Saturday, February 21, 2004
WHAT NEXT, POLYGAMY?? -- not likely. Once the vitriolic same-sex marriage opponents run through their predictable list of why gay marriage should be banned, I invariably hear: what’s next for god’s sake, polygamy!? Before getting to polygamy, it should first be said that the so-called arguments against gay marriage never stand up upon closer scrutiny. Taking religion out of the picture (as one should when talking about civil marriages), there is just no rational reason to deny marriage based on a person's sex.
One argument I frequently hear against the historic Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling for same-sex marriage is that the people, not the courts, should decide. Really? Until the Supreme Court intervened in 1956, the 'people' didn’t allow Rosa Park to sit at the front of the bus simply because she was black.
The second argument I hear a lot is the procreation factor. Sorry but that doesn't fly either since there is nothing to stop heterosexual couples from marrying who choose not, or are unable, to have children. And by the way, there’s no shortage of humans as far as I can tell anyway. Well, it’s about protecting children they cry! I have yet to see any empirical evidence (only manipulated statistics supporting one or the other side) that children who are raised by gay couples fare any better or worse than those raised by heterosexual couples. We don't stop criminals, drug addicts, and the genetic dregs of society from marrying and raising kids so why should gays pose any greater threat to the safety and best interests of children? As a side note, the Catholic Church in fact often places children from dysfunctional heterosexual families into the loving, caring arms of gay couples. Go figure.
I hear a lot about tradition and how marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Well might I remind those who would make this argument that up until not too long ago slavery was tradition, a woman not voting was tradition, and the banning of inter-racial marriages was tradition. It’s not natural! Well there are at least four hundred fifty species in the animal kingdom who would beg to differ. Lastly I hear a lot about the bible and God. At the Massachusetts State House not long ago, a ten-year old girl protesting with her parents against gay marriage screamed out at a gay man that he was going to burn in hell. There was good reason our founding fathers drew a firm line between church and state and this is just such an instance.
This is when I usually hear: Well what's next, POLYGAMY!? If gays are claiming their constitutional rights are being denied, aren’t polygamists also being denied their right to religious freedom? Won’t they insist that their form of marriage be recognized?
Polygamy is under federal law illegal in the United States but is nonetheless quietly practiced by Mormon Fundamentalists, a splinter group of the Mormon Church which gave up polygamy for good back in the early 1970’s. Sadly the Mormon Fundamentalist’s rendition of polygamy seems to be often nothing short of pedophilia wrapped in the cloak of religious freedom; girls twelve and fourteen-years-old are forced into marriages with men twice and three times their age (including marriages with their own step-fathers). These vulnerable girls grow up in an insular environment that offers them no opportunities towards financial freedom or self-fulfillment. They are quite literally considered to be chattel which means that even women of consenting age are not really consenting given that property isn’t in position to consent or not. The young women who somehow manage to escape this existence have testified that they felt completely helpless and trapped. Many have half-a-dozen children by the time they are twenty, have limited education, no job skills, and no one to turn to for assistance.
In essence, the Mormon Fundamentalists' beliefs with respect to polygamy are seemingly dichotomous to the basic legal rights afforded in a civil marriage. Hence the thought of polygamy gaining a legal footing in the U.S. would mean that Mormons would be undermining their own markedly unusual scripture. If, however, one of their prophets were to be suddenly hit by a revelation that said they must seek legal recognition from the government, I doubt they would have an easy time convincing a judiciary- or legislative body to tailor civil marriage laws so as to dovetail to this religious sect no matter how titillating the thought of having a harem at one's disposal might be to certain members of the afore mentioned bodies. And let’s face it; a secular version of polygamy isn’t likely to gain much popularity either. A polygamist would, quite frankly, be crazy to aspire to the legal obligations, rights, and protections provided under the legal status of civil marriage given that as it stands now, the polygamist has only to worry about alimony and child support with wife number one.
Gays, on the other hand, are not seeking marriage based on the argument that they are being denied their religious freedom. Simply put, consenting, tax-paying gays are asking to be afforded the same legal rights that two consenting, tax-paying heterosexuals enjoy in a civil marriage. If a gay couple is further interested in a religious marriage, why then they're on their own in terms of convincing their respective church to marry them. Some churches will. The majority won't.
With over twenty years of marriage under my belt, I’ll be the first to say that marriage is hard work. The high divorce rate amongst heterosexuals gives ample evidence that this is the case. I say if a gay couple is willing to make the ultimate commitment to join in matrimony, and are willing to take on all of the love, joy, responsibilities, tears and travails their marriage will no doubt bring them, go for it! We need all the love on this planet we can muster. Anti-gay marriage proponents squawking that if gays marry then next on the list will be scores of Americans signing up for polygamous relationships should instead be nurturing their own relationships rather than expending so much energy in judgment of others. Maybe we could get the divorce rate below 50% if they did.
