Traditional marriage supporters have long made the case that the argument for gay marriage can also be used to advance polygamous marriage. Chief Justice John Roberts agrees on page 22 of his powerful dissent:
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.
And now just today, Politico has a long-form think-piece making the case for polygamy. Here’s an excerpt:
Polyamory is a fact. People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right…
While important legal and practical questions remain unresolved, with the Supreme Court’s ruling and broad public support, marriage equality is here to stay. Soon, it will be time to turn the attention of social liberalism to the next horizon. Given that many of us have argued, to great effect, that deference to tradition is not a legitimate reason to restrict marriage rights to groups that want them, the next step seems clear. We should turn our efforts towards the legal recognition of marriages between more than two partners. It’s time to legalize polygamy.
The next stage of the sexual revolution always seems implausible until it is no longer implausible. Here we are. It turns out that the slope is indeed slippery.
No reason to limit incestuous relationships either. Love is love, right?
Actually, very good reasons to prohibit incestuous relationships, especially between 1st degree biological relatives. There is a much increased chance of birth defects. See link below for a study of these risks. So, while your argument is often being made, in that now that same sex marriage is legal nationwide, this does not mean anything is permitted, and certainly is not argument in favor of permitted incest.
Sorry, here is the link: http://www.lotscave.com/files/Journal%20of%20Genetic%20Counseling%20(Vol.%2011,%20No.%202,%20April%204,%202002).pdf
I think its the bitterness which leads people to make snarky comments arguing that incest or polygamy should be legalized. After all, if SSM being legalized is the darkest day in US history, to paraphrase Ted Cruz, then I can’t imagine the hyperbole voiced after legalized incest or legalized polygamy.
The sweeping tide that led to the legalization of SSM does not seem likely to occur anytime soon for either incest or polygamy although I certainly wouldn’t rule it out either seeing how things have gone.
James, why is it snarky to argue that polygamy should be legalized? After all, shouldn’t the same rights be given to the Bs of the LGBT community? Yes, I am being snarky, but where’s your consistency, man? Also, as Don Johnson points out, what is your argument against same-sex incestuous “marriage?”
It’s snarky because you don’t actually want to see incest or polygamy legalized in this country even though same sex marriage is now legal. There is no movement, yet, to legalize incest or polygamy. I don’t see the SC taking up such a case anytime soon.
Nowhere in my comment did I express support for SSM, incest, or polygamy. Please read carefully.
But this biological argument carries no weight at all with regard to incestuous relationships between family members of the same sex, since partners of the same sex cannot conceive children. I’m not a lawyer, but I wouldn’t be surprised if, given the way incest laws are written in various states, incestuous marriages between family members of the same sex are not already implicitly legal in particular localities. I suspect it won’t be too long before we find out.
Jeremy Irons made nearly the same comment publicly a few years back. No biological argument against it with same-sex partners as SSM sets the precedent.
dr. james willingham
Polyamory is another term, one broader and more inclusive of a marriage with any number of people so related, male, female. It is more than polygamy or polygyny. Incest, pedophilia, and beastiality are right behind same sex marriages. I have seen gay parades on tv and read about the matter in papers and books, where NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) signs were displayed. Recently I heard of a marriage proposed between a woman and a dog, beastiality. What every one is forgetting is the effect that this is going to have on children for generations to come. They have also forgotten the price that must be paid, when people finally realize the horror of government without freedoms and without the God of the Christian Faith who was the cause of those freedoms in this nation. They began with Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke, the first a Baptist preacher for a few months though a believer in Baptist views the rest of his life as he stated in a letter to the FBC of Newport, RI and the second a Baptist minister most of his life. They labored in England to get the King to grant the privilege of religious liberty in that colony, and they put it into law and practice, a matter that was known and imitated by the founders of America. If there was ever a time for Christians to rise up and act in concert to effect political changes, it is now, seeing as how our children and grandchildren are going to be so adversely effected.