I would also have to feel sympathetic towards them, too. Brainwashed women who believe a manipulative man don't inspire my understanding, just my pity.
Out there in the cities, or in suburbia, a lot of people, liberal, conservative, and mushy middle, know polygamist people.
Ok, substitute "polygamist" for "homosexual" in my response, but even if there are only 1% of people in the US who are homosexual, there are a FAR fewer number that are polygamist. And you know it, too.
Are you so "mean spirited"--to use your term--that you would deny these harmless folks the right to marry whom they want? Don't you know, their marriage doesn't affect your marriage?
It's true, another set of people's living situation does not affect my own. And yes, I do question their right to state sanction for that relationship, just as the religious conservatives do for gay relationships. The difference is, there are a LOT more people willing to grant so-called "marital" rights to a homosexual couple than would grant them to a polygamist group. I guess that's just the tyranny of the emerging majority on this issue.
Look, the difference here is that you think that homosexuals and polygamists are sick, misguided individuals. For me, its just the polygamists, when we're talking about only the two groups. Conservatives need to deal with the fact that there are a lot of folks in the mushy middle, and at least a sizable minority of us over on the conservative side, who feel the same way.
Your opinion is therefore based on a bigoted notion of the persons whom you impose your views on.
My opinion is based on the only instance of polygamists I've seen, which is on websites that they themselves put up. If I had an opportunity to know some polygamists personally, I might have a different opinion, but I doubt it.
Instead, polygamists should be denied marriage based on the moral beliefs of the majority. But as you see, that legal standard was dismantled by the courts, in order to create homosexual marriage.
The problem is that you think that you're in the clear majority. It might be true in your town, or your workplace, or your social group, or in your church. But its not the way things are in the nation as a whole. The courts have dealt with the fact that, as a society, learned people have been moving away from the model of homosexuality as a combination of sin and mental illness.
Like it or not, that explains today's vote. If the same vote had happened even ten years earlier, it would have gone the other way.
I never argued their numbers were relevant to the eventual legality of their marriage practice. Their minority status means nothing to the courts. What I do argue is the courts will just as easily side with the minority in this case, as in the homosexual rulings, regardless of what the people feel about it.
But if you DO want to talk numbers, irrelevant as they are to this discussion, I found a few interesting facts. Turns out the estimated polygamist population in Utah is likely 60,000, not the smaller numbers I cited earlier. For a state whose population is 2.3 million, that makes it 2.6% polygamist (more than its gay population, I might add, which totals a miniscule 0.3% same-sex couples). And that’s just those currently trying to practice polygamy underground. Once polygamy is legalized, the numbers could realistically be expected to rise, wouldn’t you think?
Interestingly, polygamist marriage differs greatly from homosexual marriage in several key areas that indicate growth after legalization. For one thing, homosexual marriage can never exceed 1-3% of the population, since it is limited to the number of persons considering themselves homosexual. In addition, anecdotal evidence suggests many, if not most, homosexuals have no interest in ever becoming married.
By contrast, all polygamists want to get married, and unpredictable numbers of other people might eventually practice polygamy who do not currently show that inclination. Also, this kind of marriage need not be confined to heterosexuals, and is in fact sought after by homosexuals, as proven by the 1972 Gay Rights Platform of the United States. (See post #438.)
The practice is also revered by a number of religious groups, fringe or not--most notably Islam.
There are over 4 million Muslims in the United States, and by 2010, they are expected to surpass the American Jewish population. They are among the fastest growing religion in the United States. If polygamy is legalized in the U.S., expect not a few of these individuals to practice it, as they do in other countries without polygamy restrictions.
Another consideration is the amount of children that inevitably spring from polygamy. They will be raised in this atmosphere, and most in turn will carry on the tradition as adults. In that, gay marriage has another growth disadvantage.
We cannot predict the actual numbers of people who would take advantage of the legalization of polygamy, but we can predict it will have a much higher growth rate than homosexual marriage.
Is this what we want? I don’t. But how can we stop it, now that Pandora’s Box is gaping open? Amending the Constitution is a drastic step, but one needed to effectively stop polygamy and other alternative forms of marriage that are offensive to the community.
It's true, another set of people's living situation does not affect my own. And yes, I do question their right to state sanction for that relationship, just as the religious conservatives do for gay relationships.
