Polygamy ‘R’ Us? Gallagher vs. Link

by on

Over at Maggie Gallagher's MarriageDebate.com, an interesting exchange between Maggie and IGF's David Link. David argues that polygamy, in sharp contrast with same-sex marriage, breaks the modern marriage template. Maggie replies that "classical polygamy" is actually quite straightforward. Maybe, retorts David, but classical polygamy is not what we'll get in modern America. The same social changes that make SSM sensible in the U.S. today are the very same social changes that make classical polygamy archaic and group marriage incoherent.

5 Comments for “Polygamy ‘R’ Us? Gallagher vs. Link”

  1. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    “Classical polygamy” is a “Bible-believing Christian” traditional value dating from the Old Testament. It seems bizarre (to say the least) for religious-social conservatives like Gallagher to attribute it to others.

    I suppose that their argument is really starting to fray — it essentially is “if you don’t allow us to regulate everyone else to the nth degree in their personal lives — the way that we see fit based on our own priorities — than anarchy shall descend in thousands of unrelated, shocking ways.”

    Unsurprisingly, though, a look at their own family lives merits a friendly suggestion of “focus on your own family life, please, I don’t want that replicated in mine.”

  2. posted by Randy R. on

    Having seen MG in action, I really have no interest in anything she has to say. She is incoherent, alarmist, possibly racist (She really thinks that low birth rates in european countries mean the ‘death’ of us all) and basically will say anything to undermine gay marriage, no matter how illogical or bizarre.

    Basically, I don’t think she’s even very bright and a terrible writer to boot. Why waste time on her?

  3. posted by The Snarkmeister on

    I continue to be disappointed in gays and libertarians for their lack of integrity when it comes to the polygamy issue. Their contortions in trying to come up with a reason why polygamy is different than same sex marriage would be amusing if it wasn’t such a sad display of failed character. It?s not at all dissimilar to African Americans flailing about trying to come up with reasons against gay civil rights. Pathetic really. Marriage was, is, and always will be a religious institution and in a secular democracy the government has no business advocating any form of it, let a lone picking and choosing based on the whims of currently popular opinion, religious or otherwise. If a church wants to sanctify polygamy, it should be allowed to, if it doesn’t, it shouldn’t have to. We should have enough integrity to say out loud though that Christians have no right to manipulate society through government and that conversely the government shouldn’t be giving religious institutions, such as marriage, it imprimatur. As for secular joint-legal contracts, by any name, there is little of substantive difference between one form and another. Its just a contract and should only involve its signatories.

  4. posted by Richard J. Rosendall on

    Snarkmeister wrote: “Marriage was, is, and always will be a religious institution….”

    You surely know people who are legally married for whom religion has nothing to do with it. If you don’t, look around you. That alone shows your statement is wrong on its face. Marriage has changed significantly over the centuries, and especially in the past several decades. Whether you like it or not, civil marriage exists as an institution, and that fact is not erased because you insist on a sole proprietorship over marriage by religion. Even if that absurdity were conceded, which religion would it be? Once could just as well insist that marriage is reserved for wealthy landowners. Monolithic pronouncements about things that are more complex do not enlighten.

    As to the polygamy issue: It is both ill-mannered and illogical to challenge people’s integrity (especially so indiscriminately) merely because they disagree with you. Why should the burden of proof either for or against polygamy fall on gay people’s shoulders any more than on straight people’s? The assumption appears to be that any change in marriage requires making all possible changes. That is patent nonsense, since we change laws all the time, and marriage law has been changed significantly over the decades. Every proposed change prior to SSM has been debated on its own merits. No doubt there were voices decrying each change with warnings that the sky would fall. Many of the changes had to do with the emancipation of women. Is a marriage more complicated and challenging when both parties have equal legal standing? Undoubtedly. That’s life.

    SSM and polygamy are two separate issues. The complications and legal ramifications associated with polygamy are entirely different from same-sex marriage, which involves two people the same as with opposite-sex marriage. Those who favor legalized polygamy can make their case. But straight people who engage in polygamy are not legally barred from marrying; they are only barred from being married to more than one person at a time. As a gay man I am not seeking the right to marry everyone, just the right to marry someone. That is how I see it; questioning my integrity is no refutation.

  5. posted by Northeast Libertarian on

    Their contortions in trying to come up with a reason why polygamy is different than same sex marriage would be amusing if it wasn’t such a sad display of failed character.

    That’s about as honest and character-building a statement as a gay activist saying that anti-gay forces’ contortion in trying to come up with a reason why anti-gay marriage politicians are different from Nazis is a sad display of failed character.

    Of course the “antis” have to launch all sorts of ridiculous personal attacks, since their position is — prima facie — illogical. If goverment marriage is “religious” in character, it’s illegal — unconstitutional. If government marriage is “practical,” then the present application fails the rational basis test, since it has no application of “requiring procreation” or other such nonsense.

    In the end, it boils down to a bunch of self-righteous control freaks who wish to attack gays, and the polygamous, and any other group they don’t like. Which is why it shouldn’t exist in the first place, and the “rights” of marriage should be rights afforded to individuals, not sanctimonious and smarmy half-wits like Snarky.

Comments are closed.