With the White House punting on its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act which restricted the federal government from recognizing anything other than marriage between one man and one woman, the pathway to legalized polygamy is looking pretty clear recently. Currently, five states recognize same sex marriage. And if follows logically that if the government has no right to restrict marriage to one man and one woman, it follows that it would have no basis for restricting marriage to ONE man and ONE woman.
Canada, which legalized same sex marriage in 2005 is now awaiting a judge’s ruling whether polygamy laws are illegal. Just this week, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association intervened by calling for Canada’s polygamy law to be “relegated to the scrap heap of history.
March 22, 2011 at 4:48 am
I want to marry my pony.
March 22, 2011 at 7:47 am
Can only hope the line will be drawn somewhere. =/
March 22, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Anonymous, don't laugh. A few years ago a woman actually married the Eiffel Tower.
March 22, 2011 at 3:04 pm
It's all about artificial contraception. We are reaping what was sown in the 1930's; when you sever the Providentially established relationship between the life-giving act and the love-giving act, then th love-giving act can be whatever you want it to be.
March 22, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Wait! This is what the "morally stupid bigots" said would happen! How can that be right?
March 22, 2011 at 4:00 pm
We are being deceived. The label polygamy, something which occurred historically, and is well understood by anthropologists is being used to describe something that is definitely not polygamy.
In polygamy as it practiced in the ancient world, by the Mormons 150 years ago, and by some Muslims today, a marriage is still between one man and one woman. The man (historically it is usually the man) is part of multiple marriages, but each marriage is only one man and one woman. If the man should die, each of his wives is a widow. As it was usually practiced, the husband would spend time separately with each of his wives.
What is beginning to be pushed today is properly called polyamory. In this situation there are truly multiple persons in a single marriage. In the event of the death of the man, the two women would still be married to each other. E.g. one man and two women are all in a single relationship, usually sharing a single bedroom.
In assenting to the label polygamy we have already surrendered quite a bit of the battle.
March 22, 2011 at 5:31 pm
Mr. Duston:
To be technical:
Polygamy means one person of one sex married to several people of the opposite sex.
Polygyny is one man married to several women.
Polyandry is one woman married to several men.
"Group marriage" means all of the men in the group are considered to be married to all of the women in the group.
Polyamory, as you remarked, means that all of the members of the relationship are considered to be married to each other, regardless of sex.
Since, historically, polygyny has been a relatively common practice, the general term "polygamy" has often been used to designate polygyny, but actually covers both polygyny and the much less common, but not unheard-of, practice of polyandry. "Group marriage" would probably fall under "polygamy", as it consists of a network of "marriages" that are all between men and women. Polyamory adds "bisexuality" to the mix, and that is where it is really unprecendented.
March 22, 2011 at 8:32 pm
and if I married the state, I would be a politician, and the state's people, as constituents, are married to me.