Quotes of the day

posted at 9:21 pm on June 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

The justices, Gohmert said, decided improperly that modern marriage between same-sex couples is a new development that requires equal protection under the Fifth Amendment.

And that decision, he argued, will pave the way for multiple-partner marriages.

“Once you move marriage beyond the scope of a man and a woman, you really don’t end up with a good place to put a limit,” said Gohmert, who also argued that such practices were a mile-marker on a nation’s way to the “dustbin of history.”

“I think polygamy is wrong, bigamy is wrong, and it’s a crime in many places — but how will that be justifiable now that the court has removed this?” Gohmert said. “There’s some [who] believe polygamy is a way to go.”

***

In the amicus brief, Cuccinelli, the attorney general of Virginia, and Greg Zoeller, the attorney general or Indiana, used a novel justification to make their point in one section of the 55-page brief — namely that gay marriage could lead to polygamy.

“Responsible parenting is not a justification for same-sex-couple marriage, as distinguished from recognition of any other human relationships. It is instead a rationale for eliminating marriage as government recognition of a limited set of relationships. Once the natural limits that inhere in the relationship between a man and a woman can no longer sustain the definition of marriage, the conclusion that follows is that any grouping of adults would have an equal claim to marriage. See, e.g. , Jonathan Turley, One Big, Happy Polygamous Family , NY Times, July 21, 2011, at A27 (“[Polygamists] want to be allowed to create a loving family according to the values of their faith.”).”…

“Because any interest in same-sex couples bears no link to any characteristic innately limited to them, it contains no limiting principle for excluding other groupings of individuals,” the brief states.

***

Anita Wagner Illig, a longtime polyamory community spokesperson who operates the group Practical Polyamory, is unsure of the direct impact of a ruling that would legalizes same-sex marriage nationwide.

Until recently, she noted, “the polyamory community has expressed little desire for legal marriage,” but now more options seem possible in the future. “We polyamorists are grateful to our [LGBT] brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” Illig said…

But Illig concedes, “there will be quite a lot of retooling of the legal system necessary to establish marriage equality for marriages of more than two people. A marriage of two people of the same sex requires a lot less in terms of adapting today’s systems, such as Social Security, for example, to accommodate it.”

***

Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.

“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”

“We’re very happy with it,” said Joe Darger, a Utah-based polygamist who has three wives. “I think [the court] has taken a step in correcting some inequality, and that’s certainly something that’s going to trickle down and impact us.”…

The key difference in their missions, Wilde said, is that “gays want legal marriage and polygamists don’t” — they just want their lifestyle to be decriminalized.

***

David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University who specializes in family law, says that the lack of mainstream acceptance for polygamy does not bode well for its legalization.

“There is no political movement in this country that is anywhere near making the same gains for polygamy that have been made for gay marriage,” he says.

Judith Areen, law professor at Georgetown University, says that the outcomes of these two cases are more telling of state’s rights than the potential for polygamy. Thus, only state­-wide support for the practice would bring about this change.

“If you’re in a state that doesn’t recognize gay marriage, that state will not recognize the Windsor ruling,” she says. “These cases suggest that states have the authority. So while states are divided on gay marriage, they are uniform on polygamy.

***

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.”

Why should we impose our values on others?

Now, you might say that there is historical evidence to support the fact that polygamy is bad for women and children. This is sophistry. The truth is that right now about half of all marriages end in divorce, and lots of kids are already struggling, so it’s not like traditional marriage is a panacea. Besides, nobody is forcing you to be a polygamist. This is a choice.

There are practical reasons, too. It’s harder and harder these days to make ends meet. As a man, I can only imagine how much more efficient it would be to have one wife in the workforce and another wife at home with the kids. This would be much better for the children than shipping them off to some nursery school. And having three parents is a lot better than having just one … or none.

