Mike Huckabee: marriage equality leads to polygamy

Don't underestimate Chuckles Huckabigot

I did have to smirk slightly, because that line wasn't aimed as much at queers, as at Mormon Mittler Romney,(probably one of two leading rivals of his in 2012) as a sly reminder how different Mormons are from the REAL Christians.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:02:49 PM CST

I took it as a double meaning too

that he had teh gays and Mitt Romney in his sights.

I wonder will we hear from the whiny Mormon Church about this bigotry against the Mormons?

Nah, only the gays are filled with that hate...I guess.

---

by: kevinchi @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:13:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Actually Palin could as likely trip rope Huckabee tag teaming with Mittler

I know Mormons will NEVER NEVER NEVER support Huckabee after he an McCain killed Romney's chances tag teaming him, before Huckabee dropped out.
Mittler is to Mormons, like Mother Theresa is to Catholics.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:59:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My first thought, too...

Making it doubly disgusting, actually.

---

by: lw @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:00:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

disgusting and SHREWD...like I said don't underestimate where Huckabee will attack

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:55:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Voting on Marriage

He said "If enough people believe we should have polygamy...."
So what is the difference between that and "enough people" believing we should NOT have marriage equality?  Is it a public referendum issue or not?

---

by: Jessie @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:33:31 PM CST

He's going after Mittens?

I hope he realizes that all religious revivals fall when you start asking "who's a real christian?"

---

by: Baconcat @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 13:37:33 PM CST

He understands democracy, sorta

If enough people believe that we should have - I'll just use the illustration of polygamy - then we should accommodate that.

Well, yeah. If the whole country wanted polygamy we'd have polygamy, if almost the whole country wanted a constitutional amendment making Monday Free Ice Cream Day we'd have it.

I do love that the bigots use the polygamy argument so often, since it reveals that they've put absolutely no thought or research into their 'arguments' and they probably don't really believe them. They constantly imply, or outright proclaim, that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Yet the most proud and prolific polygamists in American history despise homosexuals.
Of course acknowledging that would also mean admitting 'traditional marriage' wasn't always defined as 'a man and women, regardless of race, over 18, not forced into it by their family, between people of any faith or even without any religious involvement'.  

---

by: penguinsaur @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:12:49 PM CST

They didn't used to

Yet the most proud and prolific polygamists in American history despise homosexuals.

I assume you're talking about Mormons, here. They didn't used to. The first library in Salt Lake City was started by a lesbian couple. There used to be no formal issue with gay or lesbian relationships, back when Utah (Deseret) was first settled. That came much later, when they were trying to be accepted by "mainstream" religions.

And they've got a big problem with it. Take to hormone-crazed boys, send them off to live, eat, sleep together for two years, and tell them it's a sin if they even look at a woman in "that way", and if they've got any inclination at all toward teh homo-sex, it's going to come out then. Pun intended. Lots and lots of those nice missionary boys come home and the first thing they do is find out where the boys like to hang out. My husband was one of them.

Cause any fool knows, a dog needs a home; a shelter from pigs on the wing

---

by: QueerInSoCal @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 15:15:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

A simple explanation...

Here's a simple explanation that even Mike Huckabee might understand about why the two cases are entirely different:

Heterosexuals are legally allowed to marry one person that they love (provided the person is of age, not related by blood, and not already married). Gay and lesbian people (msyelf included), are asking for this exact same right. To marry one person that we love (which, by definition of gay, has to be a person of the same sex). This is a right that all heterosexuals have, but is categorically denied to all gay and lesbian people.

Contrast this to what polygamists are "asking" for (I use the word in quotes because I'm aware of no serious political movement that is actually seeking to legalize polygamy). Polygamists want to marry multiple people that they love. This is not a right that is currently enjoyed by anyone. They are asking, not to be granted a right which another group of people is already exercising, but instead an entirely new right.

Polygamy would change the contract of existing marriages (it would allow husbands to take on additional wives).

Marriage equality, in contrast, doesn't change the contract of already existing marriages (or future heterosexual marriages, for that matter). It just allows gay and lesbian people to join the marriage club.

These people don't put even the briefest amount of thought into their argument, it's infuriating.

---

by: esurience @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:20:46 PM CST

Their argument is that

"traditional" marriage is between one male and one female.

