Question for discussion: how can [all minority political complaints be answered affirmatively] without simply granting rights whenever a group of people asks for them? What dangers does a regime face when its people believe that those who demand things are the best judges of whether or not they ought to have them?
Why should gays' request for marriage rights be granted, but polygamists' request for marriage rights be denied? On what rational basis do we grant one but deny the other? If you believe both should be granted, where do you draw the line -- and why?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
RE: "granting rights whenever a group of people asks for them"
The Government DOES NOT grant rights. The People grant government limited power to regulate specific rights, and the People retain the right to remove those powers it granted to the government.
PROOF:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- Declaration of Indepedence
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." -- IX Amendment
"This term (Property) in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.' In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.
In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property. In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.
He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them. He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person. He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.
In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."
-- James Madison, "Property", March, 29, 1792
To give Rod's question a shot: SSM and polygamy involve two separate realms of marriage as an institution.
SSM is about the definition of marriage, which is roughly: private solemnization of the relationship at the center of family units on the one hand, and public acknowledgement of a forming family unit for the purposes of fair treatment in public life on the other. SSM arose as an issue when large enough numbers of gay people started forming families. There is a right general answer to the issue.
Polygamy is a phenomenon based in social conditions; the permissibility of it is situational. Monogamy is the most stable form when there are equal or roughly equal numbers of elegible men and women and social status or wealth differences are not that large. That is the condition of most of American society.
Polygamy happens or is tolerated when either there aren't enough men, or involving high status men and lower status women. In the US at present a variety of the former is seen on military bases in the form of adulterous relationships when husbands are deployed overseas for long periods of time. The latter is seen in e.g. the stereotypical CEO/wife/secretary triangles. People don't call the police when they see evidence of either thing.
Your Name at November 21, 2008 4:19 PM:
That some Mormon women are happy in their polygamous families is not proof that the practice is generally a good one. It is simply evidence that some Mormon women find it fulfilling.
The emergent term for the societal phenomenon of plural relationships is polyamory. It is more inclusive than the commonly understood usage of "polygamy", and is not specific to a belief system. It also does not focus on gender mix. It ranges from triads of two men and one woman or one man and two women up through various combinations of larger numbers.
"Daniel
November 21, 2008 2:06 PM
"There are also plenty of firsthand corroborated accounts of very happy polygamies."
Really? Do tell. "
Does Obama's father count?
Polygamy, red herring that it is, is simply a separate argument. Let the polygamists make their arguments before legislatures and courts.
Besides, America hasn't got a problem with polygamy per se. Witness the generous welcome into the Rose Garden at the White House that W. gave to the then Saudi Prince (now King) - a known, admitted polygamist. Not a whiff of protest.
A question: if someone from another country is legally married, polygamously, and wants to emigrate to America, what is the legal status of his 5/6/7/8 wives? It's a legal marriage where he comes from, remember.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.