Whenever we talk about the effects of redefining marriage -- the normalization and legalization of polygamy, threats to religious liberty, lawsuits against small business owners, etc. -- same-sex marriage advocates counter by insisting these threats aren't real. They claim we're overreacting so that they can falsely assuage the legitimate concerns of Americans who value their first amendment rights. But the truth is, most SSM activists know exactly what's in the cards once marriage is redefined.
The ink is not yet dry on David Cameron's gay marriage Bill and already two stories in the news this week show that the Bill's critics have been proved right. A wealthy gay couple say they "have launched" legal action to force gay weddings on the Church of England; and the BBC is cheerleading for polyamory (mutiple-partner relationships).
...During the passage of the gay marriage Bill, I was one of those saying that the Church would face litigation. I was accused of scaremongering and of whipping up hysteria. It'll never happen, they said with a straight face. Perhaps they meant it. Perhaps they honestly couldn't see the danger. Perhaps, but I doubt it. The thing is, many people could see the risk, including the Church itself (initially) and leading human rights lawyers.
Redefining marriage means redefining all the basic language that relates to marriage as well. And even coming up with new terms entirely. Ryan T. Anderson expands upon this notion today in the National Review:
Merriam-Webster is going to have to update the next edition of its dictionary, at least if marriage redefiners have their way. Do you know what the words “monogamish,” “throuple,” and “wedlease” mean? If not, you soon will. After all, the power to redefine words is the power to redefine reality.
Let’s start with “monogamish,” a play on “monogamous.” A 2011 New York Times profile of gay activist Dan Savage, headlined “Married, with Infidelities,” introduced Americans to “monogamish” relationships — in which partners would allow sexual infidelity provided there were honest admissions of it.
The “monogamish” perspective is one of the purported ways in which redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships would make marriage better. The article explained: “Savage says a more flexible attitude within marriage may be just what the straight community needs.” After all, the story added, sexual exclusivity “gives people unrealistic expectations of themselves and their partners.”
If a marriage can be sexually open, why should it be limited to two people in the first place? Meet the word “throuple,” which is similar to “couple” but with three people.
...More or less permanent. Indeed, some activists come down in favor of “less.” Consider “wedlease,” a term introduced in early August in an op-ed in theWashington Post. Why should marriage be permanent when so little else in life is? Why not have temporary marriage licenses, as with other contracts? “Why don’t we borrow from real estate and create a marital lease?” the author writes. “Instead of wedlock, a ‘wedlease.’”
Back in April, an author for Slate argued that polygamy is the natural next step for "marriage equality". Now, Salon is extolling the virtues of multi-spouse marriage with their piece on a woman who has been married for 16 years to her husband, but also has a boyfriend whom she plans to marry in a “non-legal” way. The slippery slope has arrived:
Same-sex “marriage” proponents have always scoffed at the idea that redefining marriage would open the door for multi-spouse marriages. “My Two Husbands” by Angi Becker Stevens, not only argues for “poly-amorous” unions but continues to scoff at the foolish “right wing” people who expected people to go there.
The author uses her 9-year-old daughter to deflect criticism. Her daughter dutifully and understandably repeats the adult arguments for same-sex marriage and applies them to her family.
In the style of such articles, the author doesn’t make a case against monogamous marriage on principle, or for multi-spouse “marriage” on principle. Instead, she presents the facts of a particular situation as a fait accompli and challengesyou to argue why it is not so. She felt repressed before and says “I am more fulfilled now and living in a way that feels authentic for me.”
Apply a simple thought experiment, and her argument starts to wither. Imagine the article being written by a man bringing a “girlfriend” into his life and convincing his wife to tolerate it. Or imagine a Mormon talking about his repressed relationship with God instead of a political activist talking about her repressed human relationships. Salon wouldn’t have published those pieces.
But they did publish this one.
Because “love makes a marriage” now. And to say otherwise means you’re a hater.
Matthew Lewis in the Daily Caller asks, with the Supreme Court's ruling on DOMA, why doesn't the government have an obligation to honor polygamous 'marriages' as well?
"...The arguments [for gay marriage and polygamy] are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one
another.” Polygamists couldn’t agree more.
I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love each other — shouldn’t be allowed to do so?
What’s magical about the number two?
