The following comes from a July 10 Washington Post article by Sarah Pulliam Bailey:
The Supreme Court’s decision in June that legalized same-sex marriage across the country has unleashed a renewed debate over polygamy, leaving some to wonder why marriage should be considered between just two persons.
The first legal challenge involving polygamy came last week after a man from Montana said the Supreme Court’s decision inspired him to apply for a marriage license so he can legally marry a second woman. Nathan Collier, who was featured on the reality television show “Sister Wives,” said he will sue the state if it denies him the right to enter into a plural marriage.
“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told the Associated Press. “You can’t have this without polygamy.” A county civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he was reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by this week.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts’s dissenting opinion raised the question of whether the court’s rationale could be used to legalize plural marriage down the road.
“Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective ‘two’ in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not,” Roberts wrote. “Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world.”
Six Supreme Court decisions have upheld bans on polygamy and public support for polygamy remains low, so it’s unlikely the courts will change the laws anytime soon, said John Witte Jr. a law professor at Emory University who recently published “The Western Case for Monogamy over Polygamy.”
Opposition to polygamy has focused on the potential harm directed toward women and children, because studies have found correlations to abuse and other problems. But proponents historically saw plural marriage as a social welfare system, a defense against sexual abuse and possibly a means of increasing the opportunity for women to marry in times of war, Witte said. Today, arguments in favor of polygamy focus more on sexual autonomy and individual choice.
“Because the definition of marriage or the form of marriage has changed and we’re open to constitutional change, it’s inevitable for this to be contested,” Witte said. “I wouldn’t be surprised if the issue of polygamy gains momentum, but I would be surprised if the court’s opinion changes in my lifetime.”
Hey, my husband of fifty odd years is getting old and crotchety, can I have one more? or maybe two to wheel around my first husband, and the other one to wheel me around in the future. Sounds good to me! Except our children and grandchildren would have to fight over the inheritance, if their is anything left. Polyandry is fine with me. (Said “tongue in cheek” of course. Who in their right mind would want two spouses or more. If you want hell on earth just give someone two spouses. We have enough hell on earth already. Pretty soon this guy will be running for the divorce court.)
Anne T your funny. Lol
Glad you enjoyed it, Abeca Christian. We have to laugh at some of the nuttiness sometimes, or we would cry.
Thats true. Your comment also gave us something to think about. Thanks Ann T. Your comments always give a good lesson too. Nice to read them because they are coming from a faithful person. God bless your week. ☺
Oh, yes, and I should have written “there” instead of “their” in my first post at end of fourth line.
Also, maybe that is what is making the radical Muslims such ISIS so mean — all those wives are getting to them.
Oops! I certainly am making a lot of typos. I meant “such as ISIS’.
Remember: Two wives = two mothers-in-law! :)
Congratulations on being married for over 50 years. If he is just now getting crotchety..you hit the jackpot.
Anne ..I agree. back in ancent times polygamy was based on the man being in charge. Today, certainly in California things wold be different. In a 21st Century polygamist marriage, family decisions would likely be made like this:
Q: Where should we live?
A: Sisterhood is powerful
Q Where should the children go to school?
A: Sisterhood is powerful.
Q: Where should we go on vacation?
A Sisterhood is powerful.
Q: What kind of car should we buy?
A:Sisterhood is powerful.
Q: What kind of toothpaste should we buy?
A: Sisterhood is powerful.
Really…from the husband’s point of view, he’s better off with one wife.
If same-sex “marriage” is now legal, why not make polygamy legal? Marriage between three people is already legal in Thailand. I guess this could be called “marriage equality.” If the polygamy case goes to our Supreme Court, it is likely that the same justices will approve it. Why not?
Well, how about if it is one woman marrying two men, or a lesbian marrying two transgender persons? Where does this whole thing stop? Who will even need to ask the supreme court’s opinion or blessing on all. This coupling? How about if a child wants to exchange his set of parents for two women or two other men as parents? Every person will have access to everyone else’ body pretty soon. It may get to the point of no one having the right to say no to any sexual intimacies. That someone else wants from another?
