From Ann Althouse today:
A lawsuit challenging Utah's anti-polygamy law, premised on Lawrence v. Texas.
To be filed by Kody Brown, the husband of 4 wives (who starred in the reality show "Sister Wives"):
The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.
In other words, he'd like to stop being treated like a criminal for what goes on in his bedroom(s). He wants the GOVERNMENT to stop PUNISHING him for what he does that does not harm others.
However, cue the slippery slope comments:
Paddy O said...
Someone needs to tell him that this sort of slippery slope argument just isn't allowed to happen. All right thinking people assured me. TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUES!!! Original Mike said..
Weren't people ridiculed for suggesting that this would happen if we legalize same-sex marriage?
7/12/11 10:18 AM
bagoh20 said...
Things were a lot simpler when people had shame and didn't go around poking people in the eye with their specialness and demanding they be considered unspecial. It's shame itself that's under attack. Where will we be without her? BTW, As ususal, I'm ashamed of what I wrote here, BUT I WILL NOT BE SILENCED!.
Blogger Moose said...
Slippery slope, anyone? Oh, I know - this isn't due to the passage of SSM laws in several states, nor of court cases striking down DOM type laws. It's just really, really convenient timing. Isn't it? Can't wait to see what coming next...
7/12/11 10:28 AM
Blogger jono39 said...
Same sex legalization has opened the door wide for polygamy. Just watch. Rant and rave as you will, it will be here big time within a decade.
7/12/11 10:36 AM
Oh and my favorite:
Blogger Carol_Herman said...There's three identifiable problems here:
Tried in 1880. Mormons lost in 1880.
The "answer" was religions couldn't do everything on its books. For instance, a woman couldn't be burned on the funeral pyre alongside her husband's body.
The idea that you get a free pass because you can point to ritualistic behaviors is a CROCK!
While if you don't care for the status of marriage; nobody stops you from stacking yourself up in a group. Commit violence, however, and your ass could end up in jail.
Like cockroaches, we can't get all the insane lunatics stomped out.
But the heterosexual monogamy laws have stood the test of time.
And, the best news for the Mormons; once it got through a few male thick skulls ... is that with only one wife ... they could climb on board the Federal train. And, be over-represented in government.
Should, for some insane reason, the Mormons get to go back to their strange ways of wanting more than one wife? They'll fall off the Federal train ... where they go out and get elected.
Does this embarrass Mitt Romney, enough, yet? Does it embarrass Harry Reid?
Does it embarrass every FBI putz with a badge? You'd be surprised how many Mormons carry those things.
Meanwhile, I can care less what men do ... They're more than entitled to think they've got a harem. Scare-um.
7/12/11 10:38 AM
1. Society is not government. Society can make its own norms and can be as bigoted, nosy, and just plain WRONG as it wants. GOVERNMENT is not society, the job of our government is equal protection under the law. That means everyone, gays, polygamists, and monogamous married Christians. Something may be "bad" for society but that does not mean government should intrude until somebody infringes someone else's rights. GAYS MARRYING AND POLYGAMISTS MARRYING DOES NOT INFRINGE ON SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS.
2. The slippery slope where gay marriage is recognized is not the slippery slope where polygamists get left alone. One requires everyone to recognize the validity of a government contract (forcing a person to accept something that may not agree with) and the other requires getting your binoculars out of someone else's bedroom where you shouldn't have been in the first place (preventing action and harassment based on disgust of another's non-harmful actions). The slippery slope where everyone gets out of everyone else's bedrooms is one I would LOVE to be on. Sign me up for that slippery slope please!
3. Laws based on hate or disgust of another's life choices are inherently immoral. Using the force of law to make someone act the way you want to is inherently immoral. The place for laws is to prevent someone's rights from being trampled on, not for you to intimidate others into acting the way you wish.
Oh, and last of all, let's get government out of the marriage game all together. There's no way to give equal treatment under the law by requiring marriage certificates, unless they are given to EVERYONE. There's no way to treat everyone equally unless you give married exemptions to EVERYONE. So just get the hell out of the marriage business.