In fact, you could argue that there is an even better argument for polygamy than for same sex marriage. For one thing, there’s a long tradition (just look at the heroes of the Old Testament.) It’s also intimately tied to religious practice, which means that by prohibiting polygamy, we might also be undermining the “free exercise thereof.”
In a recent debate with Ryan Anderson of the Heritage Foundation, NYU Professor and frequently-sought-after "expert witness" in court cases to redefine marriage, made some very telling remarks revealing the underlying agenda of many of those who say that same-sex marriage "won't affect the rest of us." Hear what she has to say in this excerpt put together by Heritage:
Stacey asks about marriage: "What should limit it to two, and why should it be monogamous? Nothing, in my view."
Writing at the FirstThings blog, Professor Robert P. George reports the on an increasing trend of same-sex marriage activists "conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc."
George quotes on such activist, Mesha Gessen, who spoke recently on a panel about marriage at the Sydney Writers' Festival. Here's some of what she had to say:
It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.
Unfortunately, as Prof. George points out, "Gessen is far from out of step with other leading figures in the movement."
You can read the rest of Gessen's remarks, and Professor George's response, over at FirstThings.
We recently reported Slate author Jillian Keenan's opinion that "the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too."
Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider news coming out of Canada today:
A Canadian court is assembling an unprecedented set of testimonies and legal briefs about the pros and cons of polygamy. The goal is to answer the question of whether Canada’s anti-polygamy law is constitutional.
But, as the story reveals, there is still cause for hope. The case to legalize polygamous unions faces an uphill battle, against some formidable forces -- for example, the scholarship of Professor Joseph Henrich from the University of British Columbia.
Henrich has written of monogamy that it is "one of the foundations of Western civilization, and may explain why democratic ideals and notions of human rights first emerged as a Western phenomenon."
This much, at least, is not news to us. Let's hope that the Court recognizes this fact enshrined in the tradition of marriage, too.
A author for Slate argues without reservation that the same logic behind SSM means marriage must ultimately be redefined to included polygamy -- is it still a slippery slope argument when proponents of SSM agree with you?
Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?
We can only hope.
Yes, really. While the Supreme Court and the rest of us are all focused on the human right of marriage equality, let’s not forget that the fight doesn’t end with same-sex marriage. We need to legalize polygamy, too.
... The definition of marriage is plastic. Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less “correct” than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults. Though polygamists are a minority—a tiny minority, in fact—freedom has no value unless it extends to even the smallest and most marginalized groups among us. So let’s fight for marriage equality until it extends to every same-sex couple in the United States—and then let’s keep fighting. We’re not done yet.
Carson Hallowoy argues in The Public Discourse that "The oral arguments on Proposition 8 at the Supreme Court suggest that there is very good reason to believe that the declaration of a “right” to same-sex marriage will set us on the path to polygamy":
Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over California’s Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend, “what state restrictions could ever exist,” for example, “with respect to the number of people . . . that could get married?”
A strong statement from the pope's spokesman Fr. Lombardi, SJ in response to recent international efforts to redefined marriage. Here is what he said about the context in the United States:
In the United States, some of the referendums held on the same day as the presidential elections in various States have, for the first time, delivered an outcome favourable to same-sex marriages. It is therefore clear that in western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union.
It is nothing new. This we had already realised. Nevertheless, the matter does not cease to amaze: Because we should be asking if this really corresponds to the feelings of the people, and because the logic of it cannot have a far-sighted outlook for the common good. Not only the Catholic Church is saying this; it was pointed out clearly by the Chief Rabbi of France in a well-reasoned statement. It is not, in fact, a question of avoiding unfair discrimination for homosexuals, since this must and can be guaranteed in other ways. It is a question of admitting that a husband and a wife are publicly recognised as such; and that children who come into the world can know, and say they have, a father and a mother.
In short, preserving a vision of the human person and of human relationships where there is a public acknowledgement of monogamous marriage between a man and woman is an achievement of civilisation. If not, why not contemplate also freely chosen polygamy and, of course, not to discriminate, polyandry? It is not expected, then, the Church will give up proposing that society recognise a specific place for marriage between a man and a woman.
