Tuesday, June 30, 2015

After Gay Marriage

I predicted this back in June of 2009.

With the right to gay marriage in the bank the next frontier is polygamy. It only makes sense. Recognized major world religions have forms of polygamy. A reasonable argument for having more than one wife can be found in Islam and Mormonism.

But the larger argument is that if marriage is not just one man and one woman, joining in a partnership for the purpose of forming a family and child rearing, then who decides what it is? The likely answer is that the participants do.

Groups of various sizes and genders/proclivities are going to challenge the court system and will win. Why not? They say they want to be left alone to live their lives as they see fit.

This is exactly what I want, also. Don't infringe my rights, especially the clearly enumerated rights like the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to be secure in my person and my papers, and the others that the Founders enshrined in clear words, and I won't infringe yours. It's like a social contract.

And good luck sorting out communal property when y'all decide to get divorced. It's messy enough with two people.
The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.
–Ayn Rand


armedlaughing said...

Oh, yeah.
And the accompanying legal SNAFUS of I'm divorcing wife#3, marrying #5, having a child with #2.
And the property settlements.


Cloward & Piven take on the civil court system!


Ben C said...

How long before we see an attack on the inheritance tax and "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" type marriage & families?

The first generation of the married family owns the resources, and as long as new people can marry in the "first generation" family will last forever.

Old NFO said...

Yep, now it's going to get really interesting!

Jon said...

Time for the line marriages Heinlein described in Friday.

kotetu said...

I certainly agree the government (city, state, and federal) has absolutely zero authority - legal or moral - to prohibit any consensual unions, but nor does government have the authority to force anyone else to participate in such unions.The "regulate Commerce ... among the several States" clause of A1S8 has been heavily abused. They've turned it into "control people".

This aside, I cannot fathom why a man would want TWO wives. One wife is plenty to deal with.

Archer said...

But the larger argument is that if marriage is not just one man and one woman, joining in a partnership for the purpose of forming a family and child rearing, then who decides what it is? The likely answer is that the participants do.

No, the reasonable answer is that the participants do. The likely answer is that the federal government -- empowered by the Supreme Court of the United States -- gets to decide, and it's equally likely they won't give a damn about family and/or child-rearing (which they already partially control via the public school system). Rather, the decision will be based on whatever can exert the greatest level of control over the greatest number of citizens/subjects, and extort the greatest amount in taxes from the same.

It won't be logical, and it won't be fair, but it will be "official".

R.K. Brumbelow said...

One of the few things I have ever seriously disagreed with Heinlein on was Marriage and sexuality. However, every form of marriage he has proposed over the years can easily be enacted today by setting up each 'relationship' as shares of a trust. All it takes is good contract law.

Want a line marriage, no problem C corp with 1000 shares, each original partner gets a portion of the shares. Want to add a new partner? They buy an equal number of shares from each other corporate member. Want a 'divorce', fine the other parties buy back the shares of the leaving party. Children would be beneficiaries of the company, but not members of the company unless you go 'Doc' Smith and get incestuous, in which case they buy in shares just like anyone else would. Depending on the contract terms each member of the corporation may have to pay 'dues' based on the upkeep and legal expenses of the company plus housing, food etc. If someone takes a position such as general child care or general cooking, the corporation pays them as an employee. You can continue to do this as long as you want, in an ideal situation where members only join and then are members until death, then the company continues to build up assets in perpetuity and tax free because it never disposes of those assets.

Please note, I do not agree with the idea of line marriages, polygamy or anything other than straight man+woman = family type marriages, I am simply showing how it could be done, today, without the need to create any more 'rights' out of supreme court members orifices.

Glen Filthie said...

Polygamy? Hate to say it ASM but you're back in the dust and the social engineers are a couple light years in front!

The next step is mainstreamed pedophilia - brought to you by the same people pushing homosexuality now. You heard it here first!

Graybeard said...

Glen Filthie beats me to it by a half hour. Pedophilia is organized, and spends a lot of money every year. There probably aren't as many polygamists. Selling children as sex slaves is big business: ask ISIS. Better yet, ask Operation Underground Rescue or some of the other organizations trying to free them. The pimps could put some of that money into trying to buy a judge. There's probably a few legislators buying kids already.

Aaron de Bruyn said...

I hate to nitpick, but several times in script God himself calls men 'righteous' who also happened to have multiple wives. Scripture also mentions two places where you are *NOT* to have multiple wives: kings of Israel and church leaders.

R.K. Brumbelow said...

Context is king, those you see mentioned as having multiple wives are specifically also shown to have had problems because of their multiple wives. They were shown as righteous IN SPITE of having multiple wives, not because they had multiple wives. Further it was not ever said that having multiple wives was good, but rather in the cases you mention they are absolute disqualifications. Example one requirement is that those same people be sober, that does not mean that drunkenness is considered OK in the general population. IN the same way multiple wives were not considered good, but sometimes they were necessary in order for certain other conditions to be met, example your brother dies so you take in his wife and father children that will be considered his children.

Aaron de Bruyn said...


I agree. But the Borepatch's post comes across as if it's an immoral thing--like lying, stealing, bearing false witness, etc... I would argue that it's not.

It's like how something can be 'constitutional', 'un-constitutional', or 'extra-constitutional'.

Scripture says stealing is wrong.
Scripture says helping others is right.
It doesn't say anything about a non-king and non-church-leader having a second wife.

Remember when Jesus "all who draw the sword will die by the sword"? That's not a commandment, it's a statement of fact.

ASM826 said...

I am not suggesting it's immoral. I am suggesting that it is a change, just like gay marriage, to the social structure that has existed in the past. And I am suggesting that it is the next battle that will be waged in the culture wars.

R.K. Brumbelow said...

"It doesn't say anything about a non-king and non-church-leader having a second wife."

Yes it in fact does. It says it is a poor choice, specifically it is against the ideal of creation. In every instance of recorded polygamy in the Old and New Testaments it is never shown in a good light. To say it says nothing is like saying it says nothing about keying your neighbours car. The Bible is not silent on such issues, but it does assume you have a brain.

The Bibles teaching on most subjects goes something like this:
1) (General) State the normative
2) (Negative Descriptive) Give examples and consequences of those who did not follow the normative
3) (Positive Descriptive) Give examples of people who ascribed to and followed the normative
4) (Specific Sanctions) Exclude persons who violated the normative from leadership positions.

Now I agree with the Bible, but my post is not about following the Bible or agreeing with it, I am simply disputing Aaron's statement that the Bible is silent on the subject.

Glen Filthie said...

If that comes to pass, boys, it will be the beginning of the fireworks.

The problem with victim and identity politics is that it requires you to divide and conquer by turning your enemies against themselves. It works fine until everyone is so divided that nobody can rule anymore. Polygamy will pit the mossies against the feminists. That is a battle that liberals are stretching the lefties to the breaking point.

And it is intellectually dishonest to argue it as a good thing, RK, as we both know that moslems are into child brides, treating women as property, along with a passle of other, less civilized behaviours that violate personal rights and freedoms.

The only way to polish this particular turd to make it remotely moral is if we force our gubbermint courts to codify into law, the right for women to reject their religion and polygamous relationships.

If that happens I suspect there will be a crippling national shortage of popcorn.