Poll: Majority of Americans Oppose Gay Marriage

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

As is the case for many of the arguments against legalizing polygamy--they are based on horror stories cherry-picked from groups that do not represent the world-wide polygamous population.

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.

Yes, that does seem to be the thrust of the pro-gay-marriage argument.

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".

I may be grossly misunderstanding you, but you almost seem to be saying here that somewhere down the line perhaps polygamy should be legalized and that gay marriage may be an "incremental step" in that direction. Is that what you meant?

[ernie1241]

I am not "dodging" your point. I have explicitly and repeatedly, and with emphasis told you that there has been no "humanizing" of polygamists.

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

Why don't you contact him and ask?

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

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

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

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?

I sincerely do not understand where your conclusion comes from. When you say that people are "a lot more hesitant about using the law to punish them" -- then there must be some FACTUAL basis for your conclusion. There must be some metrics that would permit us to make an informed judgment by comparing older numerical data to more current numerical data. And then we would express the numerical differences as a percentage so we could arrive at a judgment regarding the proper adjective to use whether it be "a lot" or "very little" or "about the same". So where is that numerical data? .

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.

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

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

You are correct. We ARE going in circles. All theories must be falsifiable if they are genuine theories. So here, bottom-line, is my prediction. This is June 2009. In June 2014, polygamy will STILL be illegal in all 50 states. And if there are ANY national or statewide public opinion polls on the subject, the overwhelming majority of Americans will STILL regard polygamy in highly pejorative terms.

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

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.)

You are, once again, conflating similar with same. You can select any single piece of evidence and propose elevating that single piece of evidence as being dispositive for your conclusion.

In 1967 there was no organized movement proposing recognition of same-sex marriage. In the succeeding years, general perceptions of gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals underwent a profound change.

WHY did perceptions change? WHAT caused the change? WHY were Americans RECEPTIVE to those changes? IF you can answer those questions, then and only then, could you potentially present a credible case which postulates a similar development with respect to polygamy.

Here are some factors which need to be considered if we attempt to present a comparison between same-sex developments to what might happen with respect to polygamy:

FIRST: Numerous famous, prominent and very accomplished individuals revealed their true sexuality or were "outed" (sometimes posthumously).

SECOND: There was a generational change of attitude toward sexuality in general and about gays in particular. However, that generational change of attitude did not affect general public sentiments about polygamy or incest or child abuse or numerous other sex-related topics. So you have to ask yourself, WHY NOT?

THIRD: As Americans became personally acquainted with real live gay human beings (at work, in church, in politics, in community groups, in entertainment, and especially in their own families) it became obvious that previous stereotypes (or prejudices) needed drastic revision.

FOURTH: On both the national and state levels, gays organized lobbying groups which effectively presented their case for equal protection under the umbrella of existing civil rights laws.

FIFTH: Numerous gay publications sprouted up and those publications helped catalyze a movement within the gay community which argued for expansion of existing civil rights laws to cover sexual orientation.

SIXTH: People (both straight and gay) became more and more comfortable about identifying themselves publicly with or speaking out about gay issues. Many prominent straight politicians, entertainers, businesspersons, clergy, family members, and legal scholars, formed support groups and brought their voices to bear upon public policy debates concerning same sex issues -- including marriage.

Everything I have just described above has never occurred with respect to polygamy (or incest, or other sex-related matters) and there is absolutely no reason to believe that it ever will.

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

[prisonchaplain]

Earnie, your argument that polygamy will not follow same-sex marriage seems anchored in public opinion, an assessment of lobbying sophisication, and a belief that such change will not come, barring a super-majority of public support. You likely base this in part upon the experience of the same sex marriage effort. However, there are a couple of flaws in your analysis.

1. Even same sex marriage does not have majority public support, simple or super.

2. Public opinion about same-sex sex remains "double-minded." Many accept the libertarian "live and let live" approach. Yet many others are scandalized by the behavior, either for religious reasons, or simply based upon personal or sociological disgust. Thus, I would argue that same-sex marriage proponents actually have a much higher bar to jump over.

Thus: Polygamy simply is not as organized. On the other hand, since the arguments in its favor are so similar to those of same sex marriage, and since most people question it only on sociological grounds, me thinks it will successfully "piggy-back" on same-sex marriage approval.

[Just_A_Guy]

Why don't you contact [senator Reid] and ask?

Because you were the one hinting that Reid's statements were based on something more reliable than second-hand information.

I sincerely do not understand where your conclusion comes from. When you say that people are "a lot more hesitant about using the law to punish them" -- then there must be some FACTUAL basis for your conclusion. There must be some metrics that would permit us to make an informed judgment by comparing older numerical data to more current numerical data. And then we would express the numerical differences as a percentage so we could arrive at a judgment regarding the proper adjective to use whether it be "a lot" or "very little" or "about the same". So where is that numerical data? .

You are the one claiming that current attitudes towards polygamy are fundamentally different than 1960s attitudes about homosexuality. You show me your numbers, and I'll show you mine.

So here, bottom-line, is my prediction. This is June 2009. In June 2014, polygamy will STILL be illegal in all 50 states.

Forgive me for not being particularly moved by a five-year prediction in a discussion about social trends that evolve over decades.

WHY did perceptions change? WHAT caused the change? WHY were Americans RECEPTIVE to those changes? IF you can answer those questions, then and only then, could you potentially present a credible case which postulates a similar development with respect to polygamy.

Your factors boil down to 1) people realizing that gays weren't really so bad, and 2) gays themselves taking a more aggressive PR strategy.

As I hinted before: what happens when 1) people realize that there are polygamists--lots of them--who don't victimize young girls, and 2) the FLDS and other polygamous groups/families begin to take additional steps to get their story out?

[ernie1241]

Earnie, your argument that polygamy will not follow same-sex marriage seems anchored in public opinion, an assessment of lobbying sophisication, and a belief that such change will not come, barring a super-majority of public support.

NO....not a "supermajority" -- just a major change in current public attitudes -- which seems very improbable.

You likely base this in part upon the experience of the same sex marriage effort.

No-- I base it upon the history of movements for social change in general.

However, there are a couple of flaws in your analysis.

1. Even same sex marriage does not have majority public support, simple or super.

Correct--except that the trendline is clearly moving toward acceptance, especially among younger AmericansBut a major portion of even those currently opposed to same-sex marriage have expressed acceptance of domestic partnership arrangements. There is no such comparable favorable sentiment about polygamists or polygamy.

2. Public opinion about same-sex sex remains "double-minded." Many accept the libertarian "live and let live" approach. Yet many others are scandalized by the behavior, either for religious reasons, or simply based upon personal or sociological disgust. Thus, I would argue that same-sex marriage proponents actually have a much higher bar to jump over.

Higher bar? There is nothing currently illegal about same sex relationships whereas polygamy is illegal in all 50 states!

Thus: Polygamy simply is not as organized.

Correct . And why do you suppose that, unlike gays, polygamists have not organized themselves into a movement, or published a journal advocating for their lifestyle, or engaged the public in debate about their practices --- and, in fact, they keep a VERY low profile?

On the other hand, since the arguments in its favor are so similar to those of same sex marriage, and since most people question it only on sociological grounds, me thinks it will successfully "piggy-back" on same-sex marriage approval.

I think you are totally mistaken --- but time will tell. Again, is there any expiration date associated with your theory? If, for example, 10 years from now polygamy is STILL illegal in all 50 states -- would you be prepared THEN to acknowledge that your theory is wrong?

Edited June 11, 2009 by ernie1241