"...the facts from the election returns don’t support the contention that marriage is a losing issue. First, it appears that supporters of gay marriage had vast resources to promote these ballot measures that swamped social conservatives, easily outspending supporters of traditional marriage. The Left managed to heavily market this issue not only to their base but also developed ads targeting Republicans, young people, and minorities with customized messages as to why those specific audiences should support gay marriage. Traditional marriage supporters had insufficient funds to effectively respond.
Second, in each of those four states, traditional marriage outperformed Mitt Romney and Republican candidates in general. Far from a drag on the ticket, traditional marriage received more votes than Romney in each of those four states. Thus, most citizens voting Republican/Romney also voted for traditional marriage, and also a sizable bloc of Democrat/Obama voters supported traditional marriage.
In the end two things appear clear within the context of how gay marriage is currently being discussed. The first is that there is a trend among young voters in favor of gay marriage. The second is that, given the narrow margins in these races, traditional marriage still wins when equally funded, but a large imbalance of resources for promotion and organizing to mobilize voters can give gay marriage a winning edge.
The looming question that America will soon face as a consequence of gay marriage is polygamy."
City Pages takes an extended look at polyamorous Minnesotans waiting in the wings of the movement to redefine marriage:
"...Whether a poly person is looking for stability or sex, the Twin Cities has a group for pretty much any flavor.
A quick search online will show a number of various polyamory meet-up groups or organizations, catering to various ages, backgrounds, and geographical locations throughout the state. MN Poly — the Minnesota Polyamory Network — is the most well-known, and also happens to be the one that has Carrie as a member of the board.
The group officially has a couple hundred active members, but this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding a poly group in the area.
... "I remember once in the gay-marriage movement several years ago there was an opinion piece written in another local publication. The right-wing groups and talking heads were all saying things like, 'We can't support gay marriage because the next thing will be polyamorous marriages.' I thought that was interesting because I had never heard polyamory mentioned in the media before," she recalls. "So anyways, this publication wrote an op-ed piece where they said, 'You don't have to worry about polyamorous marriage because polyamory doesn't exist.' That really upset a lot of us because we felt like we were being marginalized."
The group took a stand, organizing a letter-writing campaign (remember letters?) and creating more awareness for the poly community. The results are still being seen today.
"It's a lot different now that we have organized groups, and I think because people have become so much more accepting of the GLBT community and other types of relationships, I think our group and our community is going to continue to grow," Carrie says optimistically. "I think that we are the next equal rights movement, and that poly is going to continue to become increasingly accepted in the future."
City Pages also interviewed a polyamorous mother of two:
Alright, so let's get this part out of the way: How long have you been practicing poly?
My husband, Jim, and I have been married for almost 12 years. We decided to open our marriage up in August of 2009, and I promptly met my boyfriend, Justin, who I've been with for three years.
And how many kids do you have?
I have a daughter who is ten and a son who is eight.
So how did your kids react to you practicing poly?
The things with kids, is that when people are trying to hide something, it's exciting. But we just live our lives and don't really make a big deal out of it, so they don't really think anything of it either.
You never had any sort of talk with your kids about being poly?
Early on, if Justin would spend the night then we'd try and get up before the kids and be like, "Hey, my friend Justin came over for breakfast again!" But eventually we just stopped pretending. Plus my kids get up way too early, so I just couldn't keep that up.
As three states face ballot questions on whether to uphold the traditional definition of marriage between two members of the opposite sex, some in the national intelligentsia are looking forward to the next victory of the sexual revolution: polygamy.
The faith writer at The Washington Post asked in a recent column, if one believes marriage should sanction any affectionate arrangement that makes its parties happy, “Why is polygamy so problematic?”
John Witte Jr., a law professor and religion scholar Atlanta’s Emory University, has written in a forthcoming book on plural marriages that the case for legalizing polygamy rests on the same ground as that of homosexual unions.
“American states today, viewed together, already offer several models of state-sanctioned domestic life for their citizens: straight and gay marriage, contract and covenant marriage, civil union and domestic partnership,” he writes in the first chapter of a forthcoming work on polygamy. “And the parties can further tailor these built-in rights and duties through private prenuptial contracts. With so much marital pluralism and private ordering already available, why not add a further option — that of polygamous marriage?”
