Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Editors' Picks
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
1101 East Pike St. Suite 300, Seattle, WA 98122
What's the Big Secret?
You don't find it odd that Danny won't share his position on polygamy!?
Really?
Perhaps some folks just aren't intellectually curious....
1. Monkey butlers.
2. Sea salt v. table salt.
3. Long pants for ice hockey (Cooperalls: http://xmfan.org/files/francis_cooperall…
4. Penises with multiple skin tones.
Once he states his position on these, then he can get on to whatever you are blathering on about.
riz said 'karma sutra', which is his way of saying 'what comes around goes around..
but the bad baptist knows it's kama, not karma...
*tee hee*
Oh Tampax Troll, don't ever change….
Best regards,
Jen Grygiel
Outlawing polygamy is as example of restricting the marriage freedoms of straight people-which is fine, as long as the government has a damn good reason. However, most arguments against polygamy fall into one or more of these four categories: 1) They address a problem which can be addressed without outlawing polygamy; 2) They address a problem which outlawing polygamy does not actually solve; or 3) They address problems which also occur in non-polygamous situations; and/or 4) They essentially boil down to "the rest of us just aren't comfortable with it, so let's outlaw it (sound familiar?)"
It's probably wise for pro-gay marriage people to remain silent on the issue of polygamy. It's hard enough to change one type of marriage from taboo to OK, no need to try to carry extra weight, particularly as most people who would engage in polygamy do not respect gay rights. But "smart strategy" is not necessarily the same thing as logical or moral consistency.
The government has no business outlawing consenting, competent adults from marrying other consenting, competent adults, whether in a same-sex marriage or a polygamous marriage. if the rest of you don't want to write/talk about the commonalities here, that's your prerogative, but jumping down the throat of someone who does bring it up without bothering to address the substance of the issue is weak.
Marriage is essentially a contract with legal rights and recognitions, for which common law and judicial experience exists for only two parties. Division of property, inheritance, default beneficiary rights, custody, tax filing status, child support, eligibility for welfare, are all issues that would have to be specifically addressed in advance in order to afford any meaning to "legalizing" polygamy. Until you can define how the law, and probate, and family court are to adjudicate issues in the matter of formal polygamous families, there's nothing you can ask people to approve or disapprove of.
Going from two-person heterosexual-only marriage, to two-person who-cares-what-their-sexuality-is marriage is a complete non-issue in terms of applying existing law and judicial experience in these matters. Existing laws and regulations still work. Going from two-person to polygamous marriage, as I see it, is a complete fucking nightmare, as far as establishing equitable rights and responsibilities in legal and property matters goes.
Bear in mind that it is not now illegal to live with as many sex partners and roommates as your housing arrangements will allow, as long as you're not married to more than one of them at a time. And, children in that situation already have a right to support by their birth parents.
Just think about divorce proceedings, or filling out a tax form, or applying for student aid, or going to probate court, and try to imagine how that would work within formally-recognized polygamy. I'm not saying it will never happen, but I can predict the imagined headaches of anyone who has written legislation, or sat on the bench, or practiced law, or accounting, or financial planning, or social service, will stand as a roadblock for some time to come.
Thank You for your comments.
Lincoln said that those who deny rights to others do not deserve them themselves.
MLK said that Justice delayed is Justice Denied.
The two causes (polygamy, gay marriage) are morally identical.
It seems that advocates of marriage equality and justice for gays would support marriage equality and justice for everyone.
It would seem bad karma for those seeking justice for themselves to take such a calloused view toward the struggle of others.
It would seem that Dan especially, as a persistant advocate of poly, would care about the plight of polygamists.
Standing up for what is right is the Moral High Ground.
Only grasping and grabbing what you can for yourself is just another day in the jungle....
From the D Savage (from 9-29-2005 column):
DS: "We are arguing that [gay people who wish to get married] already belong to the West's contemporary marriage philosophy—for capitalist and for feminist reasons."
