O'Reilly suggested that without Prop 8, "a man can have 27 wives"; CA Supreme Court disagrees
SUMMARY: While discussing the campaign for Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage in California, Bill O'Reilly asserted that if states allow same-sex couples to marry they would be required, "under equal protection," to allow polygamous marriages. In fact, the California Supreme Court explicitly stated that its May 15 decision that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution did not extend to polygamous marriages.
On the November 18 broadcast of The Radio Factor, while discussing the campaign for Proposition 8 to ban same-sex marriage in California, host Bill O'Reilly asserted that if states allow same-sex couples to marry they would be required, "under equal protection," to allow polygamous marriages. In fact, the California Supreme Court explicitly stated that its May 15 decision that California's ban on same-sex marriage violated the state's constitution did not extend to polygamous marriages. Moreover, O'Reilly suggested that equal protection principles could be applied to require the state to recognize polygamous marriages if same-sex marriage is allowed but did not explain why those principles do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages to the same extent that they recognize opposite-sex marriage.
O'Reilly said to Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee, "[A] lot of evangelicals, a lot of Christian groups -- Focus on the Family -- they worked against gay marriage in California. And I'm -- you just -- I'm always interested in why they opposed it." Huckabee responded, in part, "[I]f they change the definition [of marriage], then where does it stop? Do we tell the people in West Texas, whose cult believes that a man can have 27 wives, that he can't do that? And the answer would be: Why can't he do that?" O'Reilly replied, "Right. Well, that's true. Under equal protection, you'd have to extend that. All right, that's pretty much what I believe, too." Seconds later, co-host Lis Wiehl stated, "No, you could just say, 'between two people,' " to which O'Reilly replied, "You can't. Not under equal protection." He added, "If you're going to change it, then it's gotta be changed, and the blanket is gotta -- the umbrella's gotta go everywhere. You just can't say, 'Well, we're going to make an adjustment here for two people.' Why? Then you have to explain why it's not three or four. And, you know, that's logical."
In fact, the California Supreme Court's majority opinion striking down the ban on same-sex marriage, in part on the basis that the ban violated the state constitution's equal protection clause, stated: "[T]he constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships." The majority opinion also stated: "[O]ur conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives."
From the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling:
We emphasize that our conclusion that the constitutional right to marry properly must be interpreted to apply to gay individuals and gay couples does not mean that this constitutional right similarly must be understood to extend to polygamous or incestuous relationships. Past judicial decisions explain why our nation's culture has considered the latter types of relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships promoted by the constitutional right to marry. (See, e.g., Reynolds v. United States (1878) 98 U.S.145, 165-166; Davis v. Beason (1890) 133 U.S. 333, 341; People v. Scott (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 192-194; State v. Freeman (Ohio Ct.App. 2003) 801 N.E.2d 906, 909; Smith v. State (Tenn.Crim.App. 1999) 6 S.W.3d 512, 518-520.) Although the historic disparagement of and discrimination against gay individuals and gay couples clearly is no longer constitutionally permissible, the state continues to have a strong and adequate justification for refusing to officially sanction polygamous or incestuous relationships because of their potentially detrimental effect on a sound family environment. (Accord, e.g., Potter v. Murray City (C.D. Utah 1984) 585 F.Supp. 1126, 1137-1140, affd. (10th Cir. 1985) 760 F.2d 1065, 1068-1071, cert. den. (1985) 474 U.S. 849; People v. Scott, supra, 157 Cal.App.4th 189, 193-194.) Thus, our conclusion that it is improper to interpret the state constitutional right to marry as inapplicable to gay individuals or couples does not affect the constitutional validity of the existing legal prohibitions against polygamy and the marriage of close relatives.
From the November 18 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: OK, why are you against gay marriage?
HUCKABEE: It's not about being against gay marriage, it's about being for traditional marriage. I always, you know, try and say that this isn't about what we're against, it's about what we're for. And we know that if we're going to have a future generation, it's required to have a male and a female give 23 chromosomes each to create the new DNA --
O'REILLY: Yeah, but gays aren't going to -- gays aren't going to infringe on heterosexual marriage. I mean, they're just going to do what they do and then most people are heterosexual, and they'll continue to propagate the race. But a lot of evangelicals, a lot of Christian groups -- Focus on the Family -- they worked against gay marriage in California. And I'm -- you just -- I'm always interested in why they opposed it.
