The Case for Polygamy and Why Progressives Will Fight It

 

shutterstock_117297643After a few days of letting my pro-SSM friends and family revel in their victory, I took it upon myself to start pushing back on Facebook against the persecution of the Kleins and other conscientious objectors. What I learned says a lot about the developing cultural battlefield.

Progressives honestly don’t realize how deeply hypocritical it is to argue forcefully for “one special spouse” in precisely the same rhetorical manner that opponents of gay marriage have been throughout this national psychodrama. In practically the same breath, they note that laws banning homosexuality existed until fairly recently, then dismiss the possibility of plural marriages because they’re not legal anywhere. Sound familiar?

I like to point out that it’s a simple exercise to extrapolate Justice Kennedy’s logic to plural marriage and be equally valid. If love, dignity, and identity are the litmus test of what constitutes a marriage, the number of participants is trivial. The argument will go like this:

Who are we to say that an immigrant family who practices plural marriage in their culture shouldn’t have their human dignity validated in America? Are they not as worthy of dignity as homosexuals or Christians? Are they not worthy of having their deep,personal identity validated by American society? Isn’t America the land of cultural inclusion and religious liberty? Surely you can recognize that three people can have a deep and abiding love for each other. How does their polygamous marriage harm yours?

Progressives will try to argue that no one in America is agitating for the right to plural marriages, even though they know full well that there is. There’s a sizable Muslim population throughout the country — especially in Michigan, practicing Sharia law unofficially — some of it itching to find a way to work the tendrils of Sharia into the American legal system. The Mormon church only took up the battle against polygamy when they came under national pressure, and today continue to suppress minority polygamous sects. I wouldn’t be surprised if new sects start popping up everywhere. Lawsuits are already being filed, and I can understand why they’d feel empowered by the gay marriage ruling. Liberals should be prepared for people to be resentful and angry when they try to defend homosexual marriages over their cultural heritage.

The following is the thing that sends my Liberal friends into conniptions:

Discrimination – n. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, sex, or religion.

Under this definition, anyone advocating for the “one special spouse” rule is discriminating against minorities that practice polygamy.

And that is where the analogy will die, because Progressives will take up the fight, tooth and nail. Someone said recently, “Scratch a Liberal hard enough, and you’ll find a nasty racist.” I don’t find this to be any more true of Liberals than hardcore Conservatives. But… if you scratch a Progressive hard enough, you’ll almost always find an anti-religious, anti-Christian bigot. The most likely proponents of polygamy will be minority religious sects. Progressives will fight because they hate religion more than they love cultural inclusion. Social conservatives will have to decide whether to take up the cause of polygamy as their only foil against secular leftism.

Despite the new regime, I still believe marriage between one man and one woman is the hallmark of a truly civilized society. Broadening, loosening, or otherwise corrupting the definition is actually a lessening of marriage’s ability to create social cohesion. It’s not evolutionary, it devolutionary. The idea that the “arc of history bends toward justice” is a ridiculous fallacy that we should dispense with unceremoniously. It often bends toward lunacy, and it is only under the efforts of the rational that sanity is ever restored. This arrangement is not sane, and I have no idea where we go from here.

Progressivism’s (and Libertarianism’s) problem is that it can’t stop at the edge. We always have to go off the deep end. The tide will recede on this summer of love, and when it does I hope people will realize that redefining marriage because “it makes people feel better about themselves” as the overriding legal principle is totally and completely flawed, and sets us on a path to civil unrest. Progressives’ solution will be to dismantle the tax status of churches that don’t comply and draft European-style hate speech laws to muzzle anyone inclined to disagree or speak the truth.

Bravo, Justice Kennedy. Tell me more about a nation based on Liberty …

Published in Culture, Marriage
Tags:

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 67 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    We also must get this out from under the shadows. Since it is currently illegal, families and religious groups that practice it often have shady practices for how they go about things. After all, it’s illegal. When it’s illegal, it can’t really be properly regulated. Some of these groups marry off under-age girls, for instance. They could hardly do that if they had to get a license for their second/third/etc. wife.

