I now pronounce you Politics and Controversy: Santorum and the Slippery Slope

the 2012 Republican Presidental catch-all spawned an interesting and active debate over something Rick Santorum has said about gay marriage: basically as I understand it, that it is a gateway to polygamous marriage, because once you change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, you've got no logical reason to argue it shouldn't be further changed to allow for multiple marriage partners at the same time.

Why should marriage be defined as anything other than a legal agreement/pairing between two consenting people (maybe my definition isn't broad enough?). Current definitions are driven by religious teachings/beliefs...

[edit]
I guess you can have as many "two people" pairings as you want as long as the legal agreements don't override/interfere with one another.

First let me say that while I think his argument is flawed, there *is* a need to re-evaluate how we legally recognize the relationships in our lives. There was an Adam Sandler/Kevin James movie a while ago where two guys get married because their wives had passed away, and they realized that if they died their kids would be denied any benefits, because society is structured on the assumption that when one spouse dies the other spouse will take care of the minor children. I'd like to see something that recognizes our needs evolve through our lives as far as who we need to call family. I think poly really is something more like a sexual orientation than anything else and needs to be recognized in some way.

That said, on to the argument:

This actually goes back to how Rick Santorum doesn't understand the Constitution. He's also talked about marrying your dog. You can't marry your dog. Why? Same reason you can't sign a contract with your dog--your dog does not have the right to contract.

You, however, as a human have a fundamental Constitutional right to do a lot of things--sign contracts, travel between states, practice your religion, and marry. Although, sadly, they are often treated as such and bigots would like to have this be the case, being gay does not strip you of your fundamental Constitutional rights.

So can the state prevent you from marrying another fundamental-right-to-marriage-having member of your own sex? Well, the government is going to have to come up with a pretty good argument as to why gender makes a difference.

It's much easier to make an argument that marriage is an exclusive contract than it is to make an argument that dudes shouldn't make contracts with other dudes. The distinction is not arbitrary, not without a lot of work first to show why. If you can marry everyone, marriage is no longer an *exclusive* relationship. There's a very tough argument involved in making the case that the difference in changing an institution from:

--exclusive to non-exclusive; and

--one that involves only opposite sex partners to one that also involves same sex partners

is an arbitrary one.

Duoae wrote:

Why should marriage be defined as anything other than a legal agreement/pairing between two consenting people (maybe my definition isn't broad enough?). Current definitions are driven by religious teachings/beliefs...

[edit]
I guess you can have as many "two people" pairings as you want as long as the legal agreements don't override/interfere with one another.

Yeah. There are large parts of the world where polygamy is still normal. And biblically speaking (since that's where many people get their moral guidance) all 3 Abrahamic religions are cool with polygamy if you go by the texts. The current definition of marriage is loaded down with years of baggage and tradition that has nothing to do with modern marriage. So I would argue that there is a point here.

Now I'm not arguing in favor of polygamy. It has huge problems. Possibly society-endangering problems. Which is ironic since foes of Gay Marriage often say that Gay Marriage will destroy the fabric of society. But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy. It might. I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry or that the state shouldn't be sanctioning marriages anyway. But I come to that perspective with eyes wide open that it could lead to polygamy becoming legal.

Marrying your dog or a tree? Not so much.

EDIT: According to Wikipedia around 50 countries recognize plural marriages.

This discussion has been kicked off by something Santorum said and then clarified/improved by something Bachmann said...and I'm coming around. That is so frightening to me.

DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

Here's a question: did gay marriage do anything to open the door for polygamy that interracial marriage hadn't already done? Just speaking legally here. Socially, maybe, but in terms of his legal arguments about definitions of marriage wasn't the blow he's talking about already struck by interracial marriage?

Great, now all I can picture is a slope that's slippery from santorum.

CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

Here's a question: did gay marriage do anything to open the door for polygamy that interracial marriage hadn't already done? Just speaking legally here. Socially, maybe, but in terms of his legal arguments about definitions of marriage wasn't the blow he's talking about already struck by interracial marriage?

