Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[prisonchaplain]

I "lumped" polygamy in with other types of "non-traditional" marriages because the basic principle or question remains the same regardless of which "type" you want to discuss. It is NOT a straw-man argument.

In short: has there been ANY evidence that once a society legalizes NON-traditional forms of marriage, that it then leads down a "slippery slope" so that bizarre requests are made to legalize other types of "marriages"?

Let's say for sake of argument that we postpone our decision until we can review the actual history of countries which have legalized gay marriage but we wait until we have a body of evidence where it has been legal for at least 20-25 years.

IF it should turn out that after that 20-25 year period there has been NO request for legalization of other types of marriage ---- could we THEN conclude that legalizing gay marriage is NOT a "slippery slope" to recognizing other non-traditional forms of marriage?

You're so far out of pocket on this one. Polygamy is not bizzare. That you put polygamy as an alternative "marriage"--in quotes, suggests you understand how we traditionalists feel about same sex "marriages." Good for you.

Now, how can you not see how the two are tied together? In this country, they are both different, alternative, and grounded in values outside those of most of us. This is no slippery slope. This is me thinking about principal and seeing that both use the same arguments, and, imho, polygamy actually has a stronger case.

I won't grab you the 20-25 years, because the U.S. has unique circumstances that make polygamy extremely likely--especially if same-sex marriage is approved. We do have a large Muslim population, we have a tradition of trying to allow immigrants to keep as much of their culture as possible, and we have aggressive litigators that love this kind of stuff. Further, you made no comment about the link showing that this is already brewing with our neighbor to the North.

[prisonchaplain]

What I'm actually saying is that the government should step out of marriage altogether and leave society (meaning, each individual person) to it's own devices to define what marriage, and thus the family is.

While I understand the argument, I disagree. For government to get out of the marriage business is an admission that civil government has nothing to say about how society runs and groups and anchors itself. But it does. We do. There is the constant tension between individual rights and democracy. We fear the tyranny of the majority, but yet establish laws that lay out what the majority believe is right and wrong. It is within society's right to say that marriage is between a man and a woman, of certain age. If other groups want to live together, "shack up," or engage in their personal partnerships, American society has agreed to stay out of it. But to force upon us something that most, yes for religious reasons, find immoral...we don't have to accept it formally. Marriage is not a human right...it is a social recognition and affirmation. Most Christian, Muslims, Jews, and even some outside those faith groups, do not affirm as righteous same sex partnerships. And...neither do Americans affirm polygamy.

[ernie1241]

Maya, I used an arbitrary period (20-25 years) so there would be sufficient factual data to make a determination. Some European countries legalized same sex marriages years ago --- so please tell me: have they ALSO moved toward legalizing polygamy?

"In short: has there been ANY evidence that once a society legalizes NON-traditional forms of marriage, that it then leads down a "slippery slope" so that bizarre requests are made to legalize other types of "marriages"?

Let's say for sake of argument that we postpone our decision until we can review the actual history of countries which have legalized gay marriage but we wait until we have a body of evidence where it has been legal for at least 20-25 years."

Get real ernie... 20-25 years!! It wont take 5 years polygamy is coming strong! And here the gaymarriages are a fact.. been a year now... NOW they are waking up and asking to delete the decition!!!

Some people in Sturtinget= senate here already have been looking in to taking the gaymarriage up again and deny it!

[ernie1241]

OK---let me put the matter slightly differently.

All of us have seen the polling which has been done on same sex marriages. That polling has been summarized in this thread.

So please tell me --- does anyone believe that polling on polygamy would produce even remotely significant support within our society? Or ANY other forms of alternative "marriage"??

Again, I ask how we should focus our debate?

Should we focus on EXTREME situations which have no support within society and, furthermore, there is NO evidence currently that any other society is moving toward those extremes? (even if they have VERY liberal same-sex marriage laws already on the books)??

OR

Should we focus our intellectual energy upon the MOST PROBABLE situations -- i.e. the ones which already produce significant support and about which a consensus seems to be developing -- particularly among younger voters?

You're so far out of pocket on this one. Polygamy is not bizzare. That you put polygamy as an alternative "marriage"--in quotes, suggests you understand how we traditionalists feel about same sex "marriages." Good for you.