    It is like the Libertarian argument for legalizing prostitution. If it’s legal, we can make sure the women aren’t being abused.

    • #1
  2. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Only reason to oppose polygamy is bigotry.

    Justice Kennedy is an anti-polygamy bigot for randomly and unecessarily adding the word “two” in his decision. There is no plausible reason the constitutional right to express yourself is limited to one spouse.

    I think it is important that we point out the bigotry if these anti-polygamy bigots often and as loudly as they called people who believed in traditional family anti-gay bigots (you know, like the Daily Shot and Rob Long did). They’ve earned it.

    • #2
  3. Augustine Member
    Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Big Ern: And that is where the analogy will die, because Progressives will take up the fight, tooth and nail. Someone said recently, “Scratch a Liberal hard enough, and you’ll find a nasty racist.” I don’t find this to be any more true of Liberals than hardcore Conservatives. But… if you scratch a Progressive hard enough, you’ll almost always find an anti-religious, anti-Christian bigot. The most likely proponents of polygamy will be minority religious sects of Muslims, Hindus and Mormons. Progressives will fight because they hate religion more than they love cultural inclusion. Social conservatives will have to decide whether to take up the cause of polygamy as their only foil against secular leftism.

    Is the Progressive movement really anti-religion, or just anti-Christian?

    • #3
  4. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Augustine:

    Is the Progressive movement really anti-religion, or just anti-Christian?

    My own view is they are anti-religion in general (well, except the Atheist religion preferred by Marxists everywhere) but they hold particular disdain for Christianity, so given a choice, they will always choose any other religion over Christianity.

    The bigotry is strong with the progressives.

    • #4
  5. Jojo Inactive
    Jojo
    @TheDowagerJojo

    Of course all the arguments for gay marriage apply doubly to polygamous or incestuous marriages, which don’t even require redefining marriage.    The decision is not based on law or logic, but clout.

    I’ve been pondering the injustice of denying single people who can’t find human mates   equal access to the government-supplied dignity and antidote to loneliness of marriage, as Justice Kennedy defines it.  If a woman wants to marry herself, or her cat, because otherwise she will feel like an excluded “other” not fully accepted by society, it seems kindness and equal protection require she be allowed to do so.

    • #5
  6. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Jojo: Of course all the arguments for gay marriage apply doubly to polygamous …marriages…

    Or triply or quadruply or…

    • #6
  7. Big Ern Inactive
    Big Ern
    @BigErn

    Arahant:We also must get this out from under the shadows. Since it is currently illegal, families and religious groups that practice it often have shady practices for how they go about things. After all, it’s illegal. When it’s illegal, it can’t really be properly regulated. Some of these groups marry off under-age girls, for instance. They could hardly do that if they had to get a license for their second/third/etc. wife.

    It is like the Libertarian argument for legalizing prostitution. If it’s legal, we can make sure the women aren’t being abused.

    Great points. Although, the left has succeeded with gay marriage in part by portraying gays as angelic and downtrodden. Legalized prostitution is a pretty steep uphill battle.

    • #7
  8. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Jojo: If a woman wants to marry herself, or her cat, because otherwise she will feel like an excluded “other” not fully accepted by society, it seems kindness and equal protection require she be allowed to do so.

    Of course. We’ve had a woman marry a dolphin.  Quote from the bride

    “It’s not a perverted thing. I do love this dolphin. He’s the love of my life,”

    The guy who is suing to marry his laptop.  And if you can marry a laptop, you can marry a video game character.

    The guy who wants to marry his goat.  After all, who could argue with logic

    “She doesn’t speak and doesn’t want money,”

    Don’t worry, he promises to not sexually consummate the marriage.  After all, marriage is no longer about sex, it’s about “expressing” yourself.  What kind of bigotry says marriage has to be restricted to humans.  The parallels to Loving v. Virginia are patently obvious to the casual observer.

    Let’s see, This woman married the Eiffel Tower and this woman married the Berlin Wall and this woman married a roller coaster and this guy married a pillow.

    Marriage is nothing but an opportunity to express yourself, and what kind of bigotry does it take to say that a marriage to a goat, dolphin, or roller coaster  is somehow inferior to your marriage.  How will letting that man marry a goat hurt your marriage?   Bigot.

