Home » Blogs »

July 11, 2011 Print

Law Prof Predicts Incestuous and Polygamous Marriages in U.S.

by Bruce Hausknecht

In a New York Times opinion piece, ominously titled “How Moral Norms Evolve,” Stanford University Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks does the unintended favor of showing us just how slippery the slope is in redefining marriage:

The cases against polygamy and incest are not nearly as strong as most people imagine.
. . .
Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage. We will begin to take seriously questions that now seem beyond the pale: Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?

He says that we won’t see incestuous and polygamous marriages in the U.S. “anytime soon.” However, that disclaimer must be read in the context that even 10 years ago most people would not have predicted that we would see same-sex marriage “anytime soon.” And activist groups are simply waiting for the right timing.  For at least two decades now, the ACLU’s official policy position has been that prohibiting polygamy is unconstitutional.

If you need further proof of the shaky legal ground that same-sex marriage creates, look to Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalized a few years ago. The polygamy legalization battle is already raging in its courts.

The very existence of the  NYT opinion piece may rile gay activists, however, whose major (and patently defective) talking point thus far in criticizing Prop 8 and other marriage amendments is that they “single out” gays for discrimination. For the public relations game behind same-sex marriage to succeed, the ad nauseum accusations of “hater” and “bigot” and “homophobe” require there to be a single “victim” group – homosexuals – not whole groups of differently situated marriage-seekers. Once people understand that polygamy, and incestuous, polyamorous (group marriage) and under-age relationships, among others, are also excluded by a traditional marriage legal scheme, the gay victimhood public relations effort will unravel.

The state’s recognition and regulation of marriage is not about rewarding every adult desire for any relationship under the sun, it’s about preserving an institution that for millennia has proven to be the best foundation for a society to continue to thrive.

UPDATE (7/12): And today comes news of the family that starred in Sister Wives on TLC planning to sue the state of Utah, alleging that making polygamy a crime is unconstitutional. Please read the story. The whole reason the family submitted themselves to a television program was to desensitize the American public to the notion of polygamy, which is the first step in the campaign toward legalizing it.

 



Print



  • Mark Weiner

    Stanford University Law Professor Ralph Richard Banks, the author of the New York Times opinion piece, titled “How Moral Norms Evolve,” must not be aware of the thousands of Polygamists in Southern Utah, Northern Arizona, parts of Idaho, and Texas. These people are just waiting to push for legalization of their already consumated polygamous marriages. Polygamy is NOT a “future” issue – it is here NOW!
    As for cousins marrying – some states already allow marriage between first cousins.
    People I know tell the gay marriage supporters that they will support gay-marriage if the gays will support polygamous marriages.
    Marriage needs to remain between one man and one woman.

  • Justin W

    A wise person is able to look ahead and see where a particular course of action will carry them. If society removes the one man-one woman provision for marriage it is only a matter of time until any arrangement will be considered a marriage.

    One thing about sin–Satan will always take you further than you originally wanted to go and in directions you would never have considered before beginning the journey. Once the biblical definition of marriage is set aside marriage will become anything that someone can imagine.

    • Paul

      You are a wise man, Justin. As a nation, we have become unhinged from our moral foundations and are careening down the path toward “anything goes, whether you like it or not,” as Gavin Newsome said. Polygamy, etc., is no less legitimate than same-sex marriage, if you buy into moral relativism, as the ACLU impliedly admits. So, if society is ready to endorse polygamy, bestiality, and all other forms of perverted moral unions, then same-sex marriage might make sense. Until then, the door should remain firmly shut. Think about it, people.

  • Sokpuppette

    Good. About time the government stopped enforcing your personal preferences.

    You might want to study a little history, because the institution of marriage you claim has lasted for “millennia” is pretty new. Monogamy, as a required element, is relatively new in 95 percent of the world (and was first popularized by the Greeks and Romans for political reasons, not the Christians for religious ones). The idea of marriage as anything but a civil contract (much like prostitution) is newer yet. The idea that it’s a voluntary contract, especially for the woman, is still not followed all that well in most of the world. And the idea that marriage defines what a family is, or creates a fundamental child rearing unit, is maybe 150 years old if you’re lucky.

NOTE: Referral to websites not produced by CitizenLink is for informational purposes only and does not necessarily constitute an endorsement of the sites' content.