The state Senate of Utah voted this week to reclassify polygamy from a felony to a misdemeanor crime. In an oh-so-predictable twist, conservatives have already blamed marriage equality.
To be clear: polygamy is not legal in Utah, even under the new statute. That hasn’t stopped conservative publication The Federalist from a hyperbolic attack on LGBTQ rights, in essence blaming legalization of polygamy which hasn’t even happened on queer visibility and marriage equality.
Author David Marcus writes:
“The reason polygamy became inevitable is that once untethered from the concept of man and wife, there is simply no basis for constraining marriage to two people…Now that the concept of marriage has been turned into a malleable plastic, how can critics of polygamy who championed gay marriage say with a straight face that consenting adults should be barred from the practice? Social progressivism has left us after the past two decades in a place where marriage is whatever we want it to be, gender is whatever we want it to be, and even history is whatever we think we need it to be to solve today’s problems. All is relativism. In the digital age, nothing is written in stone. It can all be cut, copied, and pasted; it can all be rewritten, rewired, recoded.”
Marcus also decries defenders of marriage equality who denounced polygamy as part of their argument. He also manages to work in a ludicrous complaint of removing statues of Confederate figures like Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis as erosion of our heritage (forget that those guys were traitors to and enemies of the United States who favored its dissolution and who thought to keep an entire race of people as slaves was a good idea).
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Related: Polygamy Just Around The Corner, Christian Blogger Fears
He then goes on to say “The slippery slopes are real. They are not fabricated conspiracy theories spun by bigoted conservatives; they are the obvious fallout of decisions we make as a society and nation. For all intents and purposes, polygamy is now legal in the United States. This proves yet again that any time a progressive utters the phrase, ‘That will never happen,’ you should sprint to your bookie and put down a good chunk of change that it will.”
David Marcus’ credentials, for the record, consist of penning essays for National Review and The New York Post, as well as a failed career as an actor. That hardly makes him an expert in marriage tort.
And just for the record, polygamy remains illegal under federal law. Thus, even if Utah did try to legalize the practice, it would still remain a crime. We have a feeling David Marcus probably remains willfully ignorant on that point. Then again, Marcus the failed actor has, no doubt found the part of a lifetime: conservative gasbag. And his performance still sucks.
Cam
This is a phony deflection. The bill decriminalizing polygamy was introduced by Republicans and passed by a Republican legislature. They don’t want to be called out on it, so now they’re trying to deflect
Bromancer7
The Defense of Marriage Act (one man, one woman) is still on the books. While it’s unenforceable when it comes to same-sex marriage, I wonder if it can still be used to ban polygamy at the federal level.
jayceecook
It already is illegal on the federal level. It’s called the Edmunds Act. You’re a few hundred years late.
jayceecook
I actually have no problem with consensual polygamy. I don’t understand why it’s illegal unless bigamy is involved. It’s essentially more than two people engaging in a relationship, sharing a life together, and living a spiritual path they think is best for them. We have throuples. I don’t see people trying to make them illegal when they are basically the same. Why the government is always trying to legislate people’s private lives, where no other crimes are taking place, is beyond my comprehension. Live and let live. Love is love and all that.
MacAdvisor
The reason same-sex marriage works is the sex-based roles of marriage were largely eliminated in the 1970s. Prior to the ’70s, almost all states had rules as to what one could and could not do in a marriage based on one’s gender. Women were responsible for child rearing under the Tender Years Doctrine, men had a responsibility to work to support the family. Men controlled a women’s property. Wives couldn’t work without their husband’s permission and there were many, many more rules. Same-sex marriage wouldn’t work under such a scheme because the marriage was based on these gender conforming rules. Once that system was eliminated, there wasn’t any obstacle to same-sex marriage. The exact same rules work for same- or opposite-sex marriage.