Now, how can you not see how the two are tied together? In this country, they are both different, alternative, and grounded in values outside those of most of us. This is no slippery slope. This is me thinking about principal and seeing that both use the same arguments, and, imho, polygamy actually has a stronger case.

I won't grab you the 20-25 years, because the U.S. has unique circumstances that make polygamy extremely likely--especially if same-sex marriage is approved. We do have a large Muslim population, we have a tradition of trying to allow immigrants to keep as much of their culture as possible, and we have aggressive litigators that love this kind of stuff. Further, you made no comment about the link showing that this is already brewing with our neighbor to the North.

[Aesa]

I wish it were that simple to take the govt out of marriage and leave it to society but unfortunately there is more to it than that. There are legal rights that society needs the government for like equality rights, discrimination problems, hate crimes, etc. Even then laws get broken.

Nope, the government could just step out of it entirely and abrogate any legislation even remotely related to marriage.

[prisonchaplain]

Ernie, I'm not expecting public votes on polygamy. Rather judges will impose it, especially after the precedent of same-sex marriage. Reference abortion.

[Maya]

All I can say thank God for Scriptures that show us the way and Temples which are more and more places to flee from the adversary. And I also wish that good people in other religions would have such places to turn to, places where no evil (known) is allowed in or the Temple has to be purified again.

[ernie1241]

That seems highly unlikely to me for three reasons:

(1) There is no basis in American law or modern law precedents for doing so and unless you know something which I do not, I do not know of ANY judge or Constitutional law scholar who has ever advocated that our law should protect polygamy

(2) There is nobody bringing polygamy test cases before the courts

(3) There is no general societal purpose which would be enhanced

Same-sex marriage, by contrast, maintains the template ( i.e. 2 people in a commitment to each other) and can be argued from the "equal protection" standpoint.

Ernie, I'm not expecting public votes on polygamy. Rather judges will impose it, especially after the precedent of same-sex marriage. Reference abortion.

[Just_A_Guy]

That seems highly unlikely to me for three reasons:

(1) There is no basis in American law or modern law precedents for doing so and unless you know something which I do not, I do not know of ANY judge or Constitutional law scholar who has ever advocated that our law should protect polygamy.

I think Justice Scalia's dissent to Lawrence touched on the issue, and it's been a frequent talking point in academic circles with respected names coming out on both sides of the question (Legal scholars rush in where society fears to tread).

Legal scholarship is preoccupied with bizarre and unlikely hypotheticals that may or may not ever come to pass in the real world, and the law is tailored around such hypotheticals to a surprising extent.

[ernie1241]

As you correctly point out, legal scholars and academics always discuss hypothetical situations.

It is very similar to the practice of our senior military officials who consider various scenarios at our military colleges and think thanks concerning circumstances under which American armed forces might be used. 99.9% of those scenarios (thankfully) never actually occur -- but planning for everything is prudent and mandatory.

Similarly, academics and legal scholars find it stimulating to consider hypothetical scenarios---particularly if the scenario might pertain to any current national debate.

But the key point here is this: there is no organized movement in our country (or any other western country that has already legalized same-sex marriages) to open for consideration, additional non-traditional marriages. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any appetite within these countries to expand marriage beyond what has already been done.

Therefore,

(1) absent any organized movement and

(2) absent any public interest in considering further marriage permutations

I think raising the polygamy issue (or other forms of "marriage") is essentially a scare tactic calculated to divert our intellectual energy and inflame emotions -- but not raise a serious issue.

I think Justice Scalia's dissent to Lawrence touched on the issue, and it's been a frequent talking point in academic circles with respected names coming out on both sides of the question (Legal scholars rush in where society fears to tread).

Legal scholarship is preoccupied with bizarre and unlikely hypotheticals that may or may not ever come to pass in the real world, and the law is tailored around such hypotheticals to a surprising extent.

[Just_A_Guy]

But the key point here is this: there is no organized movement in our country (or any other western country that has already legalized same-sex marriages) to open for consideration, additional non-traditional marriages. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any appetite within these countries to expand marriage beyond what has already been done.

