Polygamy and Homosexual Marriage
Polygamy involves the marriage of more than two persons at the same time. It can take a number of forms. Some are:
Polygyny: the marriage of one man with multiple wives.
Polyandry: the marriage of one woman with multiple men.
Polyamory: An umbrella term that describes a romantic and/or sexual relationship involving multiple partners at the same time. The participants may or may not consider themselves to be married to each other.
During debates on the Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. and same-sex marriage in both Canada and the U.S., many opponents to SSM have expressed the belief that if SSM were legalized, polygamy would inevitably follow. For example:
Polygyny: the marriage of one man with multiple wives. Polyandry: the marriage of one woman with multiple men. Polyamory: An umbrella term that describes a romantic and/or sexual relationship involving multiple partners at the same time. The participants may or may not consider themselves to be married to each other.During debates on the Federal Marriage Amendment in the U.S. and same-sex marriage in both Canada and the U.S., many opponents to SSM have expressed the belief that if SSM were legalized, polygamy would inevitably follow. For example:
Social commentator Stanley Kurtz argued that: "Among the likeliest effects of gay marriage is to take us down a slippery slope to legalized polygamy and 'polyamory' (group marriage). Marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals (however weakly and temporarily) in every conceivable combination of male and female. A scare scenario? Hardly. The bottom of this slope is visible from where we stand. Advocacy of legalized polygamy is growing. A network of grass-roots organizations seeking legal recognition for group marriage already exists. The cause of legalized group marriage is championed by a powerful faction of family law specialists. Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these quasi-governmental proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage"
Tom Wappell, a Canadian member of parliament for Scarborough Southwest, and a member of the Liberal party, is a well-known opponent of SSM. While debating SSM in parliament on 2005-FEB-18, he noted that marriage has always been a discriminatory institution. The government refuses marriage licenses to certain persons, discriminating on the basis of age, mental disability, consanguinity, religion and sex. He asked: "...why is it acceptable to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation but continue to permit and perpetuate in legislation and common law other forms of discrimination? Either we eliminate all forms of discrimination or we leave the current definition alone." Eliminating discrimination would legalize child marriage, polygamy, marriage between brother and sister, etc. He continued: If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, then polygamy is inevitable. He said: "Some say that raising polygamy is a red herring and has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill. That is utter legal nonsense." He referred to two instances where illegal sexual practices had become legal: court decisions have legalized SSM, and have declared laws against anal intercourse to be unconstitutional. His implication is that polygamy is next.
Dr. James Dobson, founder and head of the Fundamentalist Christian group Focus on the Familyhas written: "...the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one man/one woman unions....Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of justices. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of 'rights.' Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere, will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hate-mongers and bigots. (Indeed, those charges are already being leveled against Christians who espouse biblical values!) How about group marriage, or marriage between cousins, or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to 'civil rights' will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed."
Michael Foust of the Baptist Press wrote: "As the nation continues to debate same-sex 'marriage,' some have begun examining the logical extension of its legalization. If the legal benefits of marriage are awarded to homosexual men, then why aren't they also given to, say, three polygamists?"
He cites columnist Maggie Gallagher, a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendmentwhich was designed to ban SSM. She said: "There isn’t a single argument in favor of same-sex marriage that isn't also an argument in favor of polygamy –- people have a right to marry who they love, these relationships already exist ... we have no right to deny the children of their protections."
Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said she sees no "logical stopping point" if same-sex "marriage" is legalized. This is the dissolution of the parameters around marriage. You’d be hard-pressed to say, 'Why not any other kind of arrangement'?"
He cites columnist Maggie Gallagher, a strong supporter of the Federal Marriage Amendmentwhich was designed to ban SSM. She said: "There isn’t a single argument in favor of same-sex marriage that isn't also an argument in favor of polygamy –- people have a right to marry who they love, these relationships already exist ... we have no right to deny the children of their protections."
Jennifer Marshall, director of domestic policy studies at The Heritage Foundation, said she sees no "logical stopping point" if same-sex "marriage" is legalized. This is the dissolution of the parameters around marriage. You’d be hard-pressed to say, 'Why not any other kind of arrangement'?"
Kris Reason, "a Vacaville [CA] resident and a longtime letter writer" wrote: "In America, homosexual activists are trying to hijack marriage by forcing the judicial system to redefine marriage as 'the union of any people who love each other.' This redefinition, if legalized across the country, will open a Pandora's box of homosexual marriage, polygamy, group marriage, child marriage, and any other legalized combination of 'loving people'."