***

As a former tour-guide at Mormon historic sites, I have encountered more than one fundamentalist Mormon family in which the strutting husband seems to regard his flock of servile wives like glorified property. We’re not wrong to want to discourage this. Moreover, those remote compounds in which exile fundamentalist communities brainwash their girls and discard their surplus boys are intolerable horrors. But this is all the more reason to bring polygamy out from the margins of our society. As with sex work, the horrors here have little to do with anything inherent in the practice and almost everything to do with the fact that we’ve made it illegal and dishonourable.

Same-sex-marriage activists have wisely sought to separate themselves from advocates of even more exotic marital arrangements. However, as Mr Lewis suggests, the idea that marriage is an inherently heterosexual institution is less plausible than the idea that it is inherently exclusive to couples. If a man can love a man, a woman can love a woman and a man. And if they all love each other… well, what’s the problem? Refraining from criminalising families based on such unusual patterns of sentiment is less than the least we can do. If the state lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a heterosexual definition of marriage, it seems pretty likely that it likewise lacks a legitimate rationale for imposing on Americans a monogamous definition of marriage. Conservatives have worried that same-sex marriage would somehow entail the ruination of the family as the foundation of society, but we have seen only the flowering of family values among same-sex households, the domestication of the gays. Whatever our fears about polyamorous marriage, I suspect we’ll find them similarly ill-founded. For one thing, what could be more family-friendly than four moms and six dads?

***

Via Mediaite.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Sesame Street’s owners should sue The New Yorker and their cover artist.
KyMouse on June 29, 2013 at 8:36 AM

I agree!

It’s sick to sexualize children’s characters!!

bluegill on June 29, 2013 at 8:41 AM

butterflies and puppies on June 29, 2013 at 2:19 AM

Both homosexuality and polygamy are simply the manifestation of the elevation of the self, and the breakdown of the lost art of self-control, to which our culture is now addicted.

Cleombrotus on June 29, 2013 at 8:42 AM

It’s sick to sexualize children’s characters!!

bluegill on June 29, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Welcome to liberalism in its full flower. To them, it’s called ‘education’.

Liam on June 29, 2013 at 9:26 AM

I couldn’t care less about the sexual of interpersonal aspects of these cases. What I do care about is that a legal majority vote of the people has been nullified on the grounds that those for upholding the vote don’t have standing to petition the court concerning the fact that their vote has been nullified. That is completely jaw dropping.

claudius on June 29, 2013 at 9:28 AM

of=or

claudius on June 29, 2013 at 9:29 AM

“I think polygamy is wrong, bigamy is wrong, and it’s a crime in many places — but how will that be justifiable now that the court has removed this?” Gohmert said. “There’s some [who] believe polygamy is a way to go.”

I saw people living polygamous relationships back in the 70′s.

So that’s coming next. Do muslims endorse the practice? Be prepared to be called a RAAAaaaaaacciiiiiissssstt if you oppose it.

Jeepers. Proper maintenance of a relationship with one spouse can be challenging.

dogsoldier on June 29, 2013 at 9:32 AM

I couldn’t care less about the sexual of interpersonal aspects of these cases. What I do care about is that a legal majority vote of the people has been nullified on the grounds that those for upholding the vote don’t have standing to petition the court concerning the fact that their vote has been nullified. That is completely jaw dropping.
claudius on June 29, 2013 at 9:28 AM

Not only that but try saying outloud somewhat that you don’t support ssm. Better not say it within earshot of any boss or anyone in any kind of position of power over you. If the person doesn’t agree with you, you will be made to suffer. You will be attacked and ridiculed if you don’t go along with this. This is 100% forced acceptance. I found out the hard way.

bluegill on June 29, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Somewhat= somewhere . Autocorrect on iPhone is killing me

bluegill on June 29, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Jeepers. Proper maintenance of a relationship with one spouse can be challenging.

dogsoldier on June 29, 2013 at 9:32 AM

No man in his right mind would want to have more than one wife. Imagine coming home from work, to have two women who’ve been fighting all day demand you take a side.