That's a little bit of a stretch I think. You could say that legally opening the doors for marriage at all opened the door for polygamy.

gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

Here's a question: did gay marriage do anything to open the door for polygamy that interracial marriage hadn't already done? Just speaking legally here. Socially, maybe, but in terms of his legal arguments about definitions of marriage wasn't the blow he's talking about already struck by interracial marriage?

That's a little bit of a stretch I think. You could say that legally opening the doors for marriage at all opened the door for polygamy.

Why would you call it a stretch? Isn't it more a case of Santorum picking and choosing which events he wants, in this case doing so in violation of the time line?

DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

I'm on the other side of the fence. I sincerely do not follow the logic. Changing something in one fashion doesn't imply that it's going to change in every fashion.

After all, granting (white) women the right to vote didn't exactly lead directly to non-whites getting the right to vote, did it?

Even if gay marriage became legal overnight, nothing will have changed with respect to how many people I can be married to at any one time.

CheezePavilion wrote:
gregrampage wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

Here's a question: did gay marriage do anything to open the door for polygamy that interracial marriage hadn't already done? Just speaking legally here. Socially, maybe, but in terms of his legal arguments about definitions of marriage wasn't the blow he's talking about already struck by interracial marriage?

That's a little bit of a stretch I think. You could say that legally opening the doors for marriage at all opened the door for polygamy.

Why would you call it a stretch? Isn't it more a case of Santorum picking and choosing which events he wants, in this case doing so in violation of the time line?

I'm having a hard time expressing myself today. I guess you're right, if you do believe gay marriage opens the door then interracial marriage does to.

CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

Here's a question: did gay marriage do anything to open the door for polygamy that interracial marriage hadn't already done? Just speaking legally here. Socially, maybe, but in terms of his legal arguments about definitions of marriage wasn't the blow he's talking about already struck by interracial marriage?

I don't agree with that. No. Interracial marriage is far more arbitrary. There may be a historical parallel, sure. But gay marriage is much different just because of the fact that you're not talking about skin color, which can vary even within ethnic groups. You're talking about genders which are fairly binary.

Once again, I think gay marriage should be legal so don't misread what I'm saying. But I do believe that in terms of legal precedent and getting society to accept modalities that gay marriage is a larger leap than interracial marriage.

EDIT: Fixed typo. Thanks, Cheez

Jonman wrote:

After all, granting (white) women the right to vote didn't exactly lead directly to non-whites getting the right to vote, did it?

I think you could easily argue that it did.

Jonman wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

I'm on the other side of the fence. I sincerely do not follow the logic. Changing something in one fashion doesn't imply that it's going to change in every fashion.

After all, granting (white) women the right to vote didn't exactly lead directly to non-whites getting the right to vote, did it?

Even if gay marriage became legal overnight, nothing will have changed with respect to how many people I can be married to at any one time.

So you wake up tomorrow and Congress decided this was all crazy and voted to make gay marriage legal. Across the country. The President signs the bill and that's the law of the land. You don't think there wouldn't be legal challenges from people who wish to practice polygamy?

gregrampage wrote:
Jonman wrote:

After all, granting (white) women the right to vote didn't exactly lead directly to non-whites getting the right to vote, did it?

I think you could easily argue that it did.

I think so too. Women getting the right to vote, followed shortly by entering the work force in larger numbers and becoming peers to men most certainly helped push the Civil Rights agenda forward.

DSGamer wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

But I do actually kind of agree with Santorum when he says that allowing Gay Marriage would legally open the door for polygamy.

Here's a question: did gay marriage do anything to open the door for polygamy that interracial marriage hadn't already done? Just speaking legally here. Socially, maybe, but in terms of his legal arguments about definitions of marriage wasn't the blow he's talking about already struck by interracial marriage?

I don't agree with that. No. Interracial marriage is far more arbitrary. There may be a historical parallel, sure. But gay marriage is much different just because of the fact that you're not talking about skin color, which can vary even within ethnic groups. You're talking about genders which are fairly binary.

Once again, I think gay marriage should be legal so don't misread what I'm saying. But I do believe that in terms of legal precedent and getting society to accept modalities that gay marriage is a larger leap than interracial marriage.

