Please purchase "Trump the Press" through Create Space.

The book is on Kindle. Order here.

Monday, April 27, 2015

Polygamy makes more sense than gay marriage

Polygamy predates gay marriage by thousands of years, and in fact a man having more than one wife was legal more than 150 years ago in parts of what is now the United States. So what is gay marriage lawyer David Boies's argument that against polygamy? On "Meet The Press," he was dismissive of polygamy, using the same argument Fred Phelps used against gay marriage.

Chuck Todd asked David Boies if we allow gay marriage, why not polygamy?

From David Boies:
"First of all, that is a silly argument.
"This has to do with equal rights. What we are saying is, you can't deprive a loving couple of marriage simply based on their sexual orientation. Just like you can't deprive a loving biracial couple of the right to get married -- the Supreme Court held that many, many years ago.
"What you have in a polygamy case is a situation where you're going to have multiple partners and there is all sorts of evidence that that has harmful effects on some of the people participating and on the children. There is a policy reason.
"More important, there is a real reason, and that is you are not discriminating against anybody. Everybody gets to have one spouse. As long as you don't restrict it based on race, gender, sexual orientation, everybody is treated equal under the Constitution.
"What you can't do is, you can't say some people are second class and so some people can marry the person they love, one man, one woman; but two men, two women can't get married because of their sexual orientation or their gender. That's what's unconstitutional about it. The polygamy thing has nothing to do with it."
"Silly argument" is exactly right; David Boies offered a silly argument all right. If we accept that marriage is just a contract between two people, then why cannot a man contract with multiple partners?

And where is this evidence that polygamy harms children?

And wasn't the original argument that since gay couples weren't raising kids their marriage was OK?

After hearing his deceitful argument -- and watching the fascist ways of proponents -- I realize I was a sucker when I fell for this crap.

Marriage is between three people: A man, a woman and God.

Let us not pretend otherwise.

9 comments:

  1. They lie, they cheat. they want what they want and damn the opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "As long as you don't restrict it based on race, gender, sexual orientation, everybody is treated equal under the Constitution."

    Boies is a terrible lawyer. Where does the Constitution say explicitly that "everybody is treated equal under the law"? The Constitution makes a number of distinctions between people, as do many statutes and laws. For example, states restrict the sales of cigarettes and alcohol and driving rights based on age. Is that unconstitutional? What about age restrictions on voting rights? For many years, only men, but not women, were subject to the military draft, and yet no one thought that explicit gender bias violated the Constitution.

    What the Constitution says is that people cannot be denied "equal protection under the laws" subject to due process. It doesn't say explicitly that laws cannot make distinctions between men and women, as long as "all" men are treated equally under the law and "all" women are treated equally under the law. Distinctions based on gender, race, sexual orientation, military status, etc., are legislative and judicial constructs built on top of federal and state constitutions. In that sense, they are completely subjective. They are the legal preferences established in accordance with the wishes of legislators and judges at a particular time in history. Legally, I see nothing to prevent all such laws and judicial rulings from being overturned in the distant future, even if that's unlikely to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let me point out that it took a Constitutional amendment, A 26, to create a uniform national voting age of 18 y/o. It took a Constitutional amendment, A 19, to give women the right to vote. And A 15 to guarantee the right to vote irrespective of race. Before those three amendments were passed, discrimination based on sex, race, and age were perfectly legal, which is hardly consistent with Boies's glib claim that EVERYONE has to be treated "equally" under the Constitution. If gays want to marry, consistent with our nation's history, that should require a Constitutional amendment. If people want to legalize polygamy, that should also require a Constitutional amendment. If it required AS 19 to give women the vote, no less should be required to rearrange our nation's laws regarding marriage and family. This is a matter for legislatures and the entire citizenry, not judges, to decide.

      Delete
  3. Polygamy is anti-democratic. It basically funnels all eligible females toward the wealthiest men, which gives them the most children, which gives them the most votes. This fences out the second and later children from being anything more than a cog. Polygamy is bad unless you are at the top of the wealth pyramid.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I had a conversation with an ex-congressman about this a couple of years ago. He said that the changes in marriage would lead to things people have never yet dreamed of. The example he used was of a couple of old guys who share a boat for recreational fishing. They might marry to make sure there is no dispute about who gets it when one of them dies. This got me to thinking about how adoption was abused in Rome, both in the late republic and in the Empire. Laws of succession regarding estates were a bit of a jumble, being affected both by the government's attitude toward acquiring the property of the dead, as well as religious implications involving genate relatives as recognized by the ancient religion(s) practiced by Romans.
    I could easily see practical-minded people in the near future marrying to protect estates from death taxes. As long as there is a spouse in the pipeline, the estate can remain intact and a great deal of money can be saved. Think of it. The thousands spent on trust creation and purchasing of exorbitant life insurance policies reduced to the cost of a marriage license at the county courthouse. Dad Marries son, or Grandma marries grandson, or everyone in the family gets married just in case.
    I think Warren Buffet may come out in favor of traditional marriage if he realizes how few "bargains" there will be out there in 20 years or so if things remain apace.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2015/04/is-term-homosexual-is-misnomer.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2015/04/bruce-jenner-is-mentally-ill.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know about mentally ill (probably so) but Jenner makes one hell of an ugly woman.

      Delete
  7. "I realize I was a sucker when I fell for this crap"

    I would say more along the lines of a man with a good heart, Don, who mistook the argument to be about personal liberty.

    ReplyDelete