Therefore,

(1) absent any organized movement and

(2) absent any public interest in considering further marriage permutations

I think raising the polygamy issue (or other forms of "marriage") is essentially a scare tactic calculated to divert our intellectual energy and inflame emotions -- but not raise a serious issue.

I frankly am not "scared" by the prospect of legalized polygamy. But, placing that aside for the moment: There is a rising demand among Muslim immigrants--here and in other western nations--that their new governments recognize pre-existing polygamous marriages. Like gay marriage itself--it is an issue that applies to only a tiny fraction of our population, but nonetheless will need to be addressed in our statutory code at some point.

[ernie1241]

I'm not aware of the "rising demand among Muslim immigrants" which you describe. However, even if it is correct that a handful of Muslims are seeking statutory reform to validate legalized polygamy, it still does not invalidate my two previous points -- i.e. there is no organized sentiment or movement within western countries to permit it, and there is no apparent appetite to even consider such proposals -- whether by the public or by legal scholars.

So, again, absent ANY indication that such ideas would be given SERIOUS attention and discussion --- it seems foolish to expend intellectual energy on it --- just as it would be foolish to expend intellectual energy concerning ourselves about a small group of people in our country who may want to compel public schools to teach (as FACT) that (for example) the holocaust never occurred, OR, that we never landed on the moon, or that HIV-AIDS was created by government to kill off large number of minority citizens, or, that the CIA was complicit in the murder of President Kennedy.

I frankly am not "scared" by the prospect of legalized polygamy. But, placing that aside for the moment: There is a rising demand among Muslim immigrants--here and in other western nations--that their new governments recognize pre-existing polygamous marriages. Like gay marriage itself--it is an issue that applies to only a tiny fraction of our population, but nonetheless will need to be addressed in our statutory code at some point.

Edited June 7, 2009 by ernie1241

[prisonchaplain]

That seems highly unlikely to me for three reasons:

(1) There is no basis in American law or modern law precedents for doing so and unless you know something which I do not, I do not know of ANY judge or Constitutional law scholar who has ever advocated that our law should protect polygamy

I could have said the same about same-sex marriage not so many years ago. If same-sex marriage is an inherent right that can be discovered, why not polygamy. Again, it has cultural and historic precendent.

(2) There is nobody bringing polygamy test cases before the courts

Would be participants are mostly immigrants with less political savvy and financial resources. But, there are rumblings in Canada, and I don't see how it can help but happen here, if same-sex marriage sets the precedent.

(3) There is no general societal purpose which would be enhanced

Same-sex marriage, by contrast, maintains the template ( i.e. 2 people in a commitment to each other) and can be argued from the "equal protection" standpoint.

Okay, so you think that two is a magical # that merits Constitutional protection, whereas a system of marriage with millenia of historic and cultural precendent, and religious sanction does not. I'm not finding it hard to picture some judges who will see otherwise.

[prisonchaplain]

So, again, absent ANY indication that such ideas would be given SERIOUS attention and discussion --- it seems foolish to expend intellectual energy on it --- just as it would be foolish to expend intellectual energy concerning ourselves about a small group of people in our country who may want to compel public schools to teach (as FACT) that (for example) the holocaust never occurred, OR, that we never landed on the moon, or that HIV-AIDS was created by government to kill off large number of minority citizens, or, that the CIA was complicit in the murder of President Kennedy.

Your standard of what should be discussed (that unless there is specific cases being tried, or substantial academic study, hypotheticals should simply not be regarded) is self-manufactured. Polygamy is not a bizarre, remote possiblity in the U.S. As many as ten million Americans practice Islam. Polygamy is written into it's sacred text. There are other small groups that would practice polygamy as a religious tenet, if allowed. You personally (apparently, you've never specified) find polygamy distatesful, so you want to disassociate the results of same-sex marriage approval from polygamy. Frankly, I don't see why. The arguments are mostly the same.

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm not aware of the "rising demand among Muslim immigrants" which you describe. However, even if it is correct that a handful of Muslims are seeking statutory reform to validate legalized polygamy, it still does not invalidate my two previous points -- i.e. there is no organized sentiment or movement within western countries to permit it, and there is no apparent appetite to even consider such proposals -- whether by the public or by legal scholars.