Thus, if "traditional" marriage is no longer between one male and one female, then the changed part of the equation should not just be gender, it should also be number.

That is their thought. It isn't as if they don't put the briefest amount of thought into the argument.

---

by: rfloh @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 15:40:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's no thought in that either

Just because one change is made does not mean all possible changes have to be made.

And the point I was making, is that the argument for marriage equality is completely different than the argument you'd have to make for polygamy (which has no good arguments going for it anyway).

---

by: esurience @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 16:41:03 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I get the point you are making

What you are not getting the point that Huckabee is making.

The arguments are different. That doesn't make the polygamy argument without thought.

Of course just because one chance is made does not mean all possible changes have to be made. That is a strawman argument. That is precisely the kind of strawman argument that people who oppose equal rights use. Huckabee is not arguing that it should be possible to marry 5 year old children.

The best argument for polygamy or polyandry is: what is your business meddling in the private lives of consenting adults?

That's not a good argument to the LGBT community?

---

by: rfloh @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 00:47:22 AM CST

[ Parent ]

And how often do we hear that

from people who claim to get their idea of "traditional marriage" from the polygamy-supporting Bible?

(Of course, I don't see anything particularly wrong with more than two adults collectively forming a family -- but that's as far from "traditional" male-supremacist polygyny as modern "equal relationship between two partners" monogamous marriage is from "traditional" man-and-his-property marriage.)

---

by: M @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 12:46:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Polygamy is looked on favorably in the Bible

The Bible-thumpers are pulling out the wrong example.

Abraham had one wife, Sarah (who was also his half-sister) and also had a child with Sarah's servant Hagar. His grandson Jacob had two wives, Leah and Rachel, and also had children with his wives servants, Zilpah and Bilah. King David had ten sons and at least one daughter from eight named wives, and at least eight other sons by unnamed women assumed to have been concubines. King Solomon had seven hundred wives and at least three hundred concubines. And Paul makes it very clear (in I Timothy, chapter three) that only clergy are required to be husband to one wife; this requirement presumably did not extend to laypeople.

My question to Talibangelicals like Huckabee is: When was the traditional definition of marriage changed to mean monogamy?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même merde.

---

by: TechBear @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:42:27 PM CST

Don't forget

David loved Jonathan more than any woman.

---

by: annwsc1 @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 16:07:05 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And

they say Solomon was the wise one.  Hah!

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 16:46:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Speaking of the biggest PILE of hypocricy...Lou Dobbs reaches out to Latinos

   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

I about spewed coffee all over my keyboard

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:52:22 PM CST

David Duke would have a better chance of reaching out to Blacks

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:53:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Robin Williams on Sarah Palin

Sorry off topic...we need an open thread BTW.
It's hillarious
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
How'd they pick Sarah Palin?

Project Running Mate?

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 15:10:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Never mind that...

...there wouldn't be anything so terribly wrong with plural marriages, either, provided it's all gender-equitable. I really despise evangeloonies! >.<

---

by: SonyaLynn @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 15:09:20 PM CST

So marriage equality was cool back in the day of King Solomon? David?

or did it get to be ok only after they took the multiple wives?

Which came first?

---

by: Scott_NC @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 15:15:37 PM CST

Wait a minute - this is the Huckster, not the Mitt-man?

I got the impression of lesbian-oriented splinter Mormon polygamist sister-wives conspiring to eliminate the family patriarch with the idea of transforming their plural marriage into one with all sister-wives and no husband.

But when they're referring to polygamy, they're not referring to multiple-partner gay and lesbian relationships.  So it's really the heterosexuals who have more of an interest in ploygamy after all . . .  

---

by: Joann Prinzivalli @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 15:36:49 PM CST

Polygamy, polyandry, polygyny, polyamory

Believe it or not, there are people in the world who are capable of loving more than one person, and they don't all belong to a single "obscure" (outside of the US) splinter sect of Christianity. (And it's not just straight people interested in it either! ;))

When someone like Huckabee brings up polygamy, the response should be...

WHY NOT?

Not a response that implies that polygamous relationships are wrong. Because they're not any better or worse than monogamous marriages.

What consenting adults do with their love lives is no business of anyone else, provided all parties involved are actually consenting, and are of the age of majority (and don't get me started on that - talk about arbitrary lines!).

