Polygamy Decriminalized!, by Mike Gold – Brainiac On Banjo #376 | @MDWorld
September 1, 2014 Mike Gold 4 Comments
When asked about same-sex marriage, the most common response from the Right is to talk about bestiality. It’s really an obsession with these folks, so much so that I think we should do blood tests for Woolite. But as marriage equality has become fait accompli, their moans have shifted to a sad, disgusted “Where will it all end? Will we condone polygamy?”
Sure. Why not? Are you really that afraid that you won’t get any?
My criteria for marriage are straight-forward: adult, willing, and not catatonic. That’s it. If you’re north of 21 (or 18, or whatever it is in your state; that’s a discussion for another time) and you freely say yes and you are capable of saying yes freely, that’s it. You want to get married in a religious joint? That’s up to them; it’s their hall. You want to get married by a tall bearded guy with a mail-order license? Groovy. Until recently it was against the law in many states to enter into an inter-racial marriage. In some neighborhoods, it’s still against the societal norm. Inter-faith marriage? Until recently, it was considered an abomination, a slight to the great hoary thunderer.
Times change, but one aspect of this issue does not change: whom other adults marry is none of your goddamned business. This philosophy is old-school conservatism, and new school libertarianism.
Therefore, it is with great relief that I report this news story from KSTU-Fox 13, Salt Lake City Utah:
A federal judge declared a portion of Utah’s polygamy ban unconstitutional late Wednesday, essentially decriminalizing polygamy in the state.
U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups ruled the phrase in the law “‘or cohabits with another person’ is a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is without a rational basis under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by reality TV polygamist Kody Brown and his wives, who left Utah fearing prosecution. They sued the state, arguing that the ban violated their right to freely practice their religion.
The ruling follows a similar order in December of last year that the judge took back while he decided the issue of damages. In the order, Judge Waddoups did preserve the phrases “marry” and “purports to marry” to “save the statute from being invalidated in its entirety.”
The judge also awarded financial compensation to the Brown family.
Now, please, don’t whine about underage women or forced marriages. There are plenty of forced marriages that are monogamistic, but that’s not the point. Please go back and re-read my third paragraph. The one about “adult, willing, and not catatonic.” Forced marriages and underage marriages are not kosher under any circumstances.
The reason why one person would want to marry a bunch of others escapes me, but I lived through the Free Love era so it just doesn’t seem to be a big deal. As they say, different strokes for different folks.
Or as I say with relentless frequency: “It ain’t none of my business.”
Mike Gold performs the weekly two-hour Weird Sounds Inside The Gold Mind ass-kicking rock, blues and blather radio show on The Point, www.getthepointradio.com and on iNetRadio, www.iNetRadio.com as part of “Hit Oldies” every Sunday at 7:00 PM Eastern, rebroadcast three times during the week – check www.getthepointradio.com above for times and on-demand streaming information. Gold also joins MDW’s Marc Alan Fishman and Martha Thomases as a weekly columnist at www.comicmix.com where he pontificates on matters of four-color.
Neil C.
September 1, 2014 - 10:53 am
Mike,
That’s pretty much how I feel about anything two consenting (or more now, I guess) do as long as it affects no one else and hurts no one: “It’s none of my business.” What I don’t get about modern conservatism is the idea that they want the government out of everything except what happens behind closed doors.
Rene
September 1, 2014 - 2:01 pm
The “freedom” modern conservatives advocate is the freedom to be just like them. 🙂 In all honesty, there are liberals who are like that too.
As for polygamy…
I agree with Mike that people should be able to marry whoever is able to give consent (and that excludes children, animals, and corpses).
But I am not enthusiastic about polygamy. No guys, in the real world, polygamy is not like the free love of the 1960s or those science fiction novels where they’re all very happy, very sexual, family.
Polygamy is more likely to appear in places where males have a lot of power, and females have very little. No surprise that Muslims and Mormons are proponents of it. That is why those marriages still have just one male. The patriarch.
Now, that is no reason to oppose polygamy in itself. Polygamy isn’t the problem, it’s the symptom of a problem.
Mike Gold
September 1, 2014 - 2:31 pm
Neil:
Conservatives do respect what happens behind certain closed doors. The doors that hide their own sexual indiscretions. The ones that hide their shady business practices. The secret deals. Their fund raising. The lies they tell their supporters. The lies they tell organized religion. The lies they tell their families.
Doors aren’t the problem. Whose oxen are being gored — that’s the problem.
Mike Gold
September 1, 2014 - 3:01 pm
Rene:
As a serial monogamist since about 10 years before HIV, I’d have to say I’m personally not into polygamy myself. And at my age now, there’s an issue about energy, sleep and the quantity of sex and the quality of Ben-Gay. However, that’s me. If some adult family unit wants to give it a toss, hey, god bless.
You note “Polygamy is more likely to appear in places where males have a lot of power, and females have very little” and I think there’s a lot of truth to that… but… there are plenty of places where women have very little power and polygamy is none the less vanquished. You’d think we’