Rising Popularity of the Legalization of Polygamy
In Canada, polygamy is oozing onto the public square as a result of same-sex marriage lending legitimacy to some of it’s argument. What’s different in this case is that a majority of the anti-polygamy lobby is being fueled by opressive feminists who, because of their ideology, find polygamy repugnant. Now that Pandora’s box has been opened, on what grounds can the Canadian government “fairly” prevent voluntary plural marriage?
.jpg)
I know for a fact that this cannot be true. After all, the media and liberal elites assured us that this wouldn’t happen after former Sen. Santorum predicted that it would.
Comment by Jay Anderson — September 13, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Hmmm.
Bountiful has been in existence far longer than any same sex marriage law.
What is the common denominator of those practicing plural marriage?
A connection to gay rights or hedonist organization? Nope.
Reigion?
Getting warmer.
A particular religion?
Now you’re hot.
The challenge to anti-polygamy laws will be made on religious expression grounds, not any kind of equal protection grounds.
Do you favor laws that restrict certain forms of religious expression such as, biut not limited to, polygamy? It’s important when getting on the slippery slope to get on the correct slippery slope.
Comment by Unapologetic Catholic — September 13, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
The point is that in the U.S. they now have a constitutional leg to stand on after Lawrence v. Texas. I’d be shocked if they didn’t use equal protection as at least one basis of their argument. If they don’t, they need to get a new lawyer.
After all, supporters of polygamy would be remiss if they didn’t argue that they, too, have “at the heart of [their] liberty … the right to define one’s concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life”.
Comment by Jay Anderson — September 13, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
Well, they don’t have an “equal protection” leg to stand on. The ploygamists are religous adherents and claim interference with their religious expression. That is clear inthe second sentence of the linked article. They claim polygamy is biblical–not a frivolous claim: http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com
The Lawrence languge can’t be relied upon becasue it is from Scalia’s dissent–a losing argument. You’re not going to go far in arguing the losing side’s parade of horribles in a future case. Almost every dissenting opinion has a similar slippery slope argument. Polygamy is easily distinguishable from same sex marriage.
In fact, here’s Scalia himself saying he has no problem with it–if the state enacted such a law:
“Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one’s fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one’s views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts–or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them–than I would forbid it to do so.”
He even rejects your slippery slope argument specifically:
“One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts–and may legislate accordingly.”
If you’re going to argue against same sex marriage you should do so on the basis that, by itself, it’s wrong,–not on the basis that it might lead to some evil down the line. Exactly the same slippery slope argument was made in Loving v. Virginia, the interracial marriage case. And jsut as forecast, here we are, further down the slope at same sex marriage.
Even if the slippery slope argument was valid in Loving, the laws should have been repealed anyway. Nobody doubts that today. The argument was unconvincing in Loving and remains so today. Slippery slope is the resort of those who have nothing else to offer. That’s why its’s important to stick to the subject and explain why same sex marriage istself is a bad idea. Offering bad arguments will mean that you will lose the issue.
And, as I pointed out above, there is a much more threatening slippery slope argument that impacts Catholics. If the government can prohibit FLDS adherents from practicing certain religious beliefs, what principled reason keeps the goverment from prohibiting adherents of other religions from practicing theirs?
Comment by Unapologetic Catholic — September 13, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
[...] wrote an interesting post today on Rising Popularity of the Legalization of PolygamyHere’s a quick [...]
Pingback by Gibtod.Com » Rising Popularity of the Legalization of Polygamy — October 28, 2007 @ 2:24 pm