Remember that Andrew Sullivan and other advocates of gay marriage assured us if gay marriage became the law of the land (most likely by judicial fiat), polyamory (the current favored term for polygamy, polygyny, polyandry, group marriage, and the like) would not necessarily follow? That those who claimed polyamory would follow were alarmists? One argument was that there was not a large "pro-poly" constituency. If you think that's true, check out the conversation that's occurring here on this blog, or just google "polyandry."
It's hard to see how it could be otherwise. Gay marriage advocates who draw the line at polyandry (or contraceptive incest) are, by their own logic, only ascending to their proper place entitled by their civil rights when fighting for marriage, but then pulling up the ladder behind them when other groups make similar claims.
Also, the size of the constituency shouldn't matter if we're talking about ethical principles.
From Lawrence v. Texas:
"The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. 'It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.' Casey, supra, at 847. The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual."
From Planned Parenthood v. Casey (upon which Lawrence relies):
"These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State."
Reading these cases together, and positing (as courts in Massachusetts and California have) that the right to marry is central to personal dignity and autonomy, it becomes difficult to see why polyamory should be any different.
Thursday, April 07, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Goodreads Feed
1 comment:
From what I have learned, polyamory is not polygamy. Read the detailed explanation of the difference at Wikipedia. I am starting to understand that when people make that wrong statement, they show how much they do not know.
From what I am finding, I have to say that I think that trying to connect polygamy to polyamory is a untrue way of distorting the picture by scaring people.
From what I am learning in my investigations, it is polygamists, not polyamorists, who been making their arguments.
From the Pro-Polygamy.com site's archives page, it seems they instantly responded to the Lawrence decision, with an article on July 1, 2003,
Court Decisions Secure 'Polygamy Rights'.
The Christian Polygamy organization TruthBearer.org reported they had been interviewed within 2 days afterward by WorldNetDaily.com about that article.
WorldNetDaily Interviews Founder About Lawrence v. Texas case.
WorldNetDaily.com then made a report about that interview on July 4, 2003.
Polygamists see open door for acceptance
So this is what I see. Pro-Polygamy.com has apparently been sending out press releases to the media. TruthBearer.org appears to have been doing media interviews. They have been recognized for their arguments in many places.
Why should you use a scare tactic to deliberately avoid the polygamists and their logically presented arguments? Why scare people with the polyamory instead? Only a dishonest person would do that on purpose.
I think you should really investigate some facts about polygamy. No offense but you comments do not seem to be accurate.
I do not know everything but I am honest enough to really investigate.
Post a Comment