Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[HEthePrimate]

Thank goodness! I was afraid the Gay Agenda was taking over the last Great Bastion of Freedom, the United States, and that as a result the Lord GOD would rain fire down upon us. Knowing that the American people have seen the error of their ways and turned against the idea of gay marriage is very reassuring. There is still hope!

HEP

[cofchristcousin]

The polygamy marriage issue is far more complex than gay marriage. Gay marriages can operate under the very same laws as straight marriages, just remove the gender specifications. Polygamy cannot operate under these same laws. There may come the day when their marriages are made legal, but I have a feeling that the it will be very difficult to draw up laws that would be worthwhile to the polygamists themselves.

If the man dies, are the women still married to each other? If one is sick, who can visit and make decisions? The "group" is unwieldy. Polygamists tend to be religous and have different criteria for what makes marriage. I don't think polygamist legal marriage can easily be made "one size fits all".

[Just_A_Guy]

CofChristCousin, I think you're making it unnecessarily difficult. For example, polygamy has historically been interpreted as merely a series of independent marriages that did not bind any of the wives to each other legally. Visitation is decided quite easily by a simple amendment to a state's advance-health-care-directive act laying down a default rule that the "senior spouse" governs (the parties are free to execute a power-of-attorney that would overrule the default statutory rule, just as people can do now). The main issue would be property division--and, again, it's nothing another couple hundred pages in the tax code couldn't address.

The "it's too complicated" meme was used against gay marriage, too; but it crumbles pretty quickly in the face of a compelling equal-rights argument.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[cofchristcousin]

CofChristCousin, I think you're making it unnecessarily difficult. For example, polygamy has historically been interpreted as merely a series of independent marriages that did not bind any of the wives to each other legally. Visitation is decided quite easily by a simple amendment to a state's advance-health-care-directive act laying down a default rule that the "senior spouse" governs (the parties are free to execute a power-of-attorney that would overrule the default statutory rule, just as people can do now). The main issue would be property division--and, again, it's nothing another couple hundred pages in the tax code couldn't address.

The "it's too complicated" meme was used against gay marriage, too; but it crumbles pretty quickly in the face of a compelling equal-rights argument.

I didn't say it was too complicated, I said it was more complicated, compared to gay marriage. I said nothing more than that.

[prisonchaplain]

The polygamy marriage issue is far more complex than gay marriage. Gay marriages can operate under the very same laws as straight marriages, just remove the gender specifications. Polygamy cannot operate under these same laws. There may come the day when their marriages are made legal, but I have a feeling that the it will be very difficult to draw up laws that would be worthwhile to the polygamists themselves.

If the man dies, are the women still married to each other? If one is sick, who can visit and make decisions? The "group" is unwieldy. Polygamists tend to be religous and have different criteria for what makes marriage. I don't think polygamist legal marriage can easily be made "one size fits all".

But it's been done...for centuries--millenia. Yes, it may be a bit complicated, but lawyers love the challenge. On the other hand, polygamy may be the camel that breaks the the whole civil marriage covenant. Several have already suggested government get out of the marriage business. They'll all be civil unions, and churches can do what they want with marriage. The bitter irony is that Jerry Falwell will be proven right...same-sex marriage laws will in fact destroy civil marriage.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, it may be a bit complicated, but lawyers love the challenge.

Indeed.

[ernie1241]

My comments appear underneath yours. However, by way of preface, I think you are conflating two situations which have similar aspects -- but you are declaring them to be the same -- when they are not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ernie1241

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.

NO! Not "ditto".

Whereas negative public perceptions of gays have dramatically changed particularly over the past 10-15 years, I don't think the negative perceptions about polygamy have changed one iota.

Whereas the gay community has both national and state organizations (and publications) which advocate on behalf of gay interests --- and politicians of both parties actively solicit gay support, attend gay functions, and endorse gay-friendly legislative proposals, there is no remotely comparable situation with respect to the polygamists. If anything, the exact opposite is the case.

Whereas many anti-gay practices, laws, and stereotypes have been discarded, the general public perception of polygamy and polygamists is still highly pejorative. Polygamy is still illegal in all 50 states and, I repeat, there is no appetite anywhere within our society for changing those laws. You may recall the incident in 2008 in Texas where state officials took action against a fundamentalist Mormon church near Eldorado. The subsequent publicity was highly prejudicial to the polygamist community because of publicity regarding under aged girls being forced into polygamous marriages with older men.