I’m thoroughly convinced that the reason men die younger than women is because they want to.

Liam on June 29, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Rubber Duckie, you’re the one
*squeak-a squeak-a*
You make bath time lots of fun
*squeak-a squeak-a*
Rubber Duckie I’m awfully fond of yoooooou!

~ Ernie Wilson, roommate of Bert Moo

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on June 29, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Sesame Street’s owners should sue The New Yorker and their cover artist.
KyMouse on June 29, 2013 at 8:36 AM

I agree!

It’s sick to sexualize children’s characters!!

bluegill on June 29, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Given PBS and their desire to add gay, ‘hood’, and other ‘societally conscious’ characters…? I doubt they object much in reality.

Midas on June 29, 2013 at 10:04 AM

The polyamorous arguments are both hilarious in content and timing.

How many times in the SSM argument have conservatives been laughed at and scolded for the ‘slippery slope’ argument? And now proven right in a matter of a couple of days, LOL.

Midas on June 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Given PBS and their desire to add gay, ‘hood’, and other ‘societally conscious’ characters…? I doubt they object much in reality.

Midas on June 29, 2013 at 10:04 AM

Or the Children’s Television Workshop (CTW) which pockets a huge percentage of PBS loot, book sales, ice rink shows and DVDs using the characters, and toy sales royalties to the sales targets and political victims of their programming.

viking01 on June 29, 2013 at 10:09 AM

No one born gay (very few are gay by choice) commits sin in it’s the individual’s expression of his or her God-given sexual preference. There’s no moral decision at play.

Based on this logic, there is no moral decision at play when it comes to pedophelia then. I’m sorry but it’s completely arbitrary to say that the gender of one’s sexual interest is given to us by God, but not the age. If gays are born that way, there is no reason to believe the same isn’t true for pedophiles. Everyone can agree that pedophilia is more disturbing than homosexuality between adults. But our level of disgust has nothing to do with the origins of our sexual inclinations. They either come from God or they don’t.

Please don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. I understand there is a huge difference between consenting adults and children. So of course it’s entirely reasonable to argue that acts of pedophelia should be treated differently under the law than homosexual acts between consenting adults. All I am talking about here are sexual inclinations, not actions. You just can’t have it both ways. You can’t say sex acts must be moral if they spring from an “unchosen” orientation, but then ignore that principle as soon as pedophelia is mentioned.

frank63 on June 29, 2013 at 10:15 AM

I’m thoroughly convinced that the reason men die younger than women is because they want to.

Liam on June 29, 2013 at 9:40 AM

You may be on to something. heh

dogsoldier on June 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Agree that the virtual slavery that polygamy brings about (fine under sharia, BTW) is encouraged by these developments.

However, helping fundamentalist Mormons is not on the gay/ left agenda: up next is transgender rights, followed by a nuanced lowering of the age of consent. This will force us to not view Harvey Milk and his latterday saints in the gay movement, as the pedophiles that they have always been.

virgo on June 29, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Nothing is sacred, anymore…except gay sex!

Axeman on June 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Change that mag cover pic from a comfy couch movie night one, to a pic of Bert mounting an Ernie on all fours and pentetrating his waste disposal orifice in a beastial way……..or some butch chic using a brightly colored strap-on implement to test the limits of Ellen! In any type of unnatural display. Don’t go there they say.

Well, If deviancy is to be fully normalized, the w hole story has to be told.

FlaMurph on June 29, 2013 at 11:00 AM

Nothing is sacred, anymore…except gay sex!

Axeman on June 29, 2013 at 10:48 AM

A former president of NOW once said that a woman can’t truly be liberated until she’s had at least one ‘encounter’ with another woman. I forget her name, but it was back in the 80s.

Liam on June 29, 2013 at 11:03 AM

One of the things that makes polygamy more innate to polyandry than gay marriage to homosexuality. Is that in the entire history of civilized man, “tolerant” cultures that were okay with gay, men have not married men.