The main thing that would hold polygamy back would be how to structure a marriage contract between multiple spouses, in such a way as to handle splits in the relationship. Divorce law would be more complicated than for monogamous couples.

---

by: Zandilar @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 17:02:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Errm, no...

Errm, no...

When Mike Huckabee brings up polygamy, the response should be:

"So you have no arguments against marriage for gays and lesbians, all you have are scare tactics and distractions?"

If he persists with attempting to draw the two together it should be pointed out that:

1) It's entirely possible to agree with allowing gays and lesbians to marry while disagreeing with polygamy (any good argument for marriage equality does not lend any support to polygamy whatsoever)

2) Just because you make one change to a law does not mean we have to make all possible changes to it

3) Changing the law to allow gays and lesbians to marry is an extremely minimal change compared to what would be required to legalize polygamy. It's also an extremely minimal cultural change. Polygamy redefines the relationships of existing heterosexual couples (allowing them to take on more partners). Marriage for gays and lesbians does no such thing.

Mike Huckabee is revealing both a moral and intellectual failing in his inability to articulate an argument against polygamy, however. That's a fairly easy argument to make. But it's got nothing to do with marriage for gays and lesbians, so take that crap elsewhere.

---

by: esurience @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 18:40:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Bias against love?

When Mike Huckabee brings up polygamy, the response should be:

"So you have no arguments against marriage for gays and lesbians, all you have are scare tactics and distractions?"

Yes, I agree that he brings up polygamy because he has no real argument against SSM, and he needs to be called on it. But I still think "Why not?" is a valid question for him too.

1) It's entirely possible to agree with allowing gays and lesbians to marry while disagreeing with polygamy (any good argument for marriage equality does not lend any support to polygamy whatsoever)

Yes, it is. But it's also possible to agree with interracial marriage but disagree with same sex marriage. What is your point?

Also, marriage equality is only part of the overall equation. I honestly don't see anything wrong with multiple people sharing a life long commitment. There just isn't any reason to exclude such relationship from legal recognition. They may not be very common (in fact, they're probably very rare), but they do exist. When I talk about polygamy, I am not just talking about one man many wives - I'm talking about any combination at all of genders, and relationships that can be (preferably IMHO) mutual between all partners (polygyny as practiced by the LDS splinter cult, is between one man and each of his wives individually as far as I know, if you get the distinction I'm trying to draw there). Maybe I'm on the fringe extreme here, but maybe you're being a little narrow minded.

2) Just because you make one change to a law does not mean we have to make all possible changes to it

That is also true. It might be a little bit early to start pressing for marriage equality for the polyamorous, but there's no reason to dismiss it out of hand either.

3) Changing the law to allow gays and lesbians to marry is an extremely minimal change compared to what would be required to legalize polygamy. It's also an extremely minimal cultural change. Polygamy redefines the relationships of existing heterosexual couples (allowing them to take on more partners). Marriage for gays and lesbians does no such thing.

Lets leave aside how "big" a change it would take to include polygamous relationships for the moment. (The issue being how one would write up such a contract, and how one would dissolve one in the case that the relationship doesn't work out.)

But allowing polygamous marriages in no way redefines anyone else's monogamous marriage, anymore than a homosexual marriage redefines a heterosexual one. If two people are married and neither has the desire to include a third, then there's no reason for them to do so - it's not even a consideration! If, on the other hand, both partners agree to include a third - then why should they be prevented from doing so? The inclusion of more partners should always be agreed on by all partners in the existing marriage. Mutual consent, as always, is important.

Mike Huckabee is revealing both a moral and intellectual failing in his inability to articulate an argument against polygamy, however. That's a fairly easy argument to make. But it's got nothing to do with marriage for gays and lesbians, so take that crap elsewhere.

It has everything to do with it, esurience. It is exactly the same argument - adults should be allowed to form and have legal recognition for whatever loving life long* committed relationships they form, so long as all adults involved consent! This automatically excludes arguments about slippery slopes, because we're only talking about ADULT HUMAN BEINGS.

*Heck, why not allow adult human beings to form legally recognized relationships that aren't life long commitments as well? Or is that going too far?

---

by: Zandilar @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 21:41:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

This is about marriage, not just love

It is exactly the same argument - adults should be allowed to form and have legal recognition for whatever loving life long* committed relationships they form, so long as all adults involved consent!

Nope. If that was the (only) argument for gay marriage, I'd be against it... and I'm gay.