HUCKABEE: Well, I think that if we are going to hold true that words matter and definitions really do matter -- and surely they do -- marriage has historically only meant one thing in all of human civilization. It's meant male-female relationship in the context of creating a new generation and then training replacements. Even in the most definite days of the Greek and Roman Empire, when homosexual behavior was pretty prevalent, they never changed the definition of marriage.
And if they change the definition, then where does it stop? Do we tell the people in West Texas, whose cult believes that a man can have 27 wives, that he can't do that? And the answer would be: Why can't he do that?
O'REILLY: Right. Well, that's true. Under equal protection, you'd have to extend it. All right, that's pretty much what I believe, too. We're losing you on your cell, but I want to plug your book again. The book is Do the Right Thing: Inside the Movement That's Bringing Common Sense Back to America -- Governor Mike Huckabee. And we appreciate it, governor, very much.
You know, that's pretty much my answer, too. You get a -- you get to a situation where if you're going to change the definition of marriage for gays then you have to change it across the board for everybody.
WIEHL: No, you could just say, "between two people."
O'REILLY: You can't. Not under equal protection. If you're going to change it, then it's gotta be changed, and the blanket is gotta -- the umbrella's gotta go everywhere. You just can't say, "Well, we're going to make an adjustment here for two people." Why? Then you have to explain why it's not three or four. And, you know, that's logical. All right, we'll be back with your calls and comments.
Restrictions on gay marriage are a form of gender descrimination. They limit a person's marriage partner pool based solely on their sex. Laws against polygamy do not. In those cases, both sexes are limited to one partner. Thus, the slope is not slippery at all.
Not according to Santorum. His slope leads to man/dog marriages.
He's wrong. Laws against beastiality apply to both sexes. Man can't marry dog, woman can't marry dog. If dogs had personhood equivelent to humans and fell under the 14th Amendment, he'd have a point.
And dogs don't have thumbs, so they can't sign the marriage license.
I know. And I thought girls were bad at...ahem...hand stimulation. Dog's must be horrible.
Haven't there been dogs that have held political office? Literal dogs, not people who act like one.
Rome had a Senator who was also a horse, but you know those crazee Romans
And the horse was appointed, not elected.
You're right, of course. That's why the Slippery Slope is classified as a Logical Fallacy.
Essentially, the Troglodytes are arguing that if you expand marriage to include Gays, then you have to expand it infinitely to include all possible combinations of people and animals. It's nonsense, of course, but it sounds good to Black and White thinkers.... or should I say "Non-Thinkers?"
Using the same logic, we could never have lowered the voting age to 18, since the slippery slope model would have compelled us to eventually let infants vote.
A man can have 27 wives... but first he has to have 26 divorces.
Or live in the SW corner of Utah/NW corner of Arizona
Does this deserve the "live studio audience" laugh track?
I say this with my tongue firmly in my cheek but maybe the reason these guys are so hot and bothered about gay marriage is their own confused sexual identity. If they can wear a wedding ring they assume people will know they're straight 9or is it know people assume they're straight?) When they 'accidentally' rub up against that naked guy in the shower room they can say "Hey it's OK. I wasn't tryiing to cop a feel. I'm married." If marriage no longer means 'I only sleep with chicks' then a lot of these folks start to feel very insecure. But really that's just a joke. I don't really think everyone who opposes gay marriage is a closet case or anything.
I don't really think everyone who opposes gay marriage is a closet case or anything. (Shaggles)
Yeah, being serious, I don't believe that, but it's just fun to bring that up to people who oppose gay marriage. As a man who has absolutely no interest in Gay marriage, no dog in the race, I don't feel threatened in the least by it.
Shortly after the election, I stopped off at a local dive and was having a nice cold one.A group of guys probably in their 20s were next to me at the bar, and one was being typically loud like most 20-something drinking guys are. The tv had on election results, and the kid said very loudly how happy he was that prop'8 passed.
I asked him if his boyfriend had been putting a lot of pressure on him to "make it legal". His friends thought it was funny, but he got very visibly upset with me. Waaaay too upset. But he was pretty quiet after that.
As a man who has absolutely no interest in Gay marriage, no dog in the race, I don't feel threatened in the least by it.
Sounds like a bit of projection to me. I know you want to marry your dog :-)
Nope, I like things just the way they are, no strings.
"No strings"?
Does that also imply no leashes?
I think he's made it clear he's not gonna marry his kitty. I say the dog marrying option is still on the table, he just can't admit his man on dog love.