In July 2008 the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted hearings regarding "Crimes Associated with Polygamy: The Need for a Coordinated State and Federal Response."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid testified on July 24th that there were parallels between organized crime and modern polygamists Here are excerpts from his testimony:

"I felt that this was essential that I be here. The lawless conduct of polygamist communities in the United States deserves national attention and federal action. This hearing is an important milestone in the ongoing effort to curtail their pervasive criminal behavior."

He said the polygamist groups are:

"A form of organized crime. ... I'm not saying they're the same thing as the crime syndicates that were in Las Vegas, but they engage in an ongoing pattern of serious crime that we ignore at our peril. ... "

According to Reid, among the crimes involved were: bigamy, and child abuse -- including the forced marriage of teens and pre-teens to older men -- welfare fraud, tax evasion and other "strong-arm tactics," such as witness intimidation.

He said that:

"These crimes are systematic, sophisticated and are frequently carried out across state lines. ... These lawless organizations must be stopped."

Reid concluded that polygamists represent a...

"sophisticated, wealthy and vast criminal organization. ... The lawless conduct of polygamous communities in the United States deserves national attention and federal action."

If THAT is the attitude of the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate --- then from what conceivable source will polygamists find the kind of support necessary for them to change American attitudes and law?

Quote:

. . . 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?

Quote:

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.

Another example where you wrongly conflate similar into same.

Media reports about homosexuality and homosexuals were frequently the result of moral objections by people who never had any personal contact with someone who was gay -- and often their objections were based upon personal prejudice and irrational fear or even outright hatred.

Similarly, if you review the history of media coverage of interracial relationships and interracial marriage --- much of that reporting was based upon ignorance and fear and prejudice and stereotypes which many prominent U.S. politicians pandered to.

With respect to homosexuals, there was no reasonable basis to connect them with coercion, intimidation, and brainwashing -- particularly in relation to children. Irrational fears were exploited successfully because demonization is always easier to accomplish when you have no personal knowledge of, or contact with, the targeted group.

Quote:

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.

As I previously stated, there always has been a sub-rosa support network within the straight community for gays, lesbians and bisexuals. That support network included numerous famous people in all walks of life -- although it may not have been publicized.

Perhaps even more significantly, that support network was populated by individuals who represented many different political strains within our society: conservatives, libertarians, liberals, and moderates. Consequently, it included such varied personalities as Ronald Reagan, Elizabeth Taylor, Liza Minelli, Sen. Barry Goldwater and, now, Dick Cheney.

Furthermore, unlike the situation with respect to polygamists, many prominent, respected, and accomplished gay and bisexual people in U.S. and world history have been greatly admired (even though their true sexuality was not always public knowledge).

There simply is nothing even remotely comparable to this situation with respect to polygamists. For example:

FILM/TV: Sir John Gielgud, Sir Alec Guiness, Charles Laughton, Rock Hudson, Raymond Burr, Anthony Perkins, Richard Chamberlain, Sal Mineo, Montgomery Clift, Rupert Everett, Neil Patrick Harris, Tab Hunter, Sir Ian McKellen, Rosie O'Donnell, Ellen Degeneres, Suze Orman, Anderson Cooper, David Hyde Pierce, George Cukor, Janet Gaynor, Will Geer, David Geffen, Roddy McDowall, Agnes Moorhead, Franco Zeffirelli, Marlene Dietrich

WRITERS/POETS/PLAYWRIGHTS: Thornton Wilder, James Baldwin, Tennessee Williams, John Cheever, Noel Coward, Walt Whitman, Gertrude Stein, Herman Melville, Amy Lowell, E.M. Forster, Edna Ferber, Hans Christian Andersen, Truman Capote, Sir Arthur C Clarke, Amy Lowell, Gore Vidal,

POLITICIANS: Need I even list any of them? -- including prominent conservative Republicans?

SCIENCE: George Washington Carver, Margaret Mead, Alan M Turing

COMPOSERS/LYRICISTS: Harold Arlen, Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, Cole Porter, Jerry Herman, Lionel Bart, Benjamin Britten, Stephen C. Foster, Maurice Revel, Stephen Sondheim

FASHION: Gianni Versace, Perry Ellis, Halston, Yves St Laurent, Bill Blass

ECONOMICS: John Maynard Keynes

MUSIC: Barry Manilow, George Gershwin, Michael Bennett (choreographer), Liberace, Lily Tomlin, Johnny Mathis, Elton John, Melissa Etheridge, Adam Lambert (this year's American Idol runner-up), Clay Aiken, Nathan, George Michael, Joan Baez, K.D. Lang, Little Richard, Tracy Chapman, Lorenz Hart, Vladimir Horowitz, Janis Joplin