Lisa Miller, who writes the Post‘s “On Faith” column, wrote that she knows defending the indefensible can make libertines uncomfortable. “But really. If the purpose of marriage is to preserve personal happiness, protect and raise children, and create social stability through shared property and mutual obligation, then why is polygamy so problematic if it occurs among consenting adults?”
So says a County Attorney’s declaration filed on May 22, 2012 in a federal case challenging the polygamy ban on constitutional grounds:
The policy, as officially adopted by the ... County Attorney’s Office, states:
Prosecution of Bigamy Crimes:
The ... County Attorney’s Office will prosecute the crime of bigamy ... in two circumstances: (1) When a victim is induced to marry through their partner’s fraud, misrepresentations or missions; or (2) When a person purports to marry or cohabits with another person ... and is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud. This office will prosecute the crime of child bigamy ... regardless of whether one of the parties is also engaged in some type of abuse, violence or fraud....
This policy is intended, under the prosecutorial discretion exercised by this Office, to prevent the future prosecution ... of bigamous marriages entered into for religious reasons.
Government has a responsibility to recognize and protect institutions which it does not create, George Weigel argues, otherwise it oversteps its bounds and acts in a totalitarian manner:
"...a state that asserts the authority to redefine marriage has stepped beyond the boundaries of its competence. And if that boundary-crossing is set in constitutional or legal concrete, it opens up a Pandora’s box of undesirable results. For if the state can decree that two men or two women can make a marriage, why not one man and two women? Two women and two men? These are not paranoid fantasies; the case for polyandry and polygamy is now being mounted in prestigious law journals.
And if the state can define marriage by diktat, why not other basic human relationships, like the parent-child relationship, the doctor-patient relationship, the lawyer-client relationship, or the priest-penitent relationship? There is no principled reason why not. Thus gay marriage is another expression of that soft totalitarianism that Benedict XVI aptly calls the “dictatorship of relativism.”
Conscientious voters will keep this—and the Democratic Party platform’s endorsement of gay marriage—in mind on Nov. 6." -- First Things
The ink is not yet dry on David Cameron's gay marriage Bill and already two stories in the news this week show that the Bill's critics have been proved right. A wealthy gay couple say they "have launched" legal action to force gay weddings on the Church of England; and the BBC is cheerleading for polyamory (mutiple-partner relationships).
Merriam-Webster is going to have to update the next edition of its dictionary, at least if marriage redefiners have their way. Do you know what the words “monogamish,” “throuple,” and “wedlease” mean? If not, you soon will. After all, the power to redefine words is the power to redefine reality.
Same-sex “marriage” proponents have always scoffed at the idea that redefining marriage would open the door for multi-spouse marriages. “My Two Husbands” by Angi Becker Stevens, not only argues for “poly-amorous” unions but continues to scoff at the foolish “right wing” people who expected people to go there.
Apply a simple thought experiment, and her argument starts to wither. Imagine the article being written by a man bringing a “girlfriend” into his life and convincing his wife to tolerate it. Or imagine a Mormon talking about his repressed relationship with God instead of a political activist talking about her repressed human relationships. Salon wouldn’t have published those pieces.
Writing at the FirstThings blog, Professor Robert P. George reports the on an increasing trend of same-sex marriage activists "conceding (and celebrating the fact) that redefining marriage will fundamentally alter the institution, transform its social role and meaning, and undermine its structuring norms of monogamy, exclusivity, etc."
Well, just in case anyone should think this is idle speculation and thought experiment, consider 
Recently, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council reintroduced a tired refrain: Legalized gay marriage could lead to other legal forms of marriage disaster, such as polygamy. Rick Santorum, Bill O’Reilly, and other social conservatives have made similar claims. It’s hardly a new prediction—we’ve been hearing it for years. Gay marriage is a slippery slope! A gateway drug! If we legalize it, then what’s next? Legalized polygamy?
In the United States, some of the referendums held on the same day as the presidential elections in various States have, for the first time, delivered an outcome favourable to same-sex marriages. It is therefore clear that in western countries there is a widespread tendency to modify the classic vision of marriage between a man and woman, or rather to try to give it up, erasing its specific and privileged legal recognition compared to other forms of union.
The group officially has a couple hundred active members, but this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to finding a poly group in the area.
So says a County Attorney’s declaration filed on May 22, 2012 in a federal case challenging the polygamy ban on constitutional grounds:
