Legalize Polygamy?

At The Dish, Jonathan Rausch thinks so:

I’m a gay marriage advocate and a polygamy opponent. And, yes, my positions make sense together. Polygamy is bad social policy for exactly the reason gay marriage is good social policy: everyone should have the opportunity to marry. Broad access to marriage important not only for individual wellbeing but for social stability. And, to oversimplify only a little, when one man gets two wives, some other man gets no wife. There’s no better path to inequality, social unrest, and authoritarian social structures than polygamy. Read the fine print here. [READ THE REST]

  • Lock Rutledge

    Rausch’s arguments are thick with information, but are easy show he’s full of it.

    I will point it out when I have the time later today or this weekend.

  • Random Arrow

    Hilarious. Parody au- Voltaire. A beta bonobo whining against the alphas for mate selection. What a gas. Maybe Darwinians are dangerous for noting that primate-on-primate murder is always an option. Crock on crock … as if serial promiscuity isn’t. With “I’ll-be-back” Arnold Schwarzenegger – yeah, baby bonobo, you’ll be back alright – to pay child support. There is no rationalized “state interest” in not legalizing polygamy – not on that biological basis. Try again. Cheers ~ Jim

  • Lock Rutledge

    BTW to Tony, there are currently copyright debates and legal actions against blogs that post too large of sections from other peoples articles.

    • Tony Jones

      Yes, I know. I limit myself to one paragraph of someone else’s post. I consider that fair use, until the law stipulates otherwise. And when I find someone else re-posting an entire post of mine, I ask them to take it down.

  • Random Arrow

    “… no polygamous society has ever been a true liberal democracy .. in anything like the modern sense. As societies move away from hierarchy and toward equal opportunity, they leave polygamy behind. They monogamize as they modernize …”

    So truly liberal and truly democratic and truly modern .. is what you do?

    If you’re Sullivan-esque gay (gay, “I’ve got mine … thank you NY”) … and he’s citing Robert Wright on evolution, the author (not Wright) not understanding evolutionary findings on polygamy … it’s a throw-away argument with no rational connection to legal policy … and oblivious to serial promiscuity, already happening … the marriage laws are statutory (not contractual – in our generation this will not change) … and child support county courts, insurance companies (health, life, auto), pension plans in divorce settlements, attorneys drafting pre-nups for post-divorce allocations (and other things), school districts for all kinds of legal liability reasons, and only a dozen other macro-institutions … all have vested interests in knowing statutorily who is married and who is not, and they don’t give a damn about who is sexing who under the sheets .. nor who gets palimony.

    So now that one phobia is being tamed, and since you know how it feels to be victimized, why not invent a whole new phobia to demonize polygamists?

    Way to go …

  • Anon

    Can we just abolish the legal system of marriage? Because the next thing you know people are going to start whining about how they can’t marry 12 year olds and washcloths. Just drop the whole thing and lets get on to issues that matter; like the corporate dominance of our regulatory agencies, or the planet’s over population issue, or American consumerism. These marriage issues barely deserve attention by comparison.

  • Random Arrow

    When Samuel became old, he made his sons judges over Israel… Yet his sons did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after gain; they took bribes and perverted justice (Samuel 8).

    So why not ask for an anti-polygamy monarchy? — like post-Samuelites did? – so long as we have a king to enforce it our way? – or did his monarchist royal children royally realize monogamy, oh Father Abraham of un-monogamous unfaith (Gen 20:2ff)?

    Or is this (or any) theological argument any better an argument against polygamy – than that faux-biological argument of special pleading?

    “As the day began to dawn, the woman came and fell down at the doorway of the man’s house where her master was, until full daylight. When her master arose in the morning and opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, then behold, his concubine was lying at the doorway of the house with her hands on the threshold. When he entered his house, he took a knife and laid hold of his concubine and cut her in twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent her throughout the territory of Israel” (Judg 19:26ff).

    So let anti-polygamist idiots argue that these murderous rapists were ideological political polygamists – instead of good Abrahamic monogamists – just like this faux-monogamist “master” (and priest?) must have been an in-the-closet political polygamist after all (see how dangerous polygamists can be? – compared to good and moral monogamists?)! Let’s see more of these nouveau arguments about how these rapist murderers of old forebear today the same threat to our good monogamist laws in our “modern” liberal society.

    As if there’s not enough to worry about in shutting down the underground market in child prostitution slavery which is chopping up and killing children for money-bits-to-death in our all-glorious liberal Temple civilized marketplace.

    To which I’ll credit my ultra-liberal Quaker and my ultra-conservative Vineyards – er, my thin-Pentecostals, doh! – equally – how weird is that? – that is, credit liberals and conservative-thin-Pentecostals equally for starting underground railroads to work against the children hacked to death and cut to pieces – in our liberal land of the free.

    World of pain …