I don't think this argument holds, although I agree that gay rights are good, or at worst neutral, for both feminism and capitalism.
First, It is cherry-picking which parts of "the West's contemporary marriage philosophy" should be applied to gay marriage and which should not. The notion that marriage should be between one man and one woman is a huge component of "the West's contemporary marriage philosophy"- certainly as big a component as any "feminist" aspects of this philosophy. Yes, the actual everyday realities of gay marriage are and will be (other than having to deal with bigotry) almost identical to the realities of straight marriage, but everyday marriage realities are not the same thing as the majority's "marriage philosophy." Gay marriage is a departure from traditional "marriage philosophy." A departure which is necessary to make a more just (or more capitalist or more feminist) society is still a departure.
Second, assuming that feminism and capitalism are central to the current prevailing philosophy regarding marriage (and that treating gay people as second-class citizens is not actually a big part of this philosophy), the popular philosophy regarding marriage should not necessarily be something the government tries to codify. Marriage is considered a fundamental right in America, like voting. The government has a place regulating specific activities which take place in the context of marriage (ex: it's illegal for a man to rape his wife) and voting (ex: it's illegal to campaign at a voting center), but does not have a place trying to promote overarching philosophies regarding how people may enter into either- other than the philosophy that states: "you get to make the decision you want to make, unless there is a damn good reason you shouldn't- and 'that decision makes the rest of us uncomfortable' does not qualify as a damn good reason." I think feminism is a better philosophy than homophobia, but I don't think either should be a basis for the government telling consenting adults (I'm all for raising the age of consent to marry so adult men can't get child brides- either single or multiple) who they can or cannot marry, regardless of how popular either may be at any moment. (And this is leaving aside whether telling a grown woman that she does not have the right to marry a man who already has a wife is anymore feminist than telling her that she may not vote Republican.)
DS (quoting someone else): "Once upon a time, the West had a 'traditional' marriage philosophy." The husband owned his wife, whatever children she bore him—you know the drill. But capitalism eventually came along—thank God!—and freed us from those confining sex roles."
It's easier for women to make money in a capitalist system than in other systems. Once women made more money, they didn't have to take as much crap from their husbands, either in practice or in law. Even for poor women, there has been a "trickle-down" effect of decreased sexism, if not actual financial gain. OK. However, marriage laws favorable to women did not BECOME JUST as a result of women gaining power through capitalism, they BECAME LAW as a result of women gaining power through capitalism- they were always just. That the extent to which capitalism makes a group more powerful is often the basis for determining the extent of the individual liberties of the people in that group. This isn't such a bad dynamic with regard to EXPANSION of rights for traditionally oppressed groups, but it can be bad with regard to RESTRICTION of rights.
"Gender equality is today's governing public philosophy, in marriage and in much else. For 150 years, courts and legislatures have changed marriage law to fit this philosophy, under which same-sex couples fit just fine." In other words, heterosexual marriage is not one man taking ownership over one woman, but two individuals, as equals, committing to each other."
Again, it is problematic for the government to codify popular broad philosophies regarding marriage, and the fact that it has happened before doesn't mean it's OK now. "Gender equality in marriage" is a popular idea in America right now, but so is the idea that "marriage should be between one man and one woman." You're really asking the government to throw its weight around with regard to one idea (gender equality) because that idea is popular, but override another idea (gay marriage should not be legal) despite the fact that the other idea is also very popular.
Obviously, governing responsibly almost always involves choosing between competing popular ideas. That's politics. However, this power should not be as broad with regard to individual liberty as it is in other areas. The "because it's popular" argument should not be a primary consideration with regard the government restricting fundamental rights like marriage. Clearly, in the case of legalizing gay marriage, we are talking about an expansion, not a restriction of a fundamental right, but the pendulum can swing both ways (yes, I realize how gay the end of that sentence sounds).