Forty years ago when Loving came down, was there any "organized sentiment or movement within western countries to permit" gay marriage?

[ernie1241]

Probably not but I sincerely don't think the two situations are comparable.

In my experience, the persons who are most adamantly opposed to gay marriage are persons who have NEVER had any (or just minimal) personal contact with gay men or lesbians or bisexuals. Consequently, their impressions are formed almost exclusively from secondary sources some of which are highly inflammatory.

When I was in my 20's and 30's (1960's and 1970's) I don't think there was anybody prominent who was an acknowledged homosexual. There were no politicians, no actors or actresses, no entertainers, no sports figures, no businesspersons, no clergymen --- nobody whom could put a HUMAN FACE on what it meant to be "gay".

By contrast, that all started to change when Rock Hudson and Arthur Ashe died. At first slowly, then in ever increasing numbers there were prominent Americans who acknowledged their sexuality.

Furthermore, (and I personally think this was critical), there were prominent right-wing politicians whose sons and daughters acknowledged that they were gay. Children of, for example, Phyllis Schlafly and Vice President Cheney.

Or conservative politicians and religious figures like Robert Bauman, Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, and Paul Crouch.

Then --- more and more prominent Americans from all walks of life started coming out of their closet.

The cumulative effect of all this (IMHO) has been to humanize the entire question of commitment between two people of the same sex.

HOWEVER, there is NOTHING comparable with respect to polygamy. Most of the news stories that have reported on polygamous relationships usually reveal very derogatory data about the people involved -- including allegations of coercion, intimidation, and brainwashing.

Furthermore, there has been no "humanizing" aspect to polygamy.

No prominent, respected individuals (clergy, politicians, actors, entertainers, sports figures, businesspersons) have come forward to advocate or condone polygamy and there absolutely is no reason to believe that ANYTHING will change that situation.

By contrast, once again, the argument could be made with respect to same-sex relationships that they preserve or mimic the already existing template, i.e. a long-term commitment between 2 people.

Thus, the "equal protection" clause of state and federal constitutions could be interpreted as covering such relationships -- without creating anything new.

Polygamy, however, I think would require a radical re-orientation that few people, if anyone, will support. In particular, "talking heads", pundits, and legal scholars don't seem to have any appetite for defending or recommending polygamy and there is no reason to believe that any court test would be successful.

Forty years ago when Loving came down, was there any "organized sentiment or movement within western countries to permit" gay marriage?

[ernie1241]

I could have said the same about same-sex marriage not so many years ago. If same-sex marriage is an inherent right that can be discovered, why not polygamy. Again, it has cultural and historic precendent.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT---BUT I THINK IT IS OVERSTATED. I HAVE DIFFICULTY IMAGINING A SCENARIO WHERE ANY COURT WOULD FIND, OR ANY LEGAL SCHOLAR WOULD PROPOSE, THAT POLYGAMY IS "AN INHERENT RIGHT".

Would be participants are mostly immigrants with less political savvy and financial resources. But, there are rumblings in Canada, and I don't see how it can help but happen here, if same-sex marriage sets the precedent.

IS THERE ANY SORT OF EXPIRATION DATE ON YOUR SUPPOSITION? IN OTHER WORDS, IF NOTHING HAPPENS WITHIN 10-15 YEARS FROM NOW, WOULD YOU BE DISPOSED TO BELIEVE THAT IT NEVER WILL?

Okay, so you think that two is a magical # that merits Constitutional protection, whereas a system of marriage with millenia of historic and cultural precendent, and religious sanction does not. I'm not finding it hard to picture some judges who will see otherwise.

GOOD POINT -- BUT THE 'MILLENIA OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRECEDENT" DID NOT OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES.

IN ADDITION, ALL SOCIAL CHANGE SEEMS TO COME ABOUT THROUGH SLOW PROCESSES WHICH INVOLVE THE HUMANIZATION OF THE PARTICIPANTS AND THEIR SITUATION.