I think you hit the nail on the head of why things like Prop 8 pass. Unless you are gay or a gay bigot you don't really care if 2 men or 2 women can marry each other. So the majority of people who support gay marriage don't really care about gay marriage.
If marriage no longer means 'I only sleep with chicks' then a lot of these folks start to feel very insecure.
You mean like too many options? Maybe there's something to that. Maybe that's what they mean by "protecting marriage".... their own!
I've known struggling recovering drug addicts who were enthusiastic supporters of harsh anti-drug laws. Some people just want the government to protect them from their vices.
For the record, I didn't mean to imply that homosexual activity is a vice, except to those who are resisting it.
Also for the record, although it holds no appeal for me personally, I don't have any problem with polygamy being legal. That's none of my business either.
HUCKABEE: ...where does it stop? Do we tell the people in West Texas, whose cult believes that a man can have 27 wives, that he can't do that? And the answer would be: Why can't he do that?
O'REILLY: Right. Well, that's true. Under equal protection, you'd have to extend it. ... Then you have to explain why it's not three or four [persons getting married to each other]. And, you know, that's logical.
Nobody's marriage is legal, without a License from a legal authority: you can't even get married in Las Vegas, unless you have a License from Clark County (you have to go over to the Courthouse, near downtown, it's a block or so off the Strip: and you still have to wait 48 hours before you can get married though... I obviously know this from experience. The point is you need a License in order to be legally married).
And guess what? Nothing in all this mishegas even implies that the Licensing authority (Clark County in the example above) is going to issue a marriage License to someone who's already married: because that's the same as entering into a contract to exchange something, that you've already legally contracted to exchange it with someone else (and that makes the subsequent contract void, but has no effect on the original).
Nothing in all this mishegas means any Licensing authority would ever issue a marriage License to someone who's already married... least of all to an animal or something that isn't even a person.
bill o'reilly and Mike Huckabee:
Just bad lawyers?
Or just two idiots on Fox radio?
"You can't. Not under equal protection. If you're going to change it, then it's gotta be changed, and the blanket is gotta -- the umbrella's gotta go everywhere. You just can't say, "Well, we're going to make an adjustment here for two people." Why? Then you have to explain why it's not three or four. And, you know, that's logical."
Contrariwise, Tweedledum.
The framework is "two consenting adults". It's the same thing as the fight for interracial marriage. We didn't get any huge movement for polygamy after that, and the slippery slope applies exactly the same way.
Polygamy is a choice, without question. Polygamy also creates legal concerns, second-class citizens (and third-class, fourth-class, etc), and issues regarding abuse and cult mentalities. There is none of that inherent to gay marriage, because the dynamics are exactly the same as those of traditional marriage. There's also a very obvious solution for polygamists without having it legal. All they have to do is marry one person, and keep whatever other partners around without legal recognition. They get what they want, and the system remains the same. Gay people do not have such an alternative available.
So you don't really need to explain why people shouldn't be allowed to have 27 wives just because homosexuals are allowed to marry, but such an explanation is not that difficult to imagine anyway. O'Reilly just isn't up to the task, I guess.
On a side note, as a former Mormon I find it hilarious that the Mormons poured all that money into a proposition that stopped polygamy dead in its tracks. What an opportunity to relive days gone by, and they missed it!
Gay marriage restrictions discriminate based on sex. Polygamy laws do not. O'Reilly is incapable of acknowledging this most basic of points.
The irony here is that the Mor(m)ons had to flee local bigotry more than once in their early years. In fact, their con-man founder was murdered by an anti-Mor(m)on mob, if I remember correctly.
I just find it odd that they would now be so viciously promoting a similar bigotry toward another group today. Strange, ignorant people.
Hmmmm..... I wonder if BillO is considering moving to California.... after Prop 8 gets booted out by the courts... all that talk of 27 wives must be driving Billy insane....
Poor guy... I'm gonna miss him when he finally loses his show (for low ratings)... well... we can dream.
Here's a great column by one of the few remaining Republican moderates:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/18/AR2008111802886.html
I just hope she's ready for the Troglodyte sh*tstorm that's coming her way.
I heard a talk radio host this morning refer to this codified bigotry as Prop Hate.
Quite appropriate, I thought.
how can we say that america is equal rights if there are still people without equal rights?
You know, I agree with Colonel Sanders in THEORY about polygamy. In one sense, who cares? Then you hear about all these FDLS geezers forcing 12 year old girls to marry, and how all 28 wives are collecting welfare, and it just ruins the party.