    • #8
  9. Big Ern Inactive
    Big Ern
    @BigErn

    Augustine:

    Big Ern: And that is where the analogy will die, because Progressives will take up the fight, tooth and nail. Someone said recently, “Scratch a Liberal hard enough, and you’ll find a nasty racist.” I don’t find this to be any more true of Liberals than hardcore Conservatives. But… if you scratch a Progressive hard enough, you’ll almost always find an anti-religious, anti-Christian bigot. The most likely proponents of polygamy will be minority religious sects of Muslims, Hindus and Mormons. Progressives will fight because they hate religion more than they love cultural inclusion. Social conservatives will have to decide whether to take up the cause of polygamy as their only foil against secular leftism.

    Is the Progressive movement really anti-religion, or just anti-Christian?

    It doesn’t matter. To a Progressive, all religions are morally equivalent. Christians are guilty of the sins committed by other religions because we’re close.

    • #9
  10. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN

    I keep wondering if the legal age for marrying is yet another conflict area.

    It varies from state to state, and therefore the case can be made that age restrictions on marrying are discriminatory.

    • #10
  11. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Big Ern, Christians are guilty of sins committed by other religions because other religions (or one of them anyway) are scary.

    • #11
  12. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    The progressives will go for polyandry marriage. It has always been the goal. It just will take a little time to get their leftist mob in a row. To reset them to the new goal. That reset is already in progress. In 5 years it will be a done deal.

    • #12
  13. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    Augustine:

    Is the Progressive movement really anti-religion, or just anti-Christian?

    Progressivism as practiced by the Democrats is a religion with its own sacraments and commandments.  To be sure, these positions are subject to drift and change.  It does not like competition, which is why the Bill of Rights is now under fire.  Freedom of religion needs to be changed to subject religion/s to the currently popular aggrieved group and its bone of contention.  They cannot let anyone out of conformity.

    • #13
  14. Valiuth Member
    Valiuth
    @Valiuth

    Polygamy, shmoligamy.

    The real fight is to legalize incest which is also based on purely prejudiced views.

    • #14
  15. Ricochet Member
    Ricochet
    @IWalton

    Had the SSM been left to the states to sort out some would adopt it in some form most wouldn’t and none would embrace polygamy.  However, now we’ve got it incased in sloppy nihilist language it’s open to anything.  But, not to be too conspiratorial, the objective has been weakening  Christian political clout and cultural influence so it will continue.  As Christians defend themselves from an encroaching state, on taxes, on expression and presence in the public square, they will fight with “free exercise”  Their allies in this will be Islam pushed by progressives and eventually we’ll reject free exercise to avoid Sharia law.  So we won’t get polygamy, but neither will we get free exercise of religion.

    • #15
  16. user_517406 Inactive
    user_517406
    @MerinaSmith

    I hope we don’t see conservatives pushing polygamy just to prove our predictions correct.  I fear legalization will happen, but want no part of bringing it about, though I agree that the logic is there in the Obergefell decision.  I don’t think there is nearly the constituency as for genderless marriage, however, especially since its practice is usually tied to religion, but I can imagine people like the Browns bringing a court case (or have they already?) and winning the day for themselves that way.  The only upside I can see to this would be waking people up to the chaos they’ve supported already, which could be a boost to the move already afoot to strengthen heterosexual marriage and family.

    A few clarifications about Mormon polygamy–I don’t think polygamy would have been abandoned when it was without federal pressure, but it was declining in Utah before the battery of laws that attacked it and the imprisonment of many polygamists in the 1880s.  It was becoming ever more unworkable as Utah moved from a household to a market economy, and as Utah became far less isolated after the railroad came.  Magazines and novels flooded into Utah touting an irresistibly romantic view of courtship, love and marriage that was antithetical to polygamy.  Large showy weddings became fashionable in Utah as they were in other parts of the country, and young people were editing polygamy out of their lives.  So the end of Mormon polygamy happened on many fronts.  Wouldn’t it be ironic if polygamy becomes legal and Mormons are, as I have no doubt we would be, among the main defenders of monogamy?

