Polygamy advocates buoyed by gay court wins

Washinton Blade dot com ^ | Friday, December 26, 2003 | By JOE CREA

[XBob]

"Christian polygamy, Henkel says, is a relatively new movement, based strictly upon the Old and New Testament. He describes it as a “benevolent” form of polygamy, in which a husband might take two wives to help support them financially."

What a great idea, now that there are more women in the management work force than men, I can get more than one wife to support me in a better manner. And having 3 or 4 wives, wow, I could live in relatively luxury.

[ClearCase_guy]

I don't think so...if marriage can be a contract between 2 adult humans, it just wouldn't matter what sex they are.

I think you are wrong.

If we look at dominant religious belief in the US for the past 300 years or so, marriage is between a man and a woman -- but that's not the new standard.
If we look at existing laws and all legal precedence in this country over the past 200 years or so, marriage is between a man and a woman -- but that's not the new standard.
If we look at popular opinion and allow the voters to decide, marriage would be between a man and a woman -- but that's not the new standard.

So we have a new standard that says marriage is more than just something between a man and a woman. Please explain for me the boundaries of this new standard and tell us all: Oon what grounds does this new standard block polygamy or incest?

I'll wait.

[conserv13]

Please explain for me the boundaries of this new standard and tell us all: Oon what grounds does this new standard block polygamy or incest?

If marriage was defined as between 2 adults not related to each other, this would not allow polygamy (more than 2) or incest (related) or adult /child 'marriages'

[Old Professer]

In the shadowy fringe of the pulsing penumbra of the bright line?

[ClearCase_guy]

That's not a standard. That's your wishful thinking about how something might be codified to get us out of this mess. Once the genie is out of the bottle, in order to codify it in some manner like you have specified, you have to have a reason.

That's the missing standard. There is no longer any reason to explicitly state that it is between 2 adults not related to each other. To do so would be seen as 100% arbitrary.

They threw out religion. They threw out existing law. They threw out popular sentiment. Now, there is no reason to define it at all. Marriage is now whatever anyone wants it to be.

[onedoug]

There is no slope. It's civilizational free fall.

[AmericaUnited]

What man, in his right mind, would want MORE than one wife??!!

A man who marries several rich women!

[conserv13]

That's your wishful thinking about how something might be codified to get us out of this mess

You're right! I don't want a Constitutional Amendment added over this issue. I hate to say this but I would rather have gay marriage than an amendment in the Constitution defining marriage.

[nothingnew]

OK...ya got me...but I get a separate house!!!!

FMCDH

[Qwinn]

"“It’s basically a libertarian argument — unless there is harm or some tangible drawback to a given activity, then the government has no justifiable means of regulating it,” Gordon said."

Wait a minute. Isn't marriage -itself- government regulation?

I would argue, using the exact same libertarian argument, that unless there is a tangible BENEFIT to government regulation, government shouldn't get involved. There is a tangible benefit to society for government providing a support structure for heterosexual marriage - the clear and documented benefit to their biological children. Biological children are not an issue in homosexual marriage, and they can and do adopt without it.

Therefore, using that same libertarian argument, government should NOT regulate homosexual marriage (by creating it) because there is no reason for government to get involved in it. If a gay couple wants to go to a gay church and call themselves married, fine, but setting up laws and structure to support it isn't supportable with a libertarian limited-government argument.

Qwinn

[tessalu]

Tom Green wants to get a gang of women pregnant by him, and put them all on welfare, and raise his own little gang.

[tessalu]

And he even can find a few not so bright folks that would help him in his plan.

[Cacique]

I suppose it might as well be time to recognize the validity of Muslim marriages as well. Under Muslim law a Muslim may marry up to four wives provided he can care for them all.

Isn't multiculturalism grand? I can't wait until they argue that we should allow the practice of cannibalism on religious and lifestyle liberty grounds.

[Muzzle_em]

They (the powers that be) OBVIOUSLY haven't thought about the tax ramifications. Once they realize a loss of tax $$$, all this foolishness will come to a grinding halt.

[Delbert]

I have enough trouble with the wife I got, I sure as hell dont want another one.

[Muzzle_em]

What woman in her right mind would have HIS baby?
I find him repulsive.

[Clinging Bitterly]

Hey I said this way back on another thread.
If a "marriage" doesn't necessarily have to be between a man and a woman, then logically, it doesn't have to be limited to just two either. Either the word has a definition or it doesn't. I said this was coming.

[XBob]

American legal marriage goes back through to English common law, which, on marriage, goes back to the middle ages, where 'legal' marriage was invented to define who was and was not eligible to inherit a noble's estate. If you remember Shakespeare and other authors, they were much more concerned with 'bastards' back then, particularly 'royal' ones, and who would inherit the throne, than we are now.

[William Tell]

Qwinn said: " ... the clear and documented benefit to their biological children."

What? I thought that "it takes a village ..."

Who needs heterosexual marriage if you have Hillary to arrange everything.