Okay, but granting for the sake of argument one is more conceptually arbitrary, is one more *legally* arbitrary? Interracial marriage opposition is based on race--not supposed to discriminate on the basis of race. Gay marriage opposition is based on gender--not supposed to discriminate on the basis of that either. Polyamorous marriage opposition is based on number--why aren't we supposed to discriminate based on number?

I think so too. Women getting the right to vote, followed shortly by entering the work force in larger numbers and becoming peers to men most certainly helped push the Civil Rights agenda forward.

I dunno. 45 years between the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. If the Suffrage movement had had a great impact on the civil rights movement, I'd think that we'd have seen that effect a lot earlier. BTW, it was WWI that put women in the workforce in a major way, not getting the right to vote. In fact, I suspect that that had the sort of effect on the 19th that you don't see between Suffrage and Civil Rights.

Just an observation, not trying to stir the pot.

Robear wrote:
I think so too. Women getting the right to vote, followed shortly by entering the work force in larger numbers and becoming peers to men most certainly helped push the Civil Rights agenda forward.

I dunno. 45 years between the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. If the Suffrage movement had had a great impact on the civil rights movement, I'd think that we'd have seen that effect a lot earlier. BTW, it was WWI that put women in the workforce in a major way, not getting the right to vote. In fact, I suspect that that had the sort of effect on the 19th that you don't see between Suffrage and Civil Rights.

Just an observation, not trying to stir the pot.

I didn't make the above causation. Please read what I write before putting words in my mouth. I simply said that both events happened and that women gaining more power and parity with men probably helped push forward the Civil Rights agenda.

Well obviously we can't know for sure but I think it would've been harder for non white people to get the right to vote if white woman still couldn't vote. It set a precedent that voting rights can change.

DSGamer wrote:
Robear wrote:
I think so too. Women getting the right to vote, followed shortly by entering the work force in larger numbers and becoming peers to men most certainly helped push the Civil Rights agenda forward.

I dunno. 45 years between the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. If the Suffrage movement had had a great impact on the civil rights movement, I'd think that we'd have seen that effect a lot earlier. BTW, it was WWI that put women in the workforce in a major way, not getting the right to vote. In fact, I suspect that that had the sort of effect on the 19th that you don't see between Suffrage and Civil Rights.

Just an observation, not trying to stir the pot.

I didn't make the above causation. Please read what I write before putting words in my mouth. I simply said that both events happened and that women gaining more power and parity with men probably helped push forward the Civil Rights agenda.

Do you guys mean World War ONE or TWO? I didn't think we had quite as much of a female work force in one.

NathanialG wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
Robear wrote:
I think so too. Women getting the right to vote, followed shortly by entering the work force in larger numbers and becoming peers to men most certainly helped push the Civil Rights agenda forward.

I dunno. 45 years between the 19th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act. If the Suffrage movement had had a great impact on the civil rights movement, I'd think that we'd have seen that effect a lot earlier. BTW, it was WWI that put women in the workforce in a major way, not getting the right to vote. In fact, I suspect that that had the sort of effect on the 19th that you don't see between Suffrage and Civil Rights.

Just an observation, not trying to stir the pot.

I didn't make the above causation. Please read what I write before putting words in my mouth. I simply said that both events happened and that women gaining more power and parity with men probably helped push forward the Civil Rights agenda.

Do you guys mean World War ONE or TWO? I didn't think we had quite as much of a female work force in one.

I actually didn't mean either war. Those were Robear's words. I simply meant that women got the right to vote and then after that began entering the workforce in greater numbers. Just that. That's all I was saying.

gregrampage wrote:

That's a little bit of a stretch I think. You could say that legally opening the doors for marriage at all opened the door for polygamy.

Well, you'd be right.

Marriage is two things: a social construct, and a legal codification of that construct.

What's happening now is that the two components are drifting out of sync; homosexual relationships are generally considered by young people and non-assholes to be perfectly healthy and, indeed, kind of awesome.

The social shift is already occurring, but the legal shift will take longer because there are, you know, still a lot of old people who make laws. Maybe enough of those old people have died now that homosexuals will finally get invited to the party. I'm not quite convinced that we're there yet, but I don't think it can be too much longer now.

