Tag: Polygamy

Ayaan speaks with Dan Seligson about polygamy and the marriage market. They explore the question: does polygamy breed poverty or does poverty breed polygamy? Dan also explains where polygamy still exists, the chronic scarcity it creates, and the commodification of women.

Dan received his PhD in physics from Berkeley. From 1984 until 2001, he worked at Intel Corp. in Santa Clara and Jerusalem where he focused on manufacturing technology and machine learning. He has been an investor in, advisor to, and board member and founder of several genomics-related companies. He has been awarded 9 US patents.

Welcome to the Harvard Lunch Club Political Podcast for July 25, 2018 number 185!!! it’s the Theybie Morons edition of the show with your definitely not-moronic hosts, radio guy Todd Feinburg and dedicated AI-bot Mike Stopa.

This week we bring you two topics from the culture wars, the gender wars, the what are they doing to that baby?!? wars.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America serve up three crazy martinis today.  They shake their heads at the the rampant speculation that’s constantly swirling around the Trump administration staff – from the same people who had no idea Trump was going to fire James Comey.  They also react to the Tennessee woman who forced her Republican congressman off the road, started beating on his windows and blocked his path – all to very little reaction from the media.  And they discuss the left’s emerging acceptance of polygamy and open marriages while also updating the rise of sologamy, otherwise known as marrying yourself.

Books as Christmas Gifts: The Polygamist King

 

The Polygamist King by John MillerSomething like two-thirds of the books sold each year in the United States are sold in the weeks leading up to Christmas, which explains why publishers are more apt to release books (such as my own recent contribution, The Grand Strategy of Classical Sparta: The Persian Challenge) in the fall.

The reason that book sales are concentrated in this season is simple and straightforward: we are expected to give gifts and, tolerably often, we have no idea what to give. Knowing that there may be a host of Ricochet members in that situation, I propose over the next few days to suggest a number of recent books that might do the trick.

The first on my list is a book hot off the presses written by John J. Miller of Hillsdale College and National Review, and host of Ricochet’s own The Bookmonger podcast. It was published last week and is entitled The Polygamist King: A True Story of Murder, Lust, and Exotic Faith in America; it is available only on Kindle; and it is both short (46 pages) and inexpensive. I read it in ninety minutes, and can verify that Amazon is right to treat it as a “page-turner” and as “pulp non-fiction.”

Really, Cato? Nothing Better To Do?

 

shutterstock_179087879Like prosecutors, activists should employ discretion, giving some thought to the best allocation of their talents, efforts, and scarce resources. If you’re a national, libertarian think tank operating in 2015 America, you’ve no shortage of  causes worthy of your attention.

That’s why I’m a little confounded — not a lot, a little — that the Cato Institute filed an amicus brief in federal court on behalf of the polygamous family featured on TLC’s Sister Wives. The show documents the life of a polygamist family, including patriarch Kody Brown, his four wives, and their 17 children.

Before 2013, a person was guilty of bigamy in Utah when,

Member Post

 

With the recent Supreme Court ruling on homosexual “marriage”, I realized that polygamy must be next. At first, I was against it, but then I realized—it could be a boon! I asked my wife (Neutral Observer) if after the next Supreme Court ruling that polygamy is legalized, may I marry a woman 30 years younger […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

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:

Is Polygamy Next?

 

shutterstock_124665844-2John Roberts seems to think so. From his dissent in Obergefell:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

He continues:

William Saletan Thinks About The Definition of Marriage…

 

shutterstock_124665844…for about five seconds. But you know, that’s something.

Over at Slate, Saletan kindly explains to us why Justice Alito and Charles Krauthammer (in an old column still making the rounds) are wrong to suppose that the arguments made in favor of same-sex marriage might also be used to justify polygamous marriage. What it boils down to is that there are basic, natural facts about human beings that make monogamy stable and salutary in a way that polygamy just isn’t. Basically, the problem is jealousy. When we give our lives to another person, we want that person to be equally devoted to us. If we invite threes and fours to the altar (or county clerk’s office, or whatever), that’s just not going to work out as happily for anyone.

Let me pause for a moment to bang my head against the wall a few times. Letting the ear-ringing die down now. OK, I’m back.

Member Post

 

I posted this as a response in Parent A’s Libertarians thread but have decided to give it a thread of its own. I have mostly stayed out of the SSM discussions on Ricochet, but I feel this deserves consideration. It is written by an Orthodox Jew who is an award winning screenwriter, Robert J. Avrech. […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

In Defense of Two In Marriage

 

In many debates about same-sex marriage, traditionalists argue that marriage cannot be rationally defended as a relationship between two people once it is opened to same-sex couples. Those who favor state recognition of SSM — among whose number I count myself — generally blow off this objection, but provide little reason for their dismissal, let alone attempt a refutation.

I’d like to correct that omission and offer an argument for why civil marriage can and should remain restricted to couples, regardless of whether one favors or opposes SSM. I believe traditionalists are right to worry about legally-recognized polygamy and share their opposition to it. However, I believe that position can be more easily defended than is generally assumed. In short, I think this is an important battle that we can win.

Member Post

 

Why this? Why now? Since I have extensively written online as Jennifer Thieme, I thought it would be prudent to formally announce that I have gone back to my maiden name: Jennifer Johnson. It also seemed like a good time to tell the story of my last names, as it is an unusual story and […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Member Post

 

(The Hague), the first case of polygamy was officially recognized in Europe last Friday. Victor de Brujin (46) married civilly Bianca (31) and Mirjan (35) with a wedding ceremony that took place in front of the notary, who registered the tripartite relationship, the Brussels Journal reported. The terms “marriage”, “marry”, “civil marriage”, “betrothal” are (still) […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

A Signatory Explains His Position on Same-Sex Marriage … Sort of — Richard Epstein

 

I am one of the people who chose to sign on to the statement (which I did not draft) that carries with it the title “Freedom to Marry, Freedom To Dissent: Why We Must Have Both.” I have received some questions as to why I chose to participate. Here are the basic points.

I think that the efforts to drive people like Brendan Eich from his professional employment via a blizzard of pious statements about the need for universal tolerance, some from Mozilla itself, are themselves representative of a peculiar form of intolerance, which treats this issue as one on which there can be no debate. This effort to drown out disagreement may be legal, but that is beside the point for issues of social discourse. It would have been intolerable for individuals who opposed same-sex marriage to try to silence their opposition in this fashion, and the principle remains the same in the reverse.