SPORTS: David Kopay, Greg Louganis, Martina Navratilova, Billy Jean King, Glenn Burke, Brian Orser

MILITARY: Col. T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), Alexander the Great, Frederick the Great (Prussia)

ARTISTS: Michelangelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, Salvador Dali

MISC OTHERS: Siegfried and Roy

GAYS FROM FAMOUS FAMILIES: Candace Gingrich (yes Newt's sister), Chastity Bono (Cher's daughter), Cheryl Crane (Lana Turner's daughter), Betsy Brooks (Garth Brook's sister), Ty Ross (Barry Goldwater's grandson), John Schlafly (son of Phyllis), Mary Cheney (VP Dick Cheney's daughter), Jason Gould (Barbara Streisand's son)

Quote:

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"?

Frankly, your comment is quite ignorant (sorry -- I don't mean to be offensive). Long-term gay and bisexual relationships may have been hidden -- but they were not non-existent.

Quote:

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.

No---see, for example, the comments I quoted by Sen. Majority Leader Reid above. If polygamists cannot count on the support of liberal politicians---then precisely whom can they count on? Certainly not conservatives!! .

[prisonchaplain]

Ernie, imho Sen. Read may have personal and religioius reasons for taking such a virulent anti-polygamy stance. I don't see many people, particularly politicians, that have any feelings at all towards polygamy. It's an unusual practice done in the Middle East to most people. I would guess that most people find polygamy less difficult to understand than same-sex attraction, and yet, as you've repeatedly point out, the group has gained great acceptance in a short period of time. Why you think it wouldn't be that way with polygamists is beyond me? Oh yeah...the whole numbers thing (template of two)...

[ernie1241]

Prison Chaplain:

Please let me ask you a question.

Suppose, for sake of argument, that gay marriages ARE legalized nation-wide through (as you think) "the courts" within, say, the next 5 years (i.e. by 2014).

I'd appreciate learning from you what specific adverse consequences you anticipate will occur within our society during the subsequent 10-20 years as a result of legalization of gay marriage by 2014.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Traveler]

More here.

I am concerned and bewildered by those Americans that actually believe gay marriage will help solidify family values and prosper the proper attitudes of family (children) for generations to come.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Prison Chaplain:

Please let me ask you a question.

Suppose, for sake of argument, that gay marriages ARE legalized nation-wide through (as you think) "the courts" within, say, the next 5 years (i.e. by 2014).

I'd appreciate learning from you what specific adverse consequences you anticipate will occur within our society during the subsequent 10-20 years as a result of legalization of gay marriage by 2014.

The key adverse consequence is that a legal doctrine will be established ever more firmly, that society does not have authority to establish moral norms of acceptance. We cannot, despite a super-majority of consensus, say that marriage is between a man and a woman. If not, what other laws and rights might judges overturn and establish? Polygamy may well be one of those.

Another difficulty is that judicial activism is a short-cut that creates social unrest. I've even read pro-choice folk who now realize that the debate has forever been poisoned by the judicial fiat of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps society would have caught up with the pro-choice view. However, by sabatoging the debate with a made-up interpretation/invention, pro-lifers will forever believe that a few judges legislated the death of tens of millions of unborn babies. Likewise, if judges demand from the bench that same-sex marriage be recognized, imho the GLBT community will see a dimishing of good will for a generation or more to come. Win the battle, delay winning the war, so to speak.

[ernie1241]

Well, let me say this. If you are correct, and I am wrong, and the courts accept a test case regarding polygamy and they rule in favor of such relationships, then almost certainly there will be a huge outcry across the political spectrum and, as has happened in the past, the Congress will then expedite legislation to rescind the court decision and continue to make polygamy illegal in all 50 states.

The reason I am so confident about this is because of the general political environment in our country. There simply is no interest or desire to legalize polygamy anymore than there is any desire to legalize marriage between humans and animals or between grandparent/grandchild or brother/sister.

Yes, our courts are an independent branch of government --- but they are not oblivious to public sentiment or the status of prevailing law in all 50 states.

In order for the U.S. Supreme Court to legalize polygamy, there would have to be a minimum 5-4 majority on the court. Those folks would have to be persuaded by some extraordinary argument that polygamy is a wholesome practice not subject to existing state laws.

Again---there is no conceivable circumstance that I can think of which would persuade 5 of the current Justices (or any likely subsequent Justices) to rule the way you think they might.