I think that’s contradictory. “Religious conservatives,” as you call them, oppose both gay marriage and polygamy, on the grounds that these are immoral and out of step with the majority's values and tradition. This is a consistent opinion. You oppose polygamy only, on the grounds that it is immoral and out of step with the majority's values and tradition, yet not gay marriage, which is perhaps even more offensive to the community, and is more radical.
It seems, logically, that you must be for both or for neither.
The difference is, there are a LOT more people willing to grant so-called "marital" rights to a homosexual couple than would grant them to a polygamist group. I guess that's just the tyranny of the emerging majority on this issue.
One year ago, how many people were lobbying to grant gay marriage? Very, very few. Now that it was legalized in Massachusetts, many people have figured there’s no point fighting it, and have bought the liberal arguments supporting it. (These folks, however, still remain in the minority.)
This proves nothing about what should or should not be legal forms of marriage. It only proves that once a thing is legalized, it become more palatable to the people.
Look, the difference here is that you think that homosexuals and polygamists are sick, misguided individuals. For me, its just the polygamists, when we're talking about only the two groups.
I never said homosexuals and polygamists are “sick, misguided individuals.” In fact, I respect them as my brothers and sisters, and pray for their return to Christ. We should hate the sin, but love the sinner, as Jesus taught.
I do hate the sin, and want to diminish its influence on America. The relativistic code imposed by Lawrence v. Texas treats all sexual behavior as requiring state sanction, regardless of laws passed against it by the moral majority. You know where this will lead, of course. It’s not just the things we’ve talked about, but also legalized prostitution. After all, that’s just about consenting adults. How dare society impose its judgment! Anti-pornography laws and age limitations on sexual behavior are also at risk. Did you know the ACLU is currently fighting for nudist rights for children?
Our country’s in bad shape.
My opinion is based on the only instance of polygamists I've seen, which is on websites that they themselves put up. If I had an opportunity to know some polygamists personally, I might have a different opinion, but I doubt it.
That is a very thin standard for marriage law.
I know some polygamists, as I stated earlier. They are human beings, not unintelligent bogeymen living in caves. However, my familiarity with them does not make me want to tear down the traditional, national understanding of marriage to accommodate their choice. Society prospers under a two-parent, heterosexual marriage. Every child wants a mother and a father, and possibly a few siblings. This is the ideal that society has always preferred, for its own best future.
Homosexuals are, of course, free to practice their “pursuit of happiness” as they see fit in their homes. That is a private affair, which they have no right to impose on society. But it seems they aren’t happy to leave well enough alone. What they want is not to pursue happiness, but to force acceptance of their pursuits on the rest of us.
If we allow them to do that, we, being a society of equality, must allow all others the same privilege.
The problem is that you think that you're in the clear majority. It might be true in your town, or your workplace, or your social group, or in your church. But its not the way things are in the nation as a whole. The courts have dealt with the fact that, as a society, learned people have been moving away from the model of homosexuality as a combination of sin and mental illness.
Notice the people didn’t ask for gay marriage. It was imposed on them by the MA court. Once it came to be, the approval numbers for gay marriage went up, though that stat remains in the minority--not because we want it, but because, like Roe v. Wade, it’s seen as the new law of the land that you just have to accept as the “new morality.”
This still doesn’t jive with your premise that marriage laws should be based on what the majority wants.
Like it or not, that explains today's vote. If the same vote had happened even ten years earlier, it would have gone the other way.
Actually, any attempt to change the Constitution is met with initial resistance. I’d say the first try, ending with 48 cloture votes by Senators, is a good start. When Bush is reelected, perhaps he will do more lobbying for the amendment. I can hope, at least.
One thing you can’t say is the 60 Senators voting against cloture are pro-gay marriage. Only a small number are on record as supporting it. Most opposed the amendment because they said it was a “states’ rights” issue, and they fell back on the Defense of Marriage Act, passed under Bill Clinton, which they said was sufficient to defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Olympia Snowe, for example, said the amendment was premature, since the DOMA is still in effect.
See http://www.clsnet.org/clsPages/lobbying/fma/SenPositionList.php. Go through this list, and you will see that an overwhelming majority of the non-supporting Senators cite states’ rights and the DOMA as the reasons they oppose the amendment. Some indicate they will vote for it in the future, if DOMA is overturned by the courts. Many observers predict it will. It is currently in litigation.
The DOMA reads, in part: “[T]he word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Currently, that is the national definition, in contradiction to the MA court-imposed law. One of them is going to have to budge.