IN OTHER WORDS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, AN EMPATHY IS CREATED WHERE SKEPTICS AND CRITICS GRADUALLY ARE WON OVER TO THE NEW PROPOSALS -- SUCH AS LEGALIZATION OF INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGES.

I JUST DON'T SEE ANY INTEREST OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER IN AFFIRMING POLYGAMY AS SOME 'INHERENT RIGHT".

BY CONTRAST, THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN A MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (ALBEIT OFTEN QUIET) WHICH SOUGHT TO DE-CRIMINALIZE GAY BEHAVIOR,

FURTHERMORE, THERE ALWAYS HAVE BEEN POCKETS OF SYMPATHY AND CONCERN FOR EQUAL STATUS FOR GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL INDIVIDUALS WITHIN STRAIGHT SOCIETY -- PARTICULARLY, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE MOVIE AND ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRIES -- WHICH, DISPROPORTIONATELY, WERE POPULATED BY INDIVIDUALS KNOWN (OR SUSPECTED TO BE) GAY.

LET ME MAKE THE POINT IN A DIFFERENT WAY:

NANCY AND RONALD REAGAN HAD MANY MANY GAY FRIENDS AS FAR BACK AS THE 1950's AND 1960's. FOR EXAMPLE: THEY BOTH KNEW THAT JOHNNY MATHIS WAS GAY -- AND THEY DIDN'T CARE. THEY FREQUENTLY INVITED MATHIS TO THEIR HOME OR THEY ATTENDED HIS CONCERTS.

DOES ANYONE READING THIS MESSAGE THINK THAT THE REAGAN's (OR ANY OTHER CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL FIGURES) WOULD EVER ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH AND BEFRIEND KNOWN POLYGAMISTS? IF NOT -- WHY NOT? WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE THAT EXPLAINS WHY THEY WOULD REJECT A POLYGAMIST BUT EMBRACE A GAY MAN?

[Seanette]

Uh, Ernie, were you intending to yell all that? Typing in all-caps is generally considered the online equivalent of shouting.

[FunkyTown]

Yeah. I couldn't even get past the first sentence. o.O

[ernie1241]

Sorry -- just had problems distinguishing my comments from Prisonchaplains. For some reason (perhaps because of the browser I use) I cannot create the neat individual quote boxes that you guys can so replies can be entered underneath them.

Uh, Ernie, were you intending to yell all that? Typing in all-caps is generally considered the online equivalent of shouting.

[pam]

Perhaps using a different color to distinguish them?

[ernie1241]

Perhaps using a different color to distinguish them?

Normally, that is exactly what I do Pam --- but the color drop down box did not operate the last time I attempted to use it. However, this morning it does work -- so I can use it (hopefully) in the future.

[Just_A_Guy]

In my experience, the persons who are most adamantly opposed to gay marriage are persons who have NEVER had any (or just minimal) personal contact with gay men or lesbians or bisexuals. Consequently, their impressions are formed almost exclusively from secondary sources some of which are highly inflammatory.

Ditto regarding polygamy.

. . . Then --- more and more prominent Americans from all walks of life started coming out of their closet.

The cumulative effect of all this (IMHO) has been to humanize the entire question of commitment between two people of the same sex.

How many well-respected personalities in politics, industry, show biz, ad nauseum engaged in "practical polygamy" by having mistresses concurrently with spouses?

HOWEVER, there is NOTHING comparable with respect to polygamy. Most of the news stories that have reported on polygamous relationships usually reveal very derogatory data about the people involved -- including allegations of coercion, intimidation, and brainwashing.

As did most stories regarding homosexuality, up until a few decades ago.

Furthermore, there has been no "humanizing" aspect to polygamy.

No prominent, respected individuals (clergy, politicians, actors, entertainers, sports figures, businesspersons) have come forward to advocate or condone polygamy and there absolutely is no reason to believe that ANYTHING will change that situation.

By your own admission--nor had there been for gays, when Loving came out.

By contrast, once again, the argument could be made with respect to same-sex relationships that they preserve or mimic the already existing template, i.e. a long-term commitment between 2 people.

But long-term polygamous marriages have existed continuously for millennia, whereas long-term gay relationships have not. Which type of relationship is the real interloper to the definition of "marriage"?