Ernie, imho Sen. Read may have personal and religioius reasons for taking such a virulent anti-polygamy stance. I don't see many people, particularly politicians, that have any feelings at all towards polygamy. It's an unusual practice done in the Middle East to most people. I would guess that most people find polygamy less difficult to understand than same-sex attraction, and yet, as you've repeatedly point out, the group has gained great acceptance in a short period of time. Why you think it wouldn't be that way with polygamists is beyond me? Oh yeah...the whole numbers thing (template of two)...

[Traveler]

But it's been done...for centuries--millenia. Yes, it may be a bit complicated, but lawyers love the challenge. On the other hand, polygamy may be the camel that breaks the the whole civil marriage covenant. Several have already suggested government get out of the marriage business. They'll all be civil unions, and churches can do what they want with marriage. The bitter irony is that Jerry Falwell will be proven right...same-sex marriage laws will in fact destroy civil marriage.

I strongly disagree with your projections. I believe that it is the intent to define marriage (homosexual marriage) not just for civil law but to define marriage within all religions as well with the intent to revoke tax exempt status for any religion that does not agree and install marriage to be defined by those with the power of law to force such a thing.

In essence it is a means to remove the right and liberty of a free people to religion.

The Traveler

Edited June 8, 2009 by Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

Earnie, if I'm reading right, you believe there is a strong, latent undercurrent of anti-polygamy sentiment in the U.S. I, in contrast, suggest that feelings are mostly nuetral or non-existent. Post-modernism has made people increasingly ambivalent about other people's business. Like I said, there's this "live and let live" attitude. So, if it's okay for two guys to "marry" and do what they do, then who can blame a rich Muslim guy if he marries 2 or 3 girls who all want to be with him? At least they do things...uh...you know... I just can't see the chasm you project between same sex marriage and polygamy.

Traveler, I hope your wrong, but maintain some suspicion that what you project may also be an outcome. If it really goes that direction (taking legal action against churches that maintain the doctrine that homosexual behavior is sin), then my hope spikes--surely Jesus is enroute!

[ernie1241]

NOT "latent" --- EXPLICIT and codified into law.

Earnie, if I'm reading right, you believe there is a strong, latent undercurrent of anti-polygamy sentiment in the U.S. I, in contrast, suggest that feelings are mostly nuetral or non-existent. Post-modernism has made people increasingly ambivalent about other people's business. Like I said, there's this "live and let live" attitude. So, if it's okay for two guys to "marry" and do what they do, then who can blame a rich Muslim guy if he marries 2 or 3 girls who all want to be with him? At least they do things...uh...you know... I just can't see the chasm you project between same sex marriage and polygamy.

Traveler, I hope your wrong, but maintain some suspicion that what you project may also be an outcome. If it really goes that direction (taking legal action against churches that maintain the doctrine that homosexual behavior is sin), then my hope spikes--surely Jesus is enroute!

[ernie1241]

Well, I certainly disagree with your interpretation.

I think that 20 or 30 years from now, postgraduates will write their master's theses and doctoral dissertations to explain the history of same sex marriage debate and those narratives will be read by new generations of Americans as time-machine journeys into a quaint past that will be incomprehensible to most people --- much as our current generation reads about the history of the interracial marriage and desegregation controversies of 50 years ago and then scratches their head and wonders what the fuss was all about.

To illustrate my point, here are excerpts from a speech made by the Governor of Georgia, Marvin Griffin, in May 1956. Please notice the comparable doom-and-gloom premises and conclusions which are used today about same-sex marriages.

“Let me say to you tonight as we counsel together, do not be concerned by what is said by the Communists, the pinkos, the radicals, the NAACP, the ADA, the one-worlders and all that motley group of crackpots who are clamoring for desegregation and mongrelization. These groups of organized minorities are chanting a chorus that opposition to the fraudulent order of the Supreme Court is defiance of law. Of course, that is not true. The decision of May 17, 1954 is not law. It is an attempt to make law where none existed before by a non law-making body.” …

“You may take the map of the world today and look at all of the countries. Wherever you find a country that is populated by a black race, a colored race, or a mongrel race, the Christian religion has not been able to survive…I say without fear of contradiction, that the white race is the only race of people in history who have been able to perpetuate the Christian religion. Mongrelization of our people here in America will follow integration of the races in school and on the social level. When mongrelization of the races occurs---and God grant that it never will occur---it will bring with it the destruction of the Christian religion.” …

“There are obvious and well-known differences between whites and blacks which no amount of glossing-over and covering up by subversive so-called anthropologists and pseudo-scientists can hide…There are many reasons why the white people object to their children having this close association with nigger children. Among them are: health; the Nigra’s high crime rate and disrespect for law; the lower mentality level; and the high rate of illegitimacy among Nigras.” …

“I would like to, for just a moment, if you please, tell you very briefly what we are attempting to do in our State of Georgia. First, in Georgia, the Constitution and the laws of our state prevent the expenditure of state tax funds for the operation of mixed schools. Also, our General Assembly will never appropriate one dime for mixed schools. And let me say to you definitely and unequivocally, Georgia will have separate public schools or no public schools.” .