At Greece’s height. Men who had sex at the gymnasiums with other men (and quite often teenage boys), married women. Often because the oikos (household) was the economic unit, and you can’t have an oikos without inheritance and sons to build the business.

However all cultures (that I’m familiar with), that have been taught in universities as “more tolerant” tolerated pederasty of a sort.

And, during the same time, polygamous marriages have been seen in all sorts of places and times.

Things are what they show themselves to be over a long period of time, not what they are during a campaign for acceptance.

Axeman on June 29, 2013 at 11:45 AM

“Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”

That has fast become the family life style thanks to govt intervention (helping) in our everyday lives. This slippery slope is getting even more slippery everyday slicked up with good intentions and vote buying, of course.

Kissmygrits on June 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM

David Cohen, a professor at Drexel University who specializes in family law, says that the lack of mainstream acceptance for polygamy does not bode well for its legalization.

“There is no political movement in this country that is anywhere near making the same gains for polygamy that have been made for gay marriage,” he says.

What a lying sack of shiat. What’s this “political movement/will of the majority” crap? As recent events have clearly shown, all it takes is a state COURT/JUDGE to declare that polygamous marriage is permitted. No need for legislation or for voter referendum. And then the Feds would have honor it.

I’m so WAY beyond tired of being deliberately lied to. 12 years ago I was told that legalizing sodomy would NEVER lead to same sex marriage. And here we are.

Saltyron on June 29, 2013 at 12:11 PM

The polyamorous arguments are both hilarious in content and timing.

How many times in the SSM argument have conservatives been laughed at and scolded for the ‘slippery slope’ argument? And now proven right in a matter of a couple of days, LOL.

Midas on June 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Yep. Because in the law, “slippery slope” is actually called “legal precedent”.

Saltyron on June 29, 2013 at 12:13 PM

No one born gay (very few are gay by choice) commits sin in it’s the individual’s expression of his or her God-given sexual preference. There’s no moral decision at play.

Sorry – unlike race or gender, homosexuality is defined by an ACT, one that can and is committed for any number of reasons/motivations:

1. Abuse by one gender leading to attraction to another.
2. Effect of a Mental disorder
3. Effect of a mental/chemical imbalance.
4. Over (hyper) sexed personality.
5. Inebriation leading to said behavior
6. Simple reckless behavior
7. “Curiosity” or “peer pressure” to engage in the act
8. Sexually liberal personality

And even if homosexuality is something inherent at birth, it is some form a “defect” in that, naturally, it prohibits you from reproducing, which is a main purpose of life, to beget life. Not that that makes you less of a human, but it is not a “normal” condition, no different than being born infertile. Homosexuality cannot be considered a “desirable genetic trait” encouraged by,through evolution because if it makes you truly attracted ONLY to the same sex, then you will not reproduce and pass the trait along to your children.

Unless you teach the practice, of course.

Saltyron on June 29, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Both my wife and daughter have seen this name at work.

Spelled La-a, pronounced “Ladasha.”

No lie.

Akzed on June 29, 2013 at 8:22 AM

Calling Liam……calling Liam — your expertise is required!

williamg on June 29, 2013 at 12:25 PM

davidk, I’ve had disagreements with you before that weren’t contentious, so I went and reread our exchange from last night because I wasn’t happy about how things played out.

This is what I noticed:

You sound like a broken record. You tried to dismiss me the other day: “tired old apologetics.”

You can’t refute them so you attack the messenger.

davidk on June 28, 2013 at 10:52 PM

Axe, I obviously cannot know his particular motivations. However I have run into this type of behavior many times before. It is typically someone who has been hurt by someone in the church.

And more often than not it is a perceived slight rather than a real slight. But perceptions rule, and I don’t discount that.