Polygamy, however, I think would require a radical re-orientation that few people, if anyone, will support. In particular, "talking heads", pundits, and legal scholars don't seem to have any appetite for defending or recommending polygamy and there is no reason to believe that any court test would be successful.

Again, you seem to be channeling the majority view circa 1967.

[Dravin]

Normally, that is exactly what I do Pam --- but the color drop down box did not operate the last time I attempted to use it. However, this morning it does work -- so I can use it (hopefully) in the future.

You don't have to do the drop down box, you can do it manually. You have to remember the colors names but the standard ones like red, blue, purple, orange, yellow and green are fairly easy to remember. Though yellow is kinda hard to read, at least with the theme I'm using.

To do it do this (without the space before the /):

red[ /color]

P.S. For what its worth, all of the codes can be done by hand.

[prisonchaplain]

GOOD POINT -- BUT THE 'MILLENIA OF HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL PRECEDENT" DID NOT OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES.

It's a small world after all. It's a small world after all...really, so what? The world continues to come to us. Canada is grappling with polygamy. You vehemently deny that correlation, but to me it's undeniable. BTW, and I mean this both seriously and tongue-in-cheek--why the bigotry against polygamy? Why should we insist on enforcing our values on others? What harm does polygamy bring? Are there any diseases particular common to polygamous communities? If we cannot deny same-sex marriage, despite overwhelming societal consensus that such offends a super-majority of our religious sensibilities, what justification do we have for denying polygamists? If the participants are of age, and are in consensual loving relationships, just what is your issue with it???

IN OTHER WORDS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, AN EMPATHY IS CREATED WHERE SKEPTICS AND CRITICS GRADUALLY ARE WON OVER TO THE NEW PROPOSALS -- SUCH AS LEGALIZATION OF INTER-RACIAL MARRIAGES.

Who needs empathy? Live and let live. Empathy can be created for so many practices...what kind of measure is that? Same-sex marriage is coming largely through the courts, not public legislation. Judges rule based on interpretation of the law and precedent from past decisions. Same sex marriage will set a huge precedent, and public empathy will play little role in drawing the connection to polygamy, despite Sotomayor's and Obama's new judicial doctrine.

I JUST DON'T SEE ANY INTEREST OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER IN AFFIRMING POLYGAMY AS SOME 'INHERENT RIGHT".

That's because there's no precedent set yet. IMHO, there are some cases just chomping at the bit, waiting for a decision that says Same sex marriage is an inherent human right that all 50-states must recognize. Very shortly there after, you'll see polygamy cases begin to wind their way through the courts. Perhaps some initial ones will fail, but momentum will build.

BY CONTRAST, THERE ALWAYS HAS BEEN A MOVEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (ALBEIT OFTEN QUIET) WHICH SOUGHT TO DE-CRIMINALIZE GAY BEHAVIOR,

Always??? How young are you? We did not start to hear about gay rights until the 1970s, and not seriously until the 1980s. And, I remember well that activists in that era promised they wanted nothing to do with heterosexual marriage--just stay out of their bedrooms, they insisted. Religious Right leaders were deemed paranoid for saying that this would destroy marriage. BUT NOW...the solution many are suggesting, even here, is that government get out of the marriage business altogether. "If we can't have it you can't either!!!"

BTW, a movement to decriminalize gay behavior is a far cry from official state recognition of gay marriage. Multi-partner sexual behavior is indeed rampant in our land, and is totally legal. Further, we do engage in polygamy here--just consecutively, rather than concurently.

DOES ANYONE READING THIS MESSAGE THINK THAT THE REAGAN's (OR ANY OTHER CONSERVATIVE POLITICAL FIGURES) WOULD EVER ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH AND BEFRIEND KNOWN POLYGAMISTS? IF NOT -- WHY NOT? WHAT IS THE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE THAT EXPLAINS WHY THEY WOULD REJECT A POLYGAMIST BUT EMBRACE A GAY MAN?

You keep treating polygamy as something requiring public legislation and super-majority approval. It won't. Neither will same-sex marriage. It will come through the courts, based on precedent--precedent set by the Courts insisting that gay marriage is a basic human right under our Constitution.