The key adverse consequence is that a legal doctrine will be established ever more firmly, that society does not have authority to establish moral norms of acceptance. We cannot, despite a super-majority of consensus, say that marriage is between a man and a woman. If not, what other laws and rights might judges overturn and establish? Polygamy may well be one of those.

Another difficulty is that judicial activism is a short-cut that creates social unrest. I've even read pro-choice folk who now realize that the debate has forever been poisoned by the judicial fiat of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps society would have caught up with the pro-choice view. However, by sabatoging the debate with a made-up interpretation/invention, pro-lifers will forever believe that a few judges legislated the death of tens of millions of unborn babies. Likewise, if judges demand from the bench that same-sex marriage be recognized, imho the GLBT community will see a dimishing of good will for a generation or more to come. Win the battle, delay winning the war, so to speak.

[prisonchaplain]

Earnie, the difference is that those societies that condemn interracial marriages did so for mostly cultural reasons. Granted, there was a small segment of fundamentalist Christianity that rested upon the Tower of Babel story as justification for their racism, or which took the prohibitions against marrying non-Jews (i.e. pagans) as being a racial command. However, seldom were racist prohibitions based upon religious arguments. Almost always, they were sociological.

Opposition to same-sex marriage and activity, on the other hand, largely is religious...based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings that span over 3000 years. So, if your projected students really do wonder what all the fuss was about, they will not have been successful in their efforts at study.

[Moksha]

Hey, does anyone remember that song, "You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught" sung by Lieutenant Cable in the musical South Pacific?

What were those exact words? I think they have some bearing on the meaning of this poll.

[ernie1241]

"Small segment"?? That was the prevailing attitude in our entire country where it was illegal. And the most virulent opposition to de-segregation and interracial relationships was based upon the alleged "biblical" justifications cited by anti-"mongrelization" clergymen who spoke for millions of Americans -- just as is the case now with respect to same sex marriages.

Earnie, the difference is that those societies that condemn interracial marriages did so for mostly cultural reasons. Granted, there was a small segment of fundamentalist Christianity that rested upon the Tower of Babel story as justification for their racism, or which took the prohibitions against marrying non-Jews (i.e. pagans) as being a racial command. However, seldom were racist prohibitions based upon religious arguments. Almost always, they were sociological.

Opposition to same-sex marriage and activity, on the other hand, largely is religious...based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic teachings that span over 3000 years. So, if your projected students really do wonder what all the fuss was about, they will not have been successful in their efforts at study.

[Just_A_Guy]

NO! Not "ditto".

Er . . . what you said was "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."

Senator Reid would appear to fit the bill here--as near as I can tell, his information is primarily based on a self-selected and inherently biased sample, drawn from a population that represents only a tiny fraction of the world-wide polygamous community.

If THAT is the attitude of the Senate Majority Leader and one of the most liberal members of the U.S. Senate --- then from what conceivable source will polygamists find the kind of support necessary for them to change American attitudes and law?

Yeah; it's not like any liberals ever did (or do) oppose gay marriage.

Whereas negative public perceptions of gays have dramatically changed particularly over the past 10-15 years, I don't think the negative perceptions about polygamy have changed one iota.

Then you didn't pay very much attention to national coverage of the YFZ raid. There was a huge--huge--groundswell of people saying "just leave them alone". You also aren't paying attention to the explosive growth of Islam in the United States and other western nations.

You may recall the incident in 2008 in Texas where state officials took action against a fundamentalist Mormon church near Eldorado. The subsequent publicity was highly prejudicial to the polygamist community because of publicity regarding under aged girls being forced into polygamous marriages with older men.

Were we reading the same news sources? From what I saw "Sarah" turned out to never have existed, the Texas judge who ordered the children removed from their homes was overruled on appeal, under-aged marriages turned out to be the exception and not the rule (while polygamous groups like the AUB and the Centennial Park branch were able to demonstrate that they had never sanctioned underaged marriages at all), trumped-up allegations (Bizarre sex rituals in the temple!) fizzled, and Texans were becoming increasingly disgusted at having to foot a multi-million dollar bill for invading a peaceful compound with an APC in order to tear children from their mothers on national TV.

