Man on Dog! Aieeee!

Expect Rick Santorum's head to explode as the slippery slope toward state neutrality about people's romantic relationships gets a bit steeper: Three Utahns are challenging their state's ban on polygamy. (Via Free-Market.net)

Comments

[fyodor]

_:

I don't see why dividing 2 by 5 should be any more difficult than dividing 1 by 2. OTOH, plural marriages raise the issue of being able to leave the marriage without the entire marriage dissolving, which of course is impossible with only two participants. Y'know, I never thought about that before! It sure do make it a different ball of beeswax.

[Rich]

My wife is Nigerian. Her grandfather had three wives (she's got soooo many cousins!!). It is still legal and not entirely uncommon for Nigerian men, Christian or Muslim, to have more than one wife. Usually they are wealthy men; the family structure -- believe it or not -- is so strong that if the man was not prepared to properly support >1 wife, the marriage would be prevented by the intended extra bride's family. So polygmay has not noticably deteriorated the closeness or the strength and cohesion of Nigerian families -- but it's a very long tradition in that country and folks are used to it.

Not sure how such a thing would work out here, with our Western tendencies and our women who don't automatically assume a subservient role. I would predict much marital strife, but a lot of money for lawyers!

But to me, anyone dumb enough to try to have two or more Western-style women as wives, should go for it.

[logician]

'create a flow chart for dividing property in a divorce."

You could do this BEFORE and DURING the marriage, but the government is there so we don't have to look tasteless.

[Gary Gunnels]

No one mentions the fact that the likelihood of the practice becoming common is low. As I understand it, even in nations where polygamy, etc. are allowed, most marraiges are not polygamous, etc. BTW, this fact seems to tie in with the "anarchist" write-up supra.

[Rebekah]

A few people seem to think that because the number of people seeking a polygamous union will be few and far between, the courts will not permit them. However, that really isn't the way the law works is it? I mean, our laws are meant to protect those who are considered members of a suspect class (race, gender, sexual orientation, children...any number of factors are considered)not those who are in the majority. The thinking is that those in the majority don't require the same protection as those who are not in the majority. As such, since the argument for a binary union really only relies on tradition, since that argument didn't work regarding homosexual unions, it certainly isn't going to work to prevent polygamous unions.

Public policy with regards to property division may work but again, as someone pointed out, just because one person wants to leave the "marriage" the other members will still be married. And if the courts can divide property between 2 people, there is no reason it can't divide property between multiple parties if the entire marriage dissolves.

Let's face it, the courts will try to resist but in the end, the supposed civil liberties of polygamous groups will win. After all, these are the people that need the most protection, right?

[Mo]

I've heard that in Egypt, polygamy is coming back into style. It's been there for a while, but was not 'fashionable' (for lack of a better term). For some reason, it's coming back in style. It's really funny listening to my relatives complain about it.

I figure if the wife/ves already involved agree, it's their own damn fault.

[Xrlq]

Steve is right - this is exactly the sort of thing Santorum said would happen. It's not his head that should be exploding now, but those of his opponents, who claimed it would never happen.

[C]

_Million Dollar Question_

If both polyandry and polygamy are legal, will it be easier or harder for me (a heterosexual male) to get laid?

[Larry]

Obviously those citing Biblical support for the practice of a husband having more than one wife have never considered Luke 16:13. "No man can serve two masters..."

[noone of importance]

It will get harder for you to score... sorry.

Why do you REALLY think such arrangements were made illegal in the first place? It sure as hell wasn't because of religious beliefs.

[steve]

Just because he's a dope and a bigot and a doesn't mean he's wrong on this. Seriously, he did predict this sort of thing.

Given the nature of the Law and the reliance on of legal prededents, slippery slope arguments are valid.

Really, what part of the argument for gay marrige doesn't apply to legitimizing polygamy?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[.]

"what part of the argument for gay marrige doesn't apply to legitimizing polygamy?" The numbers: the number of people and the number of relationships between those people (and offspring) make the difference one of kind, not merely quantity.

Here's an exercise: create a flow chart for dividing property in a divorce. Now, try to create a flow chart for dividing property if two people leave a marrige of five. It's not as simple as inviting more people to a party, it's a different event entirely.

[Kevin Carson]

Gary Gunnels,

You're right--the incidence of polygamy is likely to be low regardless of the law.

Reminds me of Abraham Lincoln's quip that he didn't need miscegenation laws to prohibit him from marrying a black woman, but maybe Joseph Douglass did.

Leaving aside the unflattering and racist implications of Lincoln's remark, the principle is applicable to the present debate. Maybe, on some level, Santorum is afraid of what he might do if there wasn't a law preventing him from marrying his dog. Ditto on Jonah Goldberg and his cellmate.

[Will Spencer]

Obviously, people should be free to marry whomever they wish without state approval or intervention.

However, a deeper solution is that marriage itself should not in any way involve the state.

Marriage is a civil contract between consenting adults, and to some people a contract with God.

The government has no right to force the parties of the civil contract to obtain it's permission before entering into a civi contract.

The government has no right to become involved with an existing civil contract unless one or more of the parties request the government to intervene as an arbitrator.

[DFH]

Two wives?

I have enough trouble following orders from just one!

A man with two wives would need a secretary just to keep his taskings in order.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

I would support polygamy just to see Santorum's head explode. I hate hearing his name even more now, due to Savage Love.. don't ask.

[Melissa Harrington]

Please allow me to leave my links on your page
Married Cheating Women Lonely Wives
Swingers Clubs
Swinging Couples Clubs
Swinger Couples ads
Penis Growth Pills
Sorry for disturbing
Regards

[back]

heloo

[Anonymous]

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
I love your products, and the site is very well done. Keep up the good work!

[Anonymous]

Hi,your homepage looks really good and gives great information!
I love your products, and the site is very well done. Keep up the good work!