Now, President Obama Should Defend Polygamists

Angel Castillo writes for the “Florida Voices” opinion page:

Now that President Obama has “evolved” into a public supporter of gay marriage, the former constitutional law professor should turn his attention to another minority persecuted because of their marital preferences: polygamists.

If Obama is intellectually honest, he should also support “marriage equality” for “plural families” that choose to follow the example of Old Testament polygamists Abraham, David, Jacob and Solomon.

I am, of course, speaking only of plural marriages for consenting adults, just as in the case of same-gender marriages.

The president should articulate what the difference is – if he sees any – between marriages formed between one man and another man, or one woman and another woman, and a marriage made up of some numerical combination of men and women. The same constitutional protections of freedom of speech, association, religion, privacy, due process and equal protection are at stake.

Read the rest here.

(HT: Jim Smith)


  • Scott Schultz

    Really, he should defend all sexual preferences. Since sexual orientation is something your born with and is the core of a persons identity- he should therefore champion not only the homosexual cause but that of the polygamist, the inter-generational love cause (aka peadophila- that sounds so nagative!), love between people and animals, etc.

    I am, of course, being facetious.

    I am of

  • Robert Vaughn

    Don’t hold your breath. It would be intellectually honest and logically consistent for the President to now endorse plural marriage. But there probably would be no political advantage in it!

  • JStanton

    I think this is kinda silly. Politicians are coming out for gay marriage because they see society as becoming more accepting of it and see the political advantage in the longer short-term. Society is not becoming more accepting of legal polygamy other than the defacto polygamy engaged in by both heterosexuals and homosexuals due to to promiscuity.

    Just watch until the Republican party elite inevitably follows along and “evolves”. It might take 10 years but it will happen just like it did with the conservative party in Britain.

    So it seems like the author is trying to score some kind of point by challenging the President but to what end? It’s really aimed at like-minded folk to feel a bit better about themselves.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.