The more intelligence we acquire the dumber we get.
And just imagine- if we can drive on both sides of the highway, what’s to stop people from driving on the left side of the street? What’s to stop them from not using streets at all? If someone wants to drive through someone’s back yard, maybe they won’t even have to ask the Supreme Court to allow it! Where will driving stop? Pretty soon, it may get to the point of no one having the right to say no to driving anybody else’s car!
I feel sorry for you YFC that you would make those comparisons which have nothing to do with what is moral. Your verbal posts make me sad, that you lack fear of the Lord. You deny the existance of our Lord’s holy commandment in regards His natural law. Your comments neglect absolute truth. God help us.
Why do you feel sorry? YFC has proclaimed on this site that the promise of heaven is his… guaranteed!
Polygamy is wrong and discusting. I dont understand why women would want to be part of that. Thats gross.
If you had a really high maintenance husband you might be glad to have the help.
This Anonymous your response is stupid and worst than childish. Not from God that is for sure. Dont want any part in such a dysfunctional point of view. Comments like yours only display how far off some people are from growing virtuous and how moral relativism has cheapened common sense. Moral relativism the anything goes garbage thinking.
Maybe not in his lifetime, but certainly in yours and mine. The “logic” (though severed from the Natural Law) compels the legalization of plural marriages. The push only requires this to be seen has sometime more than a male preoperative – the stuff of bawdy humor. Except for the multicultural, diversity push from the Muslim community to have their cultural distinctives (dignities) recognized and legalized. The left which controls the courts will not have the courage to resist – from fear of being labeled racists (or,, strictly speaking, relgionists). Once the Muslim gin up the campaign things will change quickly. As it will with child marriages.
Then, lets not forget (now that they have crowned themselves with the big crown of…
Sodomy is apparently nolonger illegal in the eyes of sinful men, so why shouldn’t polygamy, or beastiality? It is only a matter of time, it is going to happen. How sick our nation has become with its wretched evil leaders. Even those that perceive themselves as good, who dare not stand up against it will be held accountable on their judgment day.
Tom, “sodomy” is a private act protected by Constitutional guarantees of freedom of privacy. Polygamy is plural marriage, which would be a public act of government.
Sodomy marriage (two people of the same sex), is no different than polygamy, or marrying one’s pet.
“Anonymous” your distinction is ridiculous. There is absolutely no legal reason — now — to support a State having the right to limit marriage to two persons (of age). Polygamy will soon be permitted.
Thereafter the homosexual holy grail of lowering the age of consent will go full throttle. As soon as they can, homosexual sexualits will demand plural marriages to younger boys. And, the Catholic Church remains full of homosexuals, and those that enable them.
The only marital aid needed for man married to more than one woman are ear plugs….
Of course. If people of the same sex can marry, why not more than two people marrying, or people marrying their pets.
It’s their “civil rights” and their freedom. Society can go to Hell.
And the OBAMA Administration who already insists that everyone support: Abortion, Contraception, Sodomy,
(and soon Euthanasia to help kill the mentally and medically infirmed and the elderly),
will be able to add polygamy and beastiality to its resume of intrinsic evils.
You know, the right to marry is a fundamental right of individuals, as the Supreme Court has found dozens of times. When slaves were freed, one of the first thing they did was to get married, because to restrict marriage is to restrict the freedom of that person. So finally, gay people are no longer enslaved men and women.
You can degrade us by talking about marrying pets, but you blaspheme God when you do that by saying that the love between 2 people He created, and, a love which He created, is to be belittled by such talk. Belittle, degrade, indignify all you want…at your own peril.
OK so what is marriage?
The union of one man and one woman in Holy Matrimony …
Marriage – Between one man and one woman as instituted by God.