This isn’t true with polygamy. Marriage are still based on two and only two people. The marriage ends when one party sues for divorce. If there are four people in the marriage, does one of them suing for divorce end the marriage? Community property is the property acquired during the marriage. If people come and go during a marriage what portion of the community property is their share? Either party to a marriage can commit the couple to a contract. This becomes ever more cumbersome when there are more and more people in the marriage. One person can commit a ten-person marriage to a contract?
The problem with polygamy is the rules for two don’t readily extend to more. Thus, there isn’t a system ready to step into as is the case with same-sex marriage. Because these conservatives don’t understand how marriage works, they think polygamy is the same. They are, as with most conservatives, simply wrong.
enlightenone
Thoughtful and informed!
jayceecook
Polygamy isn’t legal so all those issues that you raise are moot. Besides, there are many legal routes they can take to avoid such situations. Same sex couples were doing this before it was legalized. Polygamy is solely a religious/spiritual marriage not both a religious and secular one like a 2 person one. That’s a very important fact that most people miss. They don’t legally marry each other. I’m pretty sure they don’t feel the need to. Unless bigamy is involved they aren’t breaking any laws per se. It’s just cohabitation. However some states have laws against that, like Utah, which are rarely, if ever, enforced on a 2 or 3 people household.
You do being up a very important thing that I have had a problem with concerning marriage. All its legal entitlements. I have always felt that it shouldn’t be a legal institution but solely a religious or secular one. Having all these legal benefits, rules, and regulations attached to it is ridiculous. Why should married people be afforded special rights just because they decide to enter into a “union” together? I’d love to to see it abolished as a legal contract.
Heywood Jablowme
That’s nothing – Trump’s Supreme Court appointees will eventually make it legal for fathers to marry their own daughters. Trump’s base in Appalachia will be happy, and this is Trump’s dream for Wife #4!
Harley
After all, biblical marriages are polygamous.
Mack
The ONLY reason for polygamy isn’t legal in Utah is that the only way it could become a state. The Mormons practiced it until Utah was being considered being a state and Congress insisted they ban it in order to pass the Congress. Of course the LGBTQ will always be blamed for everything under the sun by the right wing dipshits. It’s in their make up to blame us.
baggins435
I just left Utah after living there almost 20 years. They haven’t been going after polygamists anyway unless they absolutely had to. Everyone knows the polygamists and where they live, it’s no secret at all. The problem I have with polygamy is that, usually, the wives each live in their own house with their kids and use every bit of state and federal aid available as single mothers. They have jokes about husbands running from one house to another every night. There are some who live in huge-ass houses, but they are the ones with money. The only reason the then LDS Prophet had a Revelation banning polygamy back in the late 1800s was so Utah could become a state. Just like the Prophet had a Revelation in the 70s that the blood of Black people had now been diluted enough they could be part of the church before the Feds got the church for discrimination.
Hdtex
Conrathyli1970 has untreated SYPHILIS
frankcar1965
Obviously this dating service is run by Queerty since they never remove it.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
mar·riage
/?merij/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship.
Above description of both Gay and hetrosexual marriage. We didn’t ask for any special accomodations.
But these noxious puddles of puke on the right who are disturbingly obsessed with all things Gay blame everytime on the Gays…
Jon in Canada
So let’s review:
Straight men want more than one sex partner (let’s not kid ourselves as to what this really is) of the female type AKA concubines for lack of a better term…but the gays are to blame? Really? Ok then.
Morons, the lot of them.
Sister Bertha Bedderthanyu
Wow! Its now only a misdemeanor? In other words its ok for HIM to have two wives but SHE can’t have two husbands? Do I have that right or is it ok for her to have two husbands? I don’t get it. Or did that question not cross anyone’s mind other than me and the girls down here in the amen pew at First Self Righteous Church of Pascagoula? Lord, I ask you. Only a self serving bunch of queens would cheer this ruling on because they themselves have no morals.
JaredNorthcutt30
A failed career as an actor? Please, Queerty. You look childish. Debate on the merits of the argument. I checked out this author’s LinkedIn. I suppose one could make that same assertion. And content farming on Screenrant.com? Stick to the argument.