Society grants legal recognition to marriage, and provides benefits and legal protections to the married couple, because marriage benefits society. It's a reciprocal relationship.

Polygamous marriage wouldn't provide a benefit to society, it would be a cost. In a polygamous society, men who have desirable qualities (high status, rich, fame, good looks, whatever), will end up with multiple wives. Whereas men without such qualities will end up with NONE.

Having a large number of unmarried men is very unhealthy for a society, it's correlated with all sorts of social ills (rape and other crime).

And what about the benefits granted to married couples? Is a guy going to be able to put all 7 of his non-working wives on his companies health care policy? Sorry, but that marriage just isn't worth that to society.

The strength of the affirmative case (meaning both the public policy argument, and the moral argument) for allowing gays and lesbians to marry relies on the fact that heterosexuality and homosexuality are parallel to each other in every conceivable way, except for the very thing which defines them. Polygamy is not parallel to gay or straight 2-person relationships. So... it requires an entirely different affirmative case to be made for it.

---

by: esurience @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 22:27:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your point is based on patriarchal polygamy

In America, it would have to be egalitarian.  In that case, Oprah could afford to have a harim of men.

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.-- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Mykelb @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 22:36:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

My point is based on...

My point is based on how polygamy actually happens. There's simply a lot more men who are interested in having multiple wives, than there are women who are interested in having multiple husbands (and even assuming there are some women who would want that, I doubt many men would be willing accomplices).

And that wasn't the only point I made.

There is simply no moral argument to be made for polygamy. So there's no moral imperative to be changing our policy on it. And without a moral imperative to change the policy, there's no sense in taking a (substantial) risk by changing it.

Marriage is a fundamental institution of our society. It's not something we should screw around with just because we feel like it.

When we're talking about traditions that are fundamental to the structure of our society, there first needs to be a moral claim made about why we should change it, before we even get into the public policy argument about it. Otherwise, it's simply not worth the risk of negative consequences.

Gay and lesbian people are, effectively, categorically barred from the institution of marriage. We are denied a right that a different group of people (heterosexuals) has, but we do not. That sets the ground for a strong moral claim. No such claim exists in the case of polygamy.

Another difference:

Society benefits by having people in committed 2-person relationships. This excludes polygamy. Now, some would say society benefits only by having 2-person heterosexual relationships... but forcing a gay person to pretend they are straight, and give up on love, intimacy, and romantic companionship (or else give up on marriage) is cruel. So we're back to a moral claim, which exists for gay people, but not for polygamists.

There's no law against screwing other people when you're married. Polygamists are not required by law to pretend that they aren't screwing other people. There's just a (justified) social stigma attached to such a thing.

---

by: esurience @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 22:51:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Ugh

You are kidding me, right?

You know opposition to marriage equality contends that it would be immoral to allow two adult human beings of the same gender to marry, don't you?

I don't think there's going to be any point in going over this further with you, you are clearly not going to listen.

---

by: Zandilar @ Thu Nov 26, 2009 at 01:08:12 AM CST

[ Parent ]

We'll legalize polygamy for everyone but FLDS

They just can't be trusted to not rape teen girls, and make them wear Von Trap family drapes and Little House on the Prairie hair dos.....that's just WRONG.

   http://www.azcentral.com/i/A/8...

   

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 18:25:14 PM CST

is that what you call pollyanna-ry?

Just askin'.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him wear plaid. -- c. nobis, passim

---

by: coram nobis @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 19:54:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And what if it did?

As a Christian minister who supports marriage equality, my response is "Meh."  Look, churches don't have to accept polyandrous relationships or bless them, why does it matter.

In the case of polygamy/polyandry, however, unlike with same-sex marriage, there would have to be an overturning of a Supreme Court decision from the 1800s.  A decision, IMHO, that was wrongly decided based on prejudice against Mormons.

---

by: liturgygeek @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 19:54:37 PM CST

fun with marriage law

Well, let's see, this leads to polygamy, does it? Well, let's see, if the standard, binary, heterosexual marriage has a 50-50 chance to end in divorce, then how about the odds of a polygamous marriage? Do the odds go up geometrically, or arithmetically, with each new Polly?

Statistics mavens out there, have at it.

I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.
-- L. Nielsen

---

by: coram nobis @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 19:56:39 PM CST