And, some day down the road, assuming we don't do something incredibly stupid and break our society apart before it happens, polygamy will be accepted as kind of awesome by young people and non-assholes too. And the old people who make laws will cry and moan, and they'll keep being dicks about it, because f*ck those guys, why should they get to have marriage?

Marriage should be between a man and a woman, or a man and a man, or a woman and a woman only! It's Adam and Eve or Adam and Steve or Eve and Bee (what the hell, there must be another female name that rhymes with Eve), not Adam and Steve and Eve AND Bee! How dare they try to change it!

Eventually those old people will die too, and eventually polygamy will be legal, and eventually those polygamists will be able to have super special legal status, too.

So Buttjuice man is actually asking a good question. Why stop with homosexuals? Why not just let polygamists get married now too, and save all the hassle?

I guess the reason is that homosexuals are currently way more fabulous than polygamists, and maybe old people don't hate them quite as much either, because gay monogomy is something they can relate to more than straight polyamory. I mean, monogamy is a family value, right? Old people like family values.

Well, whatever. I guess the polygamists are just going to have to take a number and wait for some old guys to die. But there's really not jack or sh*t that Buttjuice man or anybody else can do to stop this, given a long enough timeline. All they can do is delay the inevitable, or just destroy the world before it happens.

A polymarriage of three or higher would seem to be a legal mess. Consider a trimarriage of persons A, B, and C.

Some possible divorce scenarios:

-All three divorce each other.
-A and B divorce, A and C remain married, B and C remain married.
-A and B divorce, A and C divorce, B and C remain married.

etc

Likewise with the death of any member(s). Seems like it'd make the lawyers happy both in billing to set up convoluted pre-nups, wills, custody, etc and then later in fighting each other to find the loop holes in them.

I'm not saying this is a reason to disallow it, but it seems like it might be a bit more legal work than omitting gender requirements in an already established binary marriage system.

You know there are plenty of cultures around the world that practice polygamy. And lets be honest, even in the US the more powerful you are the more spouses you can have. We call them extra-marital affairs but if all parties agree, the only danger is getting caught when you espouse one man one woman morals.

There are also quite a few cultures that allow you to marry your first cousin.

Both are not my cup of tea but it is the content of the character that matters to me.

gore wrote:

So Buttjuice man is actually asking a good question. Why stop with homosexuals? Why not just let polygamists get married now too, and save all the hassle?

I guess the reason is that homosexuals are currently way more fabulous than polygamists, and maybe old people don't hate them quite as much either, because gay monogomy is something they can relate to more than straight polyamory. I mean, monogamy is a family value, right? Old people like family values.

Well, whatever. I guess the polygamists are just going to have to take a number and wait for some old guys to die. But there's really not jack or sh*t that Buttjuice man or anybody else can do to stop this, given a long enough timeline. All they can do is delay the inevitable, or just destroy the world before it happens.

The issue for Santorum, however, is not whether or not we should allow polygamy, but that allowing gay marriage opens the door to polygamy.

Perhaps I have the wrong history books, but the last time I checked, polygamy was not some abstract idea or theory just waiting to be exercised. Polygamy has been around for as long as recorded history and it isn't going anywhere.

Let's be perfectly honest here: polygamy is practiced in the U.S., and practiced under a government that turns a blind eye. If you doubt that, I strongly urge anyone to fly into McCarran Airport in Las Vegas, rent a car, and drive to Colorado City, AZ and Hilldale, UT and see for yourself that polygamy is alive and well and almost completely tolerated by the federal government and the state governments of both Arizona and Utah (Warren Jeffs is not the only male polygamist alive today). I have been to both locations and it is a sobering experience to see that people are openly polygamous and the government does nothing.

If Santorum truly was concerned about the fear of polygamy, he is a bit late to the dance. For him to claim that gay marriage is some gateway to polygamy is false and his platitudes are empty because I have never heard him say that places like Colorado City and Hilldale need to be leveled to the ground and mass arrests initiated. It isn't like those two places are some secret. They have been covered in the media for years.

Santorum is using polygamy as a convenient excuse to condemn and demonize gay people. He does the same with bestiality with his infamous "man on dog" claim. He has also done it with the claim that allowing gay marriage means we have to allow incest. He is the poster child for homophobia and the only thing worse than his putrid and fake moralistic crusade is that he is a consummate liar by claiming that some of his best friends are gay.

