Utah case cites landmark US Supreme Court ruling on sodomy in defense of man with four wives
One man…four wives…I was never great at math, but how does equality figure in this situation?
Makes sense. If marriage isn’t necessarily procreative in nature, why limit it to two people? (Why limit it to two humans, for that matter?) Polygamy, bestiality, and every other form of sexual degeneracy follows logically from the toleration of homosexuality.
Comments on that site are great. Well stated too.
That reminds me of my plan to hire Charlie Sheen to play the prophet Muhammad in a movie involving 4 of his wives and also Aisha (the girl he married at six and conssumated at 9) I will call it “Four and a Half Wives.”
Do me a favor, before doing this could you change your name to something Scandanavian and film this in Northern Europe and not the U.S.. Thanks! ;)
Polygamists have tried this route already and failed. The State has demonstrated a compelling interest in the prohibition of polygamy.
The LA Times editorial, on which the CalCatholic article was based, states that the case has nothing to do with marriage. And that is accurate. The anti-sodomy ruling has to with consensual sex and in the Utah case it applies to a sexual network involving a man and four women.
The LA Times editorial is mistaken in its view that Lawrence v. Texas was a US Supreme Court ruling on behalf of gay rights. The ruling was not about the rights of homosexuals, but the right of adults to engage in consensual sex in the privacy of their own home. Lawrence applied to heterosexuals as well, regardless of their sexual practices.
The use of :Lawrence in the Utah case means nothing in terms of the definition of marriage. It is about the privacy of one’s home.
You obviously aren’t familiar with the case. He is only legally married to one wife, but has three other women as “spiritual wives.” What is the state’s compelling interest in preventing them from having their non-sanctioned polygamous relationship? How is it different than a non-married couple living together?
My brother was married to a bi-sexual woman, and they had a woman move in with them who was having an amorous relationship with his wife. No legal action was taken, of course. What would be the government’s interest in preventing a bi-sexual person from marrying a man and a woman?
Exactly. Anything goes! Who needs government sanction?
How can anyone rationally argue that polygamy is wrong if they concurrently state that same sex marriage should be a legal right?
How can anyone who supports same sex marriage rationally argue against ANY adult consensual marriage arrangement?
Yep. The only argument I ever see posited is “the government already ruled on that,” as if the government never changes it’s mind regarding marriage rights.
I would like to see one rational argument from a supporter of same sex marriage. Just one.
Same sex marriage never seemed to be a slippery-slope kind of thing to me. With same-sex marriage, any other changes were already up slope from what is now being proposed and accepted.
I mean with polygamy, all sorts of religions and cultures and societies already accepted its validity long ago. Of course those things will have to be rethought now that our countries have reached the rock bottom of the argument against the Western institution of marriage.
Well, so much for the slippery slope being a “fallacy”.
“If it feels good, do it”?
Of course it is part of the slippery slope. Making ss-marriage legal is what makes it so. That opens-up all sorts of legal so-called “marriages arrangement.”
Once a culture chooses to say, “one man and one woman” is no longer the definition, than all other defintions become possibilties.
That is not a rational argument…
The Supreme Court defined marriage as a civil right in Loving v. Virginia. This means that the government must demonstrate a compelling State interest in any restriction on the right of marriage. It has not done so in the case of same-sex marriage but it has in the case of polygamous marriage.
In Lawrence v Texas, for example, the State of Texas argued that it could prohibit sodomy between same-sex couples while allowing it for opposite-sex couples because the State only finds such same-sex intercourse to be morally objectionable. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that the moral views alone of the State don’t constitute a compelling interest to discriminate. There is no issue of discrimination present in the prohibition of polygamy.
Leaving that aside, what is the state’s compelling interest in prohibiting polygamy?