And on that note: Reason 317
One argument I frequently hear against the historic Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s ruling for same-sex marriage is that the people, not the courts, should decide. Really? Until the Supreme Court intervened in 1956, the 'people' didn’t allow Rosa Park to sit at the front of the bus simply because she was black.
The second argument I hear a lot is the procreation factor. Sorry but that doesn't fly either since there is nothing to stop heterosexual couples from marrying who choose not, or are unable, to have children. And by the way, there’s no shortage of humans as far as I can tell anyway. Well, it’s about protecting children they cry! I have yet to see any empirical evidence (only manipulated statistics supporting one or the other side) that children who are raised by gay couples fare any better or worse than those raised by heterosexual couples. We don't stop criminals, drug addicts, and the genetic dregs of society from marrying and raising kids so why should gays pose any greater threat to the safety and best interests of children? As a side note, the Catholic Church in fact often places children from dysfunctional heterosexual families into the loving, caring arms of gay couples. Go figure.
I hear a lot about tradition and how marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Well might I remind those who would make this argument that up until not too long ago slavery was tradition, a woman not voting was tradition, and the banning of inter-racial marriages was tradition. It’s not natural! Well there are at least four hundred fifty species in the animal kingdom who would beg to differ. Lastly I hear a lot about the bible and God. At the Massachusetts State House not long ago, a ten-year old girl protesting with her parents against gay marriage screamed out at a gay man that he was going to burn in hell. There was good reason our founding fathers drew a firm line between church and state and this is just such an instance.
This is when I usually hear: Well what's next, POLYGAMY!? If gays are claiming their constitutional rights are being denied, aren’t polygamists also being denied their right to religious freedom? Won’t they insist that their form of marriage be recognized?
Polygamy is under federal law illegal in the United States but is nonetheless quietly practiced by Mormon Fundamentalists, a splinter group of the Mormon Church which gave up polygamy for good back in the early 1970’s. Sadly the Mormon Fundamentalist’s rendition of polygamy seems to be often nothing short of pedophilia wrapped in the cloak of religious freedom; girls twelve and fourteen-years-old are forced into marriages with men twice and three times their age (including marriages with their own step-fathers). These vulnerable girls grow up in an insular environment that offers them no opportunities towards financial freedom or self-fulfillment. They are quite literally considered to be chattel which means that even women of consenting age are not really consenting given that property isn’t in position to consent or not. The young women who somehow manage to escape this existence have testified that they felt completely helpless and trapped. Many have half-a-dozen children by the time they are twenty, have limited education, no job skills, and no one to turn to for assistance.
In essence, the Mormon Fundamentalists' beliefs with respect to polygamy are seemingly dichotomous to the basic legal rights afforded in a civil marriage. Hence the thought of polygamy gaining a legal footing in the U.S. would mean that Mormons would be undermining their own markedly unusual scripture. If, however, one of their prophets were to be suddenly hit by a revelation that said they must seek legal recognition from the government, I doubt they would have an easy time convincing a judiciary- or legislative body to tailor civil marriage laws so as to dovetail to this religious sect no matter how titillating the thought of having a harem at one's disposal might be to certain members of the afore mentioned bodies. And let’s face it; a secular version of polygamy isn’t likely to gain much popularity either. A polygamist would, quite frankly, be crazy to aspire to the legal obligations, rights, and protections provided under the legal status of civil marriage given that as it stands now, the polygamist has only to worry about alimony and child support with wife number one.
Gays, on the other hand, are not seeking marriage based on the argument that they are being denied their religious freedom. Simply put, consenting, tax-paying gays are asking to be afforded the same legal rights that two consenting, tax-paying heterosexuals enjoy in a civil marriage. If a gay couple is further interested in a religious marriage, why then they're on their own in terms of convincing their respective church to marry them. Some churches will. The majority won't.
With over twenty years of marriage under my belt, I’ll be the first to say that marriage is hard work. The high divorce rate amongst heterosexuals gives ample evidence that this is the case. I say if a gay couple is willing to make the ultimate commitment to join in matrimony, and are willing to take on all of the love, joy, responsibilities, tears and travails their marriage will no doubt bring them, go for it! We need all the love on this planet we can muster. Anti-gay marriage proponents squawking that if gays marry then next on the list will be scores of Americans signing up for polygamous relationships should instead be nurturing their own relationships rather than expending so much energy in judgment of others. Maybe we could get the divorce rate below 50% if they did.
And on that note: Reason 317
Comments:
Post a Comment
