Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Same Sex Marriage-- Why Not Polygamy? And Beyond?

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF
Kody Brown has 4 wives. One is legal and the other three are "sister" wives. He loves them all, they love him and together they have created a family. They are committed to each other.

He is in court asking why the state laws discriminate against him and his loving, committed family. And he is asking the court to declare the anti-polygamy laws "unconstitutional and unenforceable" on his "plural family."

He is using the same argument used to legalize so-called homosexual "marriage".

If same-sex marriage is okay, why then, should those in a loving, caring, multiple relationship be discriminated against? Where is the equality?

Why is, say, Senator Ed Murray or Representative Jamie Pedersen's right to marriage equality greater than Mr. Brown's?

Kody Brown's lawyers are using the same argument presently used by advocates of same-sex marriage.

His lawyers have told the court that the "one man, one woman" version of marriage has caused "personal injuries" to Mr. Brown and his family, that they are being illegally denied the rights to freedom of association, due process and equal protection, as well as the rights of adults to engage in "intimate conduct" without government intrusion.

You may recall that in the hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on July 20 regarding marriage, Representative Steve King said, "These arguments are the same arguments that could be used to promote marriage between father and daughters, mother and sons or even polygamous relationships."

Rep. King was right.

Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, told the same hearing that gay rights arguments for same-sex marriage "clearly threaten to pave the way for polygamous and other polyamorus unions."

He said if the male-female aspect of marriage can be "dismissed," surely the distinction between a marriage of two persons and a marriage of three or more is all the more arbitrary..."

Slippery Slope.

The Human Rights Campaign, the largest homosexual advocacy group in the country is saying there is "no way" same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy or effect other restrictions on the age or familial relationships of those who marry.

Why not? Are they now advocating marriage discrimination? Do they now advocate against equality?

Every time I have personally raised the "slippery slope" issue in regard to homosexual marriage, the press has in the best case raised their elite brow and in the worst case dismissed us as bigoted or out of touch. The homosexual community has called me..., let's not go there.

Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan said this week of New York's new homosexual "marriage" law, it is the "latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage."

He warned the next step will likely, "be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity."

He too, was right.

Washington State's Domestic Partner law, or as Murray, Pedersen and others call it, the "Every Thing But Marriage" law, has already justified and financially rewarded infidelity among heterosexual people over 60 for living together as married when they are not. In addition to financially rewarding homosexuals living together.

Kody Brown's attorneys also state that he and his family are members of the Apostolic United Brethren faith and have committed no crime except to live together. "Motivated by their sincere religious beliefs and love for one another."

In their conclusion, Brown's lawyers are claiming, "The Brown family's 'basic liberties and equal protections' are being violated."

These are the same arguments used in New York and elsewhere to force, homosexual "marriage" on a society.

A deception of biblical proportion.

God help us.

Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Active. Be Blessed.

::Click here to add these blogs to your email inbox.


  1. I had thought you'd skipped this one because you were wise enough to see where your brethren had messed up - I guess not.

    This fellow is asking only for the part of the states Bigamy law that makes cohabitation illegal to be changed, he does not want to civilly license all his wives.

    And the big surprise? Nevada, Oregon, California, Hawaii AND WASHINGTON already allow polygamy in the way he is requesting. Our bigamy law only relates to the civil license - it is illegal to license more than one spouse as it is to present someone as being your legal spouse - that's it.

    Shoot I know the 2nd wife of an Islamic man down the street, no Washington law is being violated as long as she doesn't present herself as his licensed spouse.

    He could move to Washington with his wives and have exactly what he is asking for (just as he does now by having moved to Nevada).

    What this has nothing to do with is allowing all citizens to license with a single spouse, a right he already has and has exercised, and one that all citizens here in Washington have albeit under different contracts.

    If you could only get the Feds to recognize domestic partnerships in the same manner they do the other contract you would actually have a case for saying 'separate but equal' is good enough.

