Comments on: Louisiana Justice of the Peace Violates the Constitution – and His Reasoning Strikes a Familiar Chord

By: larry d.

larry d. — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:59:58 +0000

If it's commitment to one person that is the defining characteristic of state-sanctioned marriage, marriages should be legally dissolved upon the arrival of a couple's first child, or that child should be given up to the state. You used to argue that polygamy was proven historically to be inherently abusive, but I guess that's fallen by the wayside.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 02:58:03 +0000

Welcome back, Professor Huhn. Isn't this 100x more intellectually stimulating than analyzing those awful health care bills?

I think it would be more consistent for you to come out for polygamy. Apparently, all of the scales don't fall from our eyes. This is the problem with stretching things, when do you stop? This echoes our conversation about the commerce clause.

I don't know where we should stop. Who gets to make these decisions? There are those who would suggest that polygamy is more moral than same-sex marriage.

A mother and a father were biological positions. It makes some sense to extend this to adoptive parents. But it is a change from the 'traditional' family. Now that we extend the idea of parenthood to adoptive parents. Then the door is open to the possibility of having two mothers. It is a little bit farther from the 'traditional' family. If two mothers is good, then why not three? or four? And then just because you have multiple mothers, why should you be denied a male role model in your life?

Other societies embrace polygamy, and the world has continued to turn.

Every time you make changes, it opens the doors to more changes. Visualize the branches of a tree.

However far you or I are willing to go, it will be too far for some and someone will always want to take it further.

By: Professor Will Huhn

Professor Will Huhn — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:20:45 +0000

Dave,
The reason that I don't think that polygamy is analogous to same-sex marriage is that gays and lesbians who want to marry are willing to commit to one person – to be faithful to that person and to form a family with that person. Polygamous or polyandrous relationships by definition are promiscuous. in contrast to same-sex unions and traditional marriage unions, in a polygamous relationship, a man says that he will not be faithful to one person. Gay and lesbian couples have far more in common with heterosexual couples than they do with multiple-partner relationships.
I believe that the only common factor you can cite between same-sex couples and people in a polygamous relationship is that they have both traditionally been the subject of religious and moral disapproval. Times change – the scales fall from our eyes – but that doesn't mean that all religion and morality is at an end. If you believe that commitment to one person is the fundamental building block of marriage, then you might be willing to look beyond gender and sexual orientation in defining what marriage is.
And ask yourself – is "commitment to one person" more likely to be achieved by the position that you take, or the position that I take? As I see it, you are telling gay and lesbian couples that they are incapable of commitment, that it is better for them to live outside of marriage than within it. I don't think that is true. I think that marriage is the foundation of the family, that families are the foundation of the community, and that our families and our communities will be far stronger if we allow and encourage gay and lesbian couples to marry.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 21:54:42 +0000

The Justice of the peace should be removed from the office.

Same sex marriage seeks to change marriage and should be held to a higher standard. As I have offered in the past, I think polygamy is a better example of the courts stopping people from redefining marriage. The courts have routinely fought back legal attempts to recognize multiple spouses.