    • #16
  17. CandE Inactive
    CandE
    @CandE

    Merina Smith: Wouldn’t it be ironic if polygamy becomes legal and Mormons are, as I have no doubt we would be, among the main defenders of monogamy?

    For whatever reason, God always seems to want us running against the grain – no booze and just 1 bride.  At least we still can have bacon ;)

    -E

    • #17
  18. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Merina Smith: I hope we don’t see conservatives pushing polygamy just to prove our predictions correct.

    Haven’t we learned that what conservatives want is irrelevant?  Our Supreme Court decisions are influenced more by the editorial page of the NY Times than any actual reading of the Constitution.  We now have a heretofore undiscovered Constitutional right to “express ourselves” however we want (well, to be clear, you can’t express yourself if you are a Christian business owner, so there are some limits to your ability to express yourself), so once the Supreme Court eliminated any rational meaning to the institution of marriage, polygamy is merely a tiny incremental (and inevitable) step.

    If anything, I would argue the only to prevent polygamy from being legal is for conservatives to endorse it because the NY Times will reflexively oppose anything supported by conservatives and will, as a result, steel the Supreme Court to maintain its irrational bigotry in favor of some forms of alternative marriage and against others.

    You can defend traditional marriage and oppose polygamy (and most conservatives will continue to do so), but I’ve seen no rational arguments against polygamy from supporters of SSM (including Tom’s attempt which I can’t find quickly so will add link later).

    The horse is out of the barn.  Marriage as an institution has no legal meaning anymore except as an avenue to express yourself.  Conservatives should simply ignore the legal wranglings and live proper moral lives.

    • #18
  19. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Real Jane Galt:The progressives will go for polyandry marriage.It has always been the goal.It just will take a little time to get their leftist mob in a row.To reset them to the new goal.That reset is already in progress.In 5 years it will be a done deal.

    Nope. Because progressivism is a liberal coalition, they’d be betraying the feminist part of the progressive team. And feminists say that polygamy is anti-woman and misogynist. And it’s not like logic had anything to do with it. Gay Marriage was never about marriage. It was about chipping away one more vestige of Christian civilization.

    • #19
  20. Douglas Inactive
    Douglas
    @Douglas

    Valiuth:Polygamy, shmoligamy.

    The real fight is to legalize incest which is also based on purely prejudiced views.

    Yep. This will come first.

    • #20
  21. Asquared Inactive
    Asquared
    @ASquared

    Douglas:

    Valiuth:Polygamy, shmoligamy.

    The real fight is to legalize incest which is also based on purely prejudiced views.

    Yep. This will come first.

    Probably.  Since marriage has nothing to do with children any more, there are no non-bigoted reasons to oppose incest.  It’s simply one more form of bigotry.

    • #21
  22. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    John Penfold:Had the SSM been left to the states to sort out some would adopt it in some form most wouldn’t and none would embrace polygamy. However, now we’ve got it incased in sloppy nihilist language it’s open to anything. ….

    Yes, now (soon) civil/legal marriage must accept it all. No choice given the Kennedy court decision.

    What will be the basis for imposing obligations or even merely expectations on participants? It will be like the get-the-government-out-of-marriage folks wanted except that government won’t actually be out of the marriage business. At best it will merely be involved listlessly and sometimes intrusively in matters of human dignity and loneliness, at worst it will take the opportunity to minutely regulate all the variations of human interaction at play.

    • #22
  23. nedfromnowhere Inactive
    nedfromnowhere
    @nedfromnowhere

    Progressives’ solution will be to dismantle the tax status of churches that don’t comply and draft European-style hate speech laws to muzzle anyone inclined to disagree or speak the truth.

    Let them try Not everyone will turn the other cheek. If the day comes when believers must make a choice between God and the Constitution…weep. And then find some cover…

    • #23
  24. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    A-Squared:….

    The horse is out of the barn. Marriage as an institution has no legal meaning anymore except as an avenue to express yourself. Conservatives should simply ignore the legal wranglings and live proper moral lives.

