I’m sorry that the husband in this case is such a lecherous pedophile, and that I have to agree with the logic of the SCOTUS. He’s just proving the stereotype of polygamists by being incapable of waiting to get his hands on his sister-in-law before she’s 18. I totally grok that “fundamentalist” Mormons like him really just want to keep a harem of teenage girls while sucking off welfare programs to support them, and that abuse and domestic violence runs rampant in communities where this practice occurs. But…
I find myself responding to this logic:
In contrast, Mr. Parker said Utah’s bigamy law applies a double standard that targets and punishes religious fundamentalists but allows others to engage in the same conduct and escape criminal punishment.“Widespread popular departure from traditional marriage practices has made the anti-polygamy laws, like laws against cohabitation, adultery, and fornication, anachronistic,” Parker wrote. “These laws are not enforced against those practicing contemporary lifestyles, but are asserted as weapons, as in this case, against those living a traditional, family-grounded, religious-based life.”
He added, “In gross absurdity…, one can behave in the same way in two circumstances but in one (polygamy) the action is illegal, and in the other (promiscuity) the action is ignored by the law. One can do legally the same act with immoral or amoral intent and have it be legal. Yet the same act with religious intent is deemed illegal.”
Simply put: it’s time for the state to get out of the relationship business. 18 is a good age for legal consent, but after that, the state really has no business telling people how to live, fuck and cohabitate.
As a gay person, I’ve received more than one offer to join a married couple, and in theory, the idea has merit to me. Why shouldn’t two bisexual people be allowed to live and love with a person of the opposite sex? Why shouldn’t an older or nonreproductive person be allowed to enjoy the pleasures of raising children produced by a couple with whom there are love and common bonds shared? There are many reasons why sometimes, three is not “a crowd.” The bottom line is that there is nothing more personal, more defining of freedom and liberty, than the choice of whom you live with and love.
I’ve argued before, I don’t find much to recommend the current legal construction of marriage. A lot of that comes from fact that how we define marriage is rooted in religion, mythology and patriarchy. Yes, we’ve “progressed” in that we no longer allow men to keep hareems of unwilling teen girls, but that shouldn’t mean we also keep apart people who are mature enough to decide to follow a different path.
…and seeing as how this is a sex post: Harry Potter is on stage and All Nude. And of course, what is the objection? That he will be seen in this production to be smoking! The horror…
Front page
chidyke, I have to agree
chidyke,
I have to agree with you. One of the women in my circle is in a polyamorous relationship and, all I can say is: it works for her. Why should the state tell consenting adults (and that’s the key) what they can and can’t do? All of this can be worked out by contract; hell, good lawyers write contracts way more comples than any required by a polyamorous group every day of the week. Not the government’s business. Let the group write a contract saying who gets what property, who gets to make medical decisions, who gets custody, etc.
Creepy authoritarians
At their best, they want to tell consenting adults what to do.
And then there’s the dark side:
At their worst, they want to force those who can’t consent to do… Whatever. Children, prisoners, animals…
It really is the abuse of power, stupid. At all levels and in all ways.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
hec, the power comes from keeping people in
rigid classes. that’s why “marriage” is so important to so many. once upon a time, a divorcee had a hard time getting a job. today, they keep gays from demanding full civil rights by focusing our leaders on marriage “rights.” etc.
we’re on the same page. and it’s none of the gummint’s bidness. period. if we were talking about how many guns could sit on a shelf in one home, no one would disagree with us.
If gays are outlawed, only outlaws will have gays!
Or words to that effect….
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Let me put in a word
for us selfish, egocentric, weird and recalcitrant (likely demented) single people.
Ruth
Well, at least we singles avoid folie a deux
Unless we have split personalities, of course.
No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.
Interesting thread
Agree that consenting adults should get to define their own relationships. The concern for most people and business/government is who pays for what when it comes to children, health care, maternity/paternity leave, or the privacy issues involved in who gets to be defined as “family” for health care/hospital settings - how does one prove one is a family member?
Non-traditional marriages and families will end up with all the same problems as traditional ones. How does society say, encourage a person with multiple spouses to support them and their children and NOT rely on tax money of one type or another to do that? How do we make it financially fair to people in traditional marriages - just two people and their kids (and even among traditional marriages that have several children versus most of those who only have one or two) - how do we encourage all to just “do what you can afford,” however one defines “afford?” But still be a humane society and take care of children and those who need it when through no fault of their own they can’t take care of themselves? And of course the whole question of divorce in non-traditional marriages and families? Lawyers will make money here!
Nice blog here, btw.