Read your Bible.
I was asking anonymous for his or her definition of marriage since he rejects God’s definition, but thanks anyway…
Actually anon there is no peril in speaking the Truth..there is no Fundamental right to marry, you cannot marry your sister or mother.. so its not Fundamental.
If there is no fundamental right to marry in American Constitution, then Barack Obama’s parents would not have been allowed to marry.
Yes and it would have saved the country from the disaster of his administration … there is no fundamental right to marry get over it…
Says who? People have been intermarrying racial, including Moses, all down through time. Sooner or later the law against marriages between people of different ethnic groups and races in the United States was bound to fall since other countries allowed it, including the Spanish. Nevertheless, God through Moses forbade sodomy, among the other sexual sins. The law against marrying people of different ethnic groups was mostly because of differences in religion and moral values, not so much because of race.
….those with same sex attraction are not enslaved by anyone. The enslavement comes from the obsession with defining oneself by a disordered usage of one’s body.
And nobody is degrading ‘you’ by speaking of the logical slide into individuals and/or groups seeking to continue expound on what constitutes liberty and/or the pursuit of happiness. Quoting God in the equation is also rather off, especially if one is a Catholic, for the natural law is clear as is the word of God and the Church regarding sodomy and all that pertains to it. This misguided pursuit of ‘homosexual’ marriage has effectively unhinged the institution from all thought of God, so why not marrying pets? Who are you to judge, Anonymous, and with what measure…
I agree with you. The Obama Administration says the right to marry is a fundamental right. That is why polygamy and marrying pets are sure to follow.
You blaspheme God with sodomy marriage.
“Anonymous”: kindly keep from relying on God as a defense for your failure to withstand acting on your same-sex attraction. You are suggesting, by this, that God, Who is holy, is complicit in your perversion.
Homosexual sex is an abomination, a mortal sin, and will always be so. Whether Pope Francis and his pals want to enable sodomy by creating some “welcoming” observance, this cannot change the sinful nature of each and every voluntary homosexual sexual act. This is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengence, notwithstanding what five Supreme Court justices say.
Without God, there is no morality. But God will not be mocked, and He will not bless America. Our nation is rotten and getting more evil and perverse every minute. I heard Sean Hannity say that ‘today is the worst day for us because of the Iran deal’. He as most people are foolish. Because we have no values, multiple marriages will probably be allowed. It is a diabolical disorientation.
Pilar, all this is planned by certain groups — demoralize the country, so they can take it over later. It was and is in the Marxist agenda, although I think other groups are using it, too, for their own agendas. In the end, though, they end up destroying each other as happened in the French Revolution.
Christian Marriage is not like other marriages. It is a Sacrament, given to us by Christ! Our Judeo-Christian country, though not Catholic, was originally founded on Biblical teachings, and once upheld Biblical truths, as the very foundation of our Nation. Our Nation was NOT founded on false, hedonistic notions of “individual dysfunctional choices for oneself,” to the extreme, like a juvenile delinquent or outlaw from society— disregarding basic Christian morality, and the good of the family, community, and country! We have a big responsibility, to love, serve, and obey God, Who gave us this once-great land!! Acts of sex perversion (which are grave Mortal Sins!) must be outlawed, as they once were.
It takes a great deal of maturity, to understand, accept, and live by Christian morality! Yet everyone in our society, must be taught basic Judeo-
Christian morality, and it must be upheld all over the Nation, no matter what! Judeo-Christian moral leadership begins in the country’s churches/synagogues, with good religious teaching and guidance! It is a basic, Biblical daily life discipline (“discipleship”). Otherwise, our society will eventually fall apart, like the Roman Empire — and mankind will simply “run wild” — deranged, sinful, suffering, sick, ignorant, and barbaric– living again, in a horrible, Godless, Dark Ages!
It’s too bad– but somehow, in my above post, the typing skipped a line! But I didn’t type it that way!!