I'm not arguing that "the ends does not justify the means" here. They do. If gay marriage gets legalized through the usual imperfect political process, I'm fine with that. There's no reason legalization of gay marriage should be subject to any higher standard of legislation than any other legislative process. And saying "gay marriage fits neatly into current notions about marriage" is certainly a much more effective way to achieve social justice than saying "we pro-gay marriage people are going to engage in pointless martyrdom by fighting for the marriage rights of everyone-including polygamists (who, by the way, don't really like us)."
DS (quoting someone else): "Traditional polygamy grows from exactly the opposite [of gender equality]."
Yeah, but so did "traditional" marriage between a one man and one woman. We didn't completely outlaw that kind of marriage.
DS (quoting someone else): "[In polygamy] one man owns many wombs and grows lots of household labor. This violates all our contemporary notions of fairness and democracy."
Just like with "traditional" marriage between a one man and one woman, where one man owned one womb and grew lots of household labor. We allowed "traditional" marriage between a one man and one woman to continue, but changed related laws so that a wife's subservience to her husband vis-a-vis bearing children and housework was not codified. Besides, polygamy does not violate ALL "our contemporary notions of fairness and democracy", it violates SOME of these notions while supporting others, just as making polygamy illegal violates some of these notions while supporting others.
You're welcome, but for the record, I do not agree with this:
"The two causes (polygamy, gay marriage) are morally identical."
Wow.
Dan really needed an editor...
This is totally fascinating but Polygamy in 2011 would allow either gender to have multiple spouses.
Repeatedly obsessively giving mental health advice is its own little niche in the OCD universe, Bob.....
But that doesn't stop you from thinking about the troll
each time you take your applicator
and slide it in.
And out.
And in.
And out.
And in......
I'm also realistic enough to recognize that the rightwingnuts already try to use polygamy as a fear-inducing club to keep their followers on the "right" side of the gay marriage issue... just as they try to link us to people engaging in beastiality or to pedophiles. Trying to push through legislation for both gay marriage AND polygamy is a losing proposition. This is something I would think most intelligent people can see.
The people we need to convince to accept us - ALL of us... the people we need to convince to give us the rights we're entitled to - ALL of us... are pretty narrow-minded and fear-laden. We know this, even as they deny it. That is the reality of what we're up against.
Why shoot ourselves in the foot by heaping together two very divisive and fear-inspiring propositions and trying to force them to swallow it whole... KNOWING it will not succeed and we'll just end up covered in vomit?
One thing at a time... I am keeping my focus on pushing for the legalization of gay marriage. One I'm done soaking in champagne at the after-party, then I'll turn my attention to finding a way to garner acceptance and support for changing the polygamy laws.
And in the end, we'll have an easier time of it if only for the fact that we'll be able to prove that no, the world really doesn't end when you allow people who love one another to marry, regardless of their orientations.
I'm also realistic enough to recognize that the rightwingnuts already try to use polygamy as a fear-inducing club to keep their followers on the "right" side of the gay marriage issue... just as they try to link us to people engaging in beastiality or to pedophiles. Trying to push through legislation for both gay marriage AND polygamy is a losing proposition. This is something I would think most intelligent people can see.
The people we need to convince to accept us - ALL of us... the people we need to convince to give us the rights we're entitled to - ALL of us... are pretty narrow-minded and fear-laden. We know this, even as they deny it. That is the reality of what we're up against.
Why shoot ourselves in the foot by heaping together two very divisive and fear-inspiring propositions and trying to force them to swallow it whole... KNOWING it will not succeed and we'll just end up covered in vomit?
One thing at a time... I am keeping my focus on pushing for the legalization of gay marriage. One I'm done soaking in champagne at the after-party, then I'll turn my attention to finding a way to garner acceptance and support for changing the polygamy laws.
And in the end, we'll have an easier time of it if only for the fact that we'll be able to prove that no, the world really doesn't end when you allow people who love one another to marry, regardless of their orientations.