 115 kids; are they all covered under my insurance?)
All of our statutes, laws, regulations, codes, etc. have been written with one person-one person marriages (be it gay or straight) in mind. Not to mention 500 years of common law.
Plural marriage destroys all of it.
You are backing up your argument with logic. You have listed several PRACTICAL reasons why we should not legalize polygamy. This also shoots a hole in the Right's slippery slope fallacy. Legalizing Gay marriage in no way guarantees the legalization of Polygamy, or Goat-Marriage for that matter. The Troglodytes cannot come up with a logic-based reason not to allow Gay Marriage. Our laws should be based on reason, not superstition.
Slade,
Your points are well taken. You've essentially identified a perfect response to why the gay marriage and polygamy are legally different under the law.
Namely, you've shown that there may, in fact, be a sound, rational basis for not granting equal status under the law to polygamous and monogamous marriages. The same rational basis could not possibly justify denying equal status to homosexual monogamous marriages. And actually, the reasons you list demonstrate precisely why denying equal protection to gay marriages must be considered discriminatory. You list a garden variety of legal areas in which property and rights allocations are determined by a legally sanctioned status. To the extent that those rights are allocated at all, they must be allocated equally, meaning each person ought to be able to enter into the contract from where those rights are derived with a person of their choosing.
However,
Polygamy will never become legal because it would cause total upheaval in so many other areas of the law: [ ] All of our statutes, laws, regulations, codes, etc. have been written with one person-one person marriages (be it gay or straight) in mind. Not to mention 500 years of common law. [ ] Plural marriage destroys all of it.
As an empirical matter, you're correct, and polygamy isn't likley to be legalized any time soon. But even though you've successfully taken us out of the equal protection context, I still maintain that there are liberty interests that merit consideration.
If three or more consenting adults wish to enter into a contractual relationship, I see no reason that such a contract should not be honored. Each and every one of us should be free to pursue happiness in any manner we see fit so long as we're not violating the rights of non-consenting others to do the same.
-will, trusts, probate, intestacy, inheritance rights, etc.
In terms of property arrangements and wills, I see no reason why the law could not accomodate multiple marriages. Laws of inheritance are often based upon divying up property mathematically, and formulae could be devised without tremendous distress. Different states have already deviated from the common law to make these areas of law conform to their respective conceptions of fairness. There's no reason they couldn't be changed further.
-child custody, palimony, alimony, child support, etc.
Again, the common law and the states have continued to adapt their positions in these areas vis-a-vis monogamous marriages, and not all states are in agreement. Why couldn't new laws and common law decisions couldn't be rendered for polygamous marriages?
immigration (gee, can I marry 50 people and sponsor them for a green card?)
Certainly, some sound public policy reasons might limit the number of foreigners one might marry. Of course, I would begin with a presumption of liberty, and force the government to justify its regulation. And for purposes of immigration, there might be a sound rational basis for a restriction of marital rights.
taxation (I'm filing married with one wife, married separate with another...) [ ] auto/life/health/disability insurance (I have 30 wives and 115 kids; are they all covered under my insurance?)
Again, public policy might offer a rational basis for imposing legal limitations. But I'm not sure that legalization of polygamy would cause all the "upheaval" to statutory or common law you're concerned about. Certainly not as much upheaval as the American Revolution itself, the abolition of slavery, or the racial integration of public schools.
Ultimately, I agree that gay marriage and polygamy are legally different concepts with entirely different legal consequences (the former being accompanied by no consequences except that people who love each other would be allowed to marry each other).
But maintaining the status quo or avoiding legal headaches, in my opinion, is not itself a justification for dispensing with the presumption of liberty to which all consensual people should be entitled.
I followed the link and read the ruling on Loving vs Virginia - The first supreme court test case that abolished VA's interacial marriage law. The judge's statement on the issue BELOW is the equvelent of "God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve". It's the dumbest sh*it I've ever read and from a supposedly learned man. The anti-gay marriage opponents arguments are weak as he was, this is about bigotry pure and simple.
""Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
I've gotta be fair to the judge since his statement was made prior to the discovery that all of humanity originated in ONE continent - AFRICA.
A large percentage of modern Americans still believe that hokum.
the reason why so many right-wing evangelicals refuse to believe in the theory of evolution is that it would undermine the argument that judge made, that being the races were intended to be kept separate because GOD, not nature, intended it to be that way. Evolution would undermine homosexuality being a learned behavior.
Bible thumpers oppose the teaching of evolution simply because it underminds their fragile "literalist" interpretation of the Bible. It has nothing to do with their concern for the quality of science education. As long as they can hold on to this idiotic doctrine, they can use it to justify their own bigotry against Gays, Blacks, or anyone else who is different from them.
does MMFA keep saying that anyone who says legalization of polygamy is the next logical step past gay marriage is spreading misinformation?
Could it be MMFA is only partially progressive?
I would think MMFA would be for equal rights for polygamists.
Could it be MMFA is on the same side of that issue as Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly???
The lame Troglodyte argument that legalizing gay marriage would force us to legalize polygamy is what is known a "slippery slope" fallacy. The key word here is "fallacy". There is no logical reason to assume that polygamy would have to be legalized, because there are other, more practical reasons that make polygamy problematic. Therefore when the Trogs regurgitate this bogus talking point as if it were established fact, it is, by definition, misinformation.
Nice pretzel impersonation on your part, though.
Isn't the job of the "activist judges" to determine what is and is not constitutional? the judges in MA didn't write any law, they interpreted the existing law to be fundamentally flawed and running against the wording of the state constitution.
THEY DID THEIR JOBS!!!!
Just because the outcome wasn't what a lot of people wanted doesn't mean that suddenly they're "activist judges". I swear, out of all the Repugnican buzz words, this one irritates me the most. BOR asks if those judges think they're smarter than everyone else, they think they can decide for everyone else... well, yeah.... isn't that the criteria for being a judge ona high court? You have to have a higher knowledge of the law than the common man. Otherwise idiots like BOR would wind up on the High Court.
And to suggest that the court is preventing people from votingon it? Where does he get his "information" from anyway?
Oh, I could go on, refuting each point individually, but why bother?
It pisses me off that progressives don't have more of a chance to refute this crap on the airwaves.
Why doesn't he get the Toe Sucker in and discuss if you can marry the feet of a prostitute.
you cant leave out the common occurence of necrophilia among the population today, if we legalize beastiality, then there are those who are going to want to legalize necrophilia next....and then what is next???? dead animal sex??? beastinecrophilia!!! what a joke!
Oh yeah, Why does Bill O'Reilly lie so damn much
Hey! It's an election year! Suddenly gay marriage will play center stage! Of course, that means that actual substantive issues will not. They can't win on issues, only via attacks and Diebold.