  2. This article could have easily been written in 1967 and titled: "Interracial Marriage-- Why Not Polygamy? And Beyond?"

    If you squint your eyes, this argument almost seems valid, but its basic premise is flawed. Equal marriage supporters are not arguing, as Gary claims, that we should be able to create any imaginable family structure. We are arguing that gay people are uniquely being denied equal access to marriage because out of all the people we can fall in love with, not a single one of them is eligible for us to legally marry. In other words, gay people must give up love to marry, or if we chose love, we have to navigate life without marriage, something no other group – including polygamists – has to do.

    While polygamists might be seizing upon the growing acceptance of equal marriage for gays to make their case, they will have to provide justifications unique to their situation in order to convince the courts or the populace. Right off the bat, I can think of dozens of questions polygamy brings up that would not even be addressed in a positive same-sex marriage ruling. Similarly, same-sex marriage advocates have utilized small parts of the interracial marriage rulings to make our case, but, in order to actually win, we still have to thoroughly address all of the considerations same-sex marriage brings up that have nothing to do with interracial marriage.

    Gary is making a blanket argument that ANY change to marriage leads to a free for all of family structures, but marriage's myriad changes to date show this to be a red herring. That is why we are not marrying three people, or children, or dogs, or toasters just because a white person can marry a black person. Every case has its unique questions and considerations, something Gary would like you to forget.


    1. The interracial marriage argument falls apart. You're still a man or a woman no matter what color you are. A man of any color and a woman of any color is still a traditional marriage. Sorry, try again

    2. The interracial marriage argument falls apart. You're still a man or a woman no matter what color you are. A man of any color and a woman of any color is still a traditional marriage. Sorry, try again

    3. The interracial marriage argument falls apart. You're still a man or a woman no matter what color you are. A man of any color and a woman of any color is still a traditional marriage. Sorry, try again

  3. Yeah, Vishanti... You're right. If Mr. Brown gets what he wants in his state, I'm sure it will all just stop right there and all polygamists will be happy. They won't take it any further and push for more than one fully licensed wives. We have no evidence anywhere in recent history of people pushing the boundary a little, then more, then more, then more, even if it's against the will of the majority and bad for society... Yeah... Gary should just ignore this stuff and everything will turn out just fine......

    Well, enough comments for now, time to get back to my meth and crack pipe, as I've gone 15 minutes without it now, and I'd hate to start thinking straight.

    --Jake, Portland, OR

  4. If Mr. Brown gets what he wants in his state, I'm sure it will all just stop right there and all polygamists will be happy.
    Well yes, considering what he wants is what 5 states already have and have had for 20 years and longer and these states polygamists aren't asking for licensing.

    I guess you don't understand that polygynists don't want bigamy laws overthrown - the last thing a man wants is to be legally married to 4 women (with 4 potential divorces), or for them to have the right to have multiple licensed husbands at the same time they are licensed to him.

    Sure meth'd out people might get all paranoid and worry about such things but it hasn't happened anywhere else (like right here in Washington state), why would a rational drug free person worry about one more state becoming like many others already are?

  5. Not a single comment on how God looks at all this...

  6. God must weep when He looks at all this.

  7. Since when does righteousness cause personal injury?

    The breastplate the Lord has given us is good and protects those who put it on. (Eph 4:14)

  8. Oshtur is correct about the focus of the lawsuit.

    Gary Randall is wrong about Brown's argument being "the same" as the legal argument in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

    As long as extant state statutes refer to couples, same-sex couples can easily invoke equal protection provisions. As we've seen, states need make no changes to the set of hundreds of underlying marriage statutes to enable the marriage of same-sex couples under the already-existing body of laws.

    Not so with polygamy, which would require the creation and modification of broad swaths of law to accommodate them. It's an unknown as to whether such laws could even be created.

    Invocation of polygamy is a cheap shorthand for opposition to marriage equality — until you actually have to think about it.


Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.