The people with whom I have dealt (most anyway) eventually reveal one way or another what the underlying motivation is. And then we can make progress. But-

I know that everyone here is quite capable of dealing with a bully, but nothing gets my ire up than a bully. And this is not the only topic about which he has been so argumentative.

He has not shown any inclination to agree to disagree. And when you get close to the point where you answer his objections he switches to another topic. Or he dismisses you with “I’ve heard all that before” instead of reasoned answers.

I’m not the most patient person around, and I quickly tire of people who seem only want to argue and attack. A character flaw.

davidk on June 28, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Since I’ve never been dismissive of you before, and as Liam could verify from this very thread, I don’t have a problem with agreeing to disagree, I realize that you were confusing me with another poster – from your assessment, my guess is Sauerkraut, but I don’t know that for certain.

I just wanted to clear this up because I was surprised by how negative you were towards me right off the bat.

Anti-Control on June 29, 2013 at 1:25 PM

It is important for 5 year olds to be familiar with different styles of gay sex. There should be school buses full of elementary children at all gay street festivals. And it would be wise to partner with the folks behind events like the Fulton St. Festival to select child friendly leather boys to come to the classroom and show the gay sexual religious rites in a school environment. After all, the children are our future.

BL@KBIRD on June 29, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Just had to stop by and say–I am so grateful for you Hot Air people. After being bombarded by liberal craziness all around, it’s a huge relief to be able to come to this little community and read expressions of logic, common sense, and human decency. And humor. Can’t forget the humor.

I agree.

It’s also nice to have Qotd be free of trolls! :)

And this is a good, simple summary of why God allowed polygamy. (It’s not really presented as a “this is why” explanation; it’s more of an educated “this could be why” kind of thing.) The gist: In OT times, women were wholly dependent on men for provision and protection. Women who didn’t marry (and had no male family members to take care of them) were forced into prostitution or slavery to survive–and given the brutality and frequency of war, the odds were not in the single gal’s favor. Polygamy in those days could almost be considered a necessity. But it was never God’s preference. The ideal (as expressed in NT imagery, for example) is one man and one woman.

Today, polygamy serves no such purpose. That doesn’t mean it’s “wrong,” per se. But I would argue that, given the tendency for the practice to lead to things that definitely are evil and destructive–jealousy, cruelty, abuse–it’s probably best for a culture that can do without it to leave it the heck alone.

butterflies and puppies on June 29, 2013 at 2:19 AM

This was a good post (however, I don’t fully agree with the conclusion about why polygamy was “tolerated.”)

To be clear, I was not arguing at all that polygamy was equal to monogamy, I was pushing back against the idea that God has a serious problem with it – there is no place in the Bible where that is indicated. If God did have some big problem with, it stands to reason that He would have made His sentiment very clear, and since He didn’t, my conclusion is that He doesn’t care about it very much (this stance relates to why I told Axe I have 10th Amendment-type attitude when it comes to Biblical interpretation!)

I realize that not everyone agrees with me, and I’m fine with that. I didn’t mind discussing it in a thread like this, I just didn’t want to get into a deep theological/denominational debate…

Anti-Control on June 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Scrumpdillyicious, I wanted to offer this as possibly the simplest solution to your sound problem, in case you hadn’t tried it yet (I am not sure which restore methods you’ve tried):

How can I undo changes made by Uniblue programs?

For DriverScanner, open the DriverScanner program, click on the ‘Manage’ tab and go to the Restore subsection. To restore after encountering a problem, it’s best to restore the latest restore point that was created

Anti-Control on June 29, 2013 at 3:04 PM

*I meant that I am not sure how many different restore methods you’ve tried.

Anti-Control on June 29, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Given that in the last presidential election one candidate was the son of a polygamist and the other a grandson of a polygamist, both of whom were members of religious sects that advocated polygamy, I’m sure it won’t be long till any anti-polygamy statutes are overturned on freedom of religion grounds-likely by Muslim plaintiffs.

talkingpoints on June 30, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6