    Indeed. It won’t all evaporate overnight, but it’s over. Whether through the judiciary or through the legislatures, legal obligations don’t make sense any longer now that this isn’t about a public interest as much as it’s about serving personal interests (unless you believe the public has an interest in expression, dignity, love, not being lonely, etc.).

    • #24
  25. user_259843 Inactive
    user_259843
    @JefferyShepherd

    Well said in the original post.  I also especially appreciate your inclusion of the loony libertarians and their responsibility in the gay marriage fiasco.

    I like Scalia’s approach to such questions not specifically addressed by the constitution (like death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, etc) – paraphrasing here: where do 9 dudes in robes living in DC acquire the expertise to decide such issues better than the whole of the people?  Maybe it’s better to vote on it or otherwise let it percolate through the political process.

    Ah well, water under the bridge.

    • #25
  26. Ricochet Coolidge
    Ricochet
    @Manny

    Excellent post and spot on.  It’s a matter of time until progressives will push polygamy.

    if you scratch a Progressive hard enough, you’ll almost always find an anti-religious, anti-Christian bigot

    And progressives from the north have an anti southerner bigotry.  Up here in NYC they find no qulams using the word “redneck.”  And not in a complementary way.

    • #26
  27. user_385039 Inactive
    user_385039
    @donaldtodd

    Merina Smith: 16″I hope we don’t see conservatives pushing polygamy just to prove our predictions correct. I fear legalization will happen, but want no part of bringing it about, though I agree that the logic is there in the Obergefell decision.

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if polygamy becomes legal and Mormons are, as I have no doubt we would be, among the main defenders of monogamy?”

    The religion that counts, liberalism as expressed by progressives, means that liberals know in their heart of hearts that equality before the law takes precedence here, no matter what has been said.  Only brute animals who cannot express consent will be spared, and only from public display.

    I have no doubt that there are those who will express their interests in children of the same or opposite sex.  That will follow polygamy as surely as night follows day.  The Chinese curse, may you live in interesting times, is coming to fruition daily.

    • #27
  28. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Agree with much of this post, but disagree vehemently that progressives will come out strongly against polygamy. The idea of “throuples,” “wed-lease” (vs. wedlock), and “monagamish” have already been floated in the NYT and Washington Post by the intellectual vanguard. These people aren’t known for their moral clarity and courage. They’re nihilists. That religious Muslims may benefit from the new “anything goes” is just fine with them. Anything in competition with our Judeo-Christian western heritage is to be celebrated.

    This is also about destroying gender distinctions. The Pentagon is already looking at affirming “openly serving” transgenders. Next thing GIs will be serving in camo burkas. Our enemies will die laughing — if we’re lucky.

    • #28
  29. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Big Ern:

    Arahant:We also must get this out from under the shadows. Since it is currently illegal, families and religious groups that practice it often have shady practices for how they go about things. After all, it’s illegal. When it’s illegal, it can’t really be properly regulated. Some of these groups marry off under-age girls, for instance. They could hardly do that if they had to get a license for their second/third/etc. wife.

    It is like the Libertarian argument for legalizing prostitution. If it’s legal, we can make sure the women aren’t being abused.

    Great points. Although, the left has succeeded with gay marriage in part by portraying gays as angelic and downtrodden. Legalized prostitution is a pretty steep uphill battle.

    It seems to me that Lawrence vs Texas pretty much has legalized prostitution.  As long as it is behind closed doors between consenting adults the government has no interest.  It is just a matter of somebody pushing the point.

    • #29
  30. Fake John Galt Coolidge
    Fake John Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Douglas:

    Real Jane Galt:The progressives will go for polyandry marriage.It has always been the goal.It just will take a little time to get their leftist mob in a row.To reset them to the new goal.That reset is already in progress.In 5 years it will be a done deal.

    Nope. Because progressivism is a liberal coalition, they’d be betraying the feminist part of the progressive team. And feminists say that polygamy is anti-woman and misogynist. And it’s not like logic had anything to do with it. Gay Marriage was never about marriage. It was about chipping away one more vestige of Christian civilization.

    They will be some form of group marriage.  Why would the feminist not want a group marriage where womyn out number men?  Why should they not have it?

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.