I WED THEE, AND THEE, AND THEE: Kay S. Hymowitz
Same-sex marriage advocates tend to jeer at the argument that allowing such unions will open a smorgasbord of marital practices. They insist that what interests them is not to transform the institution radically but only to welcome their homosexual friends, neighbors, and relatives to its benefits. A few recent developments suggest that they're dead wrong. Consider a
recent USA Today op-ed by Jonathan Turley, arguing that it's time for polygamous marriage to receive constitutional protection. However misguided, Turley is no bomb thrower. He is a Georgetown University prof, a prolific scholar, and a frequent television talking head on legal issues. Here, he simply underscores two points that homosexual advocates downplay: first, that the Supreme Court's 2003
Lawrence decision, striking down anti-sodomy laws, "recognized the constitutional right to engage in any form of consensual sexual relation," presumably including multiple partners; and second--and somewhat more plausibly, given that
Lawrence is about private sexual practices and implies nothing about marriage--that
Reynolds v. United States, the 1878 Supreme Court case that upheld a ban on polygamy in the United States territories, is so filled with racist innuendo and cavalier attitudes about religious freedom that it would be unlikely to pass muster today. ...
More disturbing still, several legal cases pleading the cause of polygamy are already in motion. In
Bronson v. Swensen, a Utah threesome has filed suit against the Salt Lake County Clerk's office for denying them a marriage license. Their attorney, who, like Turley, specializes in civil rights cases, argues that if Texas cannot criminalize sodomy, Utah should not be able to criminalize polygamy--though again, why the right to commit sodomy implies anything about marriage, let alone marriage with multiple or same-sex partners, is unclear.
more
posted by Eve at
8:49 PM | link
Post a Comment
<< Home