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

And I'm sure the non-enforcement of laws prohibiting adultery is not a reflection of the "humanization" of those who seek multiple concurrent long-term relationships.

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

Hmm. Off the top of my head? Bill Clinton. John Edwards. John McCain. John Kennedy. FDR. Martin Luther King, Jr. I could go on . . .

Media reports about homosexuality and homosexuals were frequently the result of moral objections by people who never had any personal contact with someone who was gay -- and often their objections were based upon personal prejudice and irrational fear or even outright hatred.

How many people in society have had personal contact with a polygamist? The states that have the most contact with them (Utah, Arizona) are also the most tolerant of polygamy per se within their borders, and those who live around them generally take a pretty benign view of them.

Similarly, if you review the history of media coverage of interracial relationships and interracial marriage --- much of that reporting was based upon ignorance and fear and prejudice and stereotypes which many prominent U.S. politicians pandered to.

Whaddya think Harry Reid was doing in those quotes you posted earlier? Take a non-representative sample, and try act like it represents the whole. It's the oldest trick in the book.

Frankly, your comment [that long-term polygamous marriages have "existed continuously for millennia, whereas long-term gay relationships have not"] is quite ignorant (sorry -- I don't mean to be offensive). Long-term gay and bisexual relationships may have been hidden -- but they were not non-existent.

My bad. But the point is that, contra your implication, the "template" for polygamous marriages exists, and has been socially accepted on a continuous basis for longer than homosexual relations have been.

If polygamists cannot count on the support of liberal politicians---then precisely whom can they count on? Certainly not conservatives!!

The argument for legalizing polygamy--like that for gay marriage--is a libertarian one that can and does draw people from across the traditional left-right spectrum. If the FLDS follow through with their declared intent to abolish underaged marriages while simultaneously maintaining their aggressive PR campaign, and a problem with underaged marriages doesn't develop within the Muslim-American community, then twenty years from now the last major bogeyman used by the anti-polygamists will have vanished from our society.

Once the scare tactics are commonly understood for what they are, the barriers will come down quickly and the polygamists will be able to build on the foundation being established by the gay-marriage advocates today.

Edited June 10, 2009 by Just_A_Guy

[FunkyTown]

I recognize that, as an LDS member, there might be some bias seen to this, but I believed this even before I joined the church. Talk that with a grain of salt.

I frankly don't care about polygamy. Unless they're going to make adultery a felony, there really should be no reason the public should ever get involved in polygamy. It's a decision between consenting adults.

I just imagine this conversation: "Freeze! You're under arrest for six counts of bigamy." "Big o' ME? Dat's big o' YOU. Wait... Arrest? What does dat mean?" "It means you're married to seven women." "Married? Oh, no. We're not married. I'm only married to one women. These women? They just stay in my house and they raise the kids we have together."

"... Oh. Well, that's fine, then."

[Just_A_Guy]

As a follow-up, Ernie1241, I just put my finger on something else about your reasoning that troubles me.

You seem to be arguing that polygamy will not follow gay marriage--not because it isn't morally right that it should, but because there will be no viable constituency that will be able to get polygamy legislation passed.

Does this mean that it's morally and constitutionally right to prohibit a particular nontraditional relationship--even if demonstrably socially harmless--simply because the parties to that relationship lack the political clout to overturn the prohibition?

[ernie1241]

Er . . . what you said was "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."

Senator Reid would appear to fit the bill here--as near as I can tell, his information is primarily based on a self-selected and inherently biased sample, drawn from a population that represents only a tiny fraction of the world-wide polygamous community.

Senator Reid was born in Nevada, raised in Nevada, educated in Utah and then served as City Attorney in Henderson NV, then served in the Nevada State assembly, then as Lt. Gov of Nevada, then elected to U.S. House of Representatives, then to the U.S. Senate. It strains credulity to suggest he has no first-hand knowledge about what goes on in his state and neighboring states with respect to polygamy, or for that matter, the gay community.

Yeah; it's not like any liberals ever did (or do) oppose gay marriage.

Then you didn't pay very much attention to national coverage of the YFZ raid. There was a huge--huge--groundswell of people saying "just leave them alone". You also aren't paying attention to the explosive growth of Islam in the United States and other western nations.

But the point is that polygamy is still illegal in ALL 50 states. And the senior Democratic Party leader in the U.S. Senate has described polygamists as being engaged in multiple criminal activities.