This is (I believe, can't watch youtube videos right now) the Bachmann video I was referring to.

There are few things I would have liked more than to be the next person she fielded a question from "What are your thoughts on the phrase 'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges'? What current law in America do you think best exemplifies this saying, and would you try to change it if you were elected?'"

Today we discovered what Santorum's fundamental problem is:

He doesn't understand marriage and claims it is a privilege.

Let's go to the tape.

Setting aside the gay marriage debate, the SCOTUS has already said - many times - that marriage is a fundamental right. Additionally, how much of a "privilege" is marriage when all you need to qualify is an ID and cash?

People have to clear more hurdles getting car insurance than getting a marriage license.

krev82 wrote:

A polymarriage of three or higher would seem to be a legal mess. Consider a trimarriage of persons A, B, and C.

Some possible divorce scenarios:

-All three divorce each other.
-A and B divorce, A and C remain married, B and C remain married.
-A and B divorce, A and C divorce, B and C remain married.

etc

Likewise with the death of any member(s). Seems like it'd make the lawyers happy both in billing to set up convoluted pre-nups, wills, custody, etc and then later in fighting each other to find the loop holes in them.

I'm not saying this is a reason to disallow it, but it seems like it might be a bit more legal work than omitting gender requirements in an already established binary marriage system.

You could even say that same sex marriage is less problematic from a legal standpoint than heterosexual marriage: no gender issues to deal with when deciding child custody, home ownership, alimony, etc.

CheezePavilion wrote:

no gender issues to deal with when deciding child custody

They got rid of that years ago, the solution...always rule in favor of the female.

Yes I'm making a blanket judgement based on a stereotype, but I've just seen horrible mothers get custody over decent fathers too many times.

krev82 wrote:

A polymarriage of three or higher would seem to be a legal mess. Consider a trimarriage of persons A, B, and C.

Some possible divorce scenarios:

-All three divorce each other.
-A and B divorce, A and C remain married, B and C remain married.
-A and B divorce, A and C divorce, B and C remain married.

etc

Likewise with the death of any member(s). Seems like it'd make the lawyers happy both in billing to set up convoluted pre-nups, wills, custody, etc and then later in fighting each other to find the loop holes in them.

I'm not saying this is a reason to disallow it, but it seems like it might be a bit more legal work than omitting gender requirements in an already established binary marriage system.

Well, couldn't you simplify this by keeping marriage as a binary construct, but allowing for a person to have multiple marriages? As in, A is married to B. A is also married to C. Socially, it is likely for B and C to be married, but not necessary.

Hmm. I was thinking that the whole issue of joint property would just boil down to fractions (C is entitled to half of half of A's holdings for instance) but I can already think of issues where B & C, not being married, but having equal claims on a given piece of property and cannot come to agreement on its use... it's just a huge mess.

It would have to be all or nothing. They are all married, and if separation occurs the exiting party has to sever ties to all other parties.

I just can't follow the rationale that same-sex marriages would open the door to polygamy. What the...how does that even...buh? How on earth are the two things even related?! Do people actually think like that, or do you think that it's a weak farce that everyone knows is crap, but they're just throwing it out there to as a way to be offensive towards homosexuals without straight up saying "ew, no homos?"

Or is that seriously the best they can come up with? I'm having trouble coming to terms with the fact that grown adults could rationally come up with a statement like that.

IMAGE(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/Liolai/3cd8a33a.png)

Amoebic wrote:

I just can't follow the rationale that same-sex marriages would open the door to polygamy. What the...how does that even...buh? How on earth are the two things even related?! Do people actually think like that, or do you think that it's a weak farce that everyone knows is crap, but they're just throwing it out there to as a way to be offensive towards homosexuals without straight up saying "ew, no homos?"

Or is that seriously the best they can come up with? I'm having trouble coming to terms with the fact that grown adults could rationally come up with a statement like that.

I don't even really understand how it's an argument against gay marriage in the first place, even if the logical connections were there.

"We better not legalize this type of contract between consenting adults! If we do, it might open the door for other kinds of contracts between consenting adults. Oh noes!!"