Were we reading the same news sources? From what I saw "Sarah" turned out to never have existed, the Texas judge who ordered the children removed from their homes was overruled on appeal, under-aged marriages turned out to be the exception and not the rule (while polygamous groups like the AUB and the Centennial Park branch were able to demonstrate that they had never sanctioned underaged marriages at all), trumped-up allegations (Bizarre sex rituals in the temple!) fizzled, and Texans were becoming increasingly disgusted at having to foot a multi-million dollar bill for invading a peaceful compound with an APC in order to tear children from their mothers on national TV.

Child Services officials testified and state law enforcement officials believed that child abuse was rampant in that compound. There is, as you know, a higher standard of proof required in a courtroom than occurs in general public perceptions and debates about any matter. Whatever "groundswell" of public opinion may have occurred because of a belief that state officials acted too hastily or with too much zeal -- that doesn't change the larger public perceptions about polygamy and polygamists--which are still pejorative.

And I'm sure the non-enforcement of laws prohibiting adultery is not a reflection of the "humanization" of those who seek multiple concurrent long-term relationships.

Hmm. Off the top of my head? Bill Clinton. John Edwards. John McCain. John Kennedy. FDR. Martin Luther King, Jr. I could go on . . .

How many people in society have had personal contact with a polygamist? The states that have the most contact with them (Utah, Arizona) are also the most tolerant of polygamy per se within their borders, and those who live around them generally take a pretty benign view of them.

Whaddya think Harry Reid was doing in those quotes you posted earlier? Take a non-representative sample, and try act like it represents the whole. It's the oldest trick in the book.

"Non-representative sample"? How so? You mean non-representative of the feelings and beliefs of other Democratic politicians in Nevada or in the U.S. Congress? If you have specific factual evidence to support that claim---I am more than willing to consider it. I am not aware, however, that there is any unreported support for, or any pro-polygamy sentiment in the Democratic Party or in the U.S. Congress. I resent your characterization of what I wrote as being some sort of "trick" designed to deceive or confuse.

The FACT is that there is NO (repeat: NO) sentiment among our legislators or in our judicial system which considers polygamy to be an entirely benign or wholesome practice--undeserving of any punitive action.

Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and there is no movement in Congress or in state legislative bodies to change that. NONE. There is no discernable public sentiment to change it. There is no interest expressed in our religious community to change that. NONE. There is no editorial support in our media. NONE.

My bad. But the point is that, contra your implication, the "template" for polygamous marriages exists, and has been socially accepted on a continuous basis for longer than homosexual relations have been.

Yet, despite the "template" being in existence for "a continuous basis for longer than homosexual relations have been" -- there is NO public sentiment to de-criminalize polygamous relationships and behavior. NONE.

The argument for legalizing polygamy--like that for gay marriage--is a libertarian one that can and does draw people from across the traditional left-right spectrum.

CITE some evidence for your statement. What "libertarian" organizations or publications or prominent spokespersons are advocating repeal of current laws which make polygamy illegal? If I go to the Libertarian Party website, or Ron Paul's website -- will I see such sentiments anywhere?

If the FLDS follow through with their declared intent to abolish underaged marriages while simultaneously maintaining their aggressive PR campaign, and a problem with underaged marriages doesn't develop within the Muslim-American community, then twenty years from now the last major bogeyman used by the anti-polygamists will have vanished from our society.

You keep bringing up the Muslim-American community as some undifferentiated mass of like-minded people. Talk about using a non-representative sample! CITE specifics. Tell us what specific national Muslim organizations are lobbying for repeal of polygamy statutes. Tell us what specific legal challenges are currently pending in courts around the country as a result of Muslim (or other) organizations filing amicus curiae briefs.

Once the scare tactics are commonly understood for what they are, the barriers will come down quickly and the polygamists will be able to build on the foundation being established by the gay-marriage advocates today.

This is the "slippery slope" argument used by opponents of interracial marriage 50 years ago i.e. if we permit the "mongrelization" of society, Christian civilization will come to an end and the moral underpinnings of society will crumble.

[ernie1241]

I don't know what you mean by the phrase "demonstrably socially harmless".

My point is very narrow. It is simply that many arguments raised against legalizing same sex marriages are irrelevant or based upon falsehoods or highly suspect assumptions, for which there is no evidence.

I think one of the problems here is that there is a natural human tendency to want our laws to reflect absolute no exceptions consistency. In other words, if we identify a basic operating principle, then it should be applied across the board --without exception.

But that is NOT how the real world works. In the real world, we do our best to create rules (laws) that are just and fair for the greatest number of persons but we recognize that (1) we cannot anticipate every conceivable circumstance and (2) unanticipated issues or controversies may develop later which require re-visiting what we have done.

In the real world, we don't start from the premise that we must find the absolutely PERFECT (and internally consistent) solution to every issue or problem that we confront before we are allowed to pass laws.

Often, we take small incremental steps and we know that our initial steps are our best judgment about how to proceed at that moment in time. The "good" is NOT the enemy of the "perfect".

QUOTE=Just_A_Guy;377860]As a follow-up, Ernie1241, I just put my finger on something else about your reasoning that troubles me.

You seem to be arguing that polygamy will not follow gay marriage--not because it isn't morally right that it should, but because there will be no viable constituency that will be able to get polygamy legislation passed.

Does this mean that it's morally and constitutionally right to prohibit a particular nontraditional relationship--even if demonstrably socially harmless--simply because the parties to that relationship lack the political clout to overturn the prohibition?

[Just_A_Guy]

It strains credulity to suggest [senator Reid] has no first-hand knowledge about what goes on in his state and neighboring states with respect to polygamy, or for that matter, the gay community.

How many polygamous communities are in Nevada? How many in Utah? How many has Reid visited? How many practicing polygamists has Reid interviewed?

It's the Senate, Ernie. These guys shoot off their mouths about stuff they know nothing about all the time.

But the point is that polygamy is still illegal in ALL 50 states. And the senior Democratic Party leader in the U.S. Senate has described polygamists as being engaged in multiple criminal activities.

So, what? Again, you're describing the status quo vis a vis gay marriage, forty years ago.

Child Services officials testified and state law enforcement officials believed that child abuse was rampant in that compound. There is, as you know, a higher standard of proof required in a courtroom than occurs in general public perceptions and debates about any matter.

Many of them lied, and were duly smacked down by the state supreme court. But I digress.

Whatever "groundswell" of public opinion may have occurred because of a belief that state officials acted too hastily or with too much zeal -- that doesn't change the larger public perceptions about polygamy and polygamists--which are still pejorative.

You're deliberately dodging the point. They were "humanized" in the media, and that humanization continues today--most notably with "Big Love". People may not be willing to become polygamists themselves, but they're a lot more hesitant about using the law to "punish" them. Sound familiar?

"Non-representative sample"? How so?

Reid demonizes the FLDS, who are a non-representative sample of all polygamists. Apologies if I was unclear earlier. Nevertheless, his tactic is similar to those previously used to smear gays--take one or two instances of a man molesting a boy, and publicize it as if that's what all gays do.

The FACT is that there is NO (repeat: NO) sentiment among our legislators or in our judicial system which considers polygamy to be an entirely benign or wholesome practice--undeserving of any punitive action.

Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states and there is no movement in Congress or in state legislative bodies to change that. NONE. There is no discernable public sentiment to change it. There is no interest expressed in our religious community to change that. NONE. There is no editorial support in our media. NONE.

Congratulations. Again, you're re-stating the status quo vis a vis homosexual marriage, forty years ago.

there is NO public sentiment to de-criminalize polygamous relationships and behavior. NONE.

We're going in circles. There was plenty of such sentiment expressed last year. The organization is lacking, but the sentiment is there.

CITE some evidence for your statement. What "libertarian" organizations or publications or prominent spokespersons are advocating repeal of current laws which make polygamy illegal? If I go to the Libertarian Party website, or Ron Paul's website -- will I see such sentiments anywhere?

See, e.g., posts at The Volokh Conspiracy (a blog of highly respected libertarian law professors) during the YFZ kerfluffle last year.

You keep bringing up the Muslim-American community as some undifferentiated mass of like-minded people. Talk about using a non-representative sample! CITE specifics. Tell us what specific national Muslim organizations are lobbying for repeal of polygamy statutes. Tell us what specific legal challenges are currently pending in courts around the country as a result of Muslim (or other) organizations filing amicus curiae briefs.

I'm talking about sentiments and sympathies, not organized legislative efforts. See, e.g., here.

And again, for at least the third time in the same post, you demonstrate a blissful unawareness of how your statements could have been made just as accurately regarding gay marriage in 1967. Tell me, what specific legal challenges regarding gay marriage were currently pending in courts around the country as a result of gay (or other) organizations filing amicus curae briefs? (Oh, and the technical answer to that is "none". Legal challenges are not the "result" of amicus curae briefs--amici come only after the legal challenge has already been initiated. But your point is taken.)

This is the "slippery slope" argument used by opponents of interracial marriage 50 years ago i.e. if we permit the "mongrelization" of society, Christian civilization will come to an end and the moral underpinnings of society will crumble.

Well, it led to gay marriage, didn't it?

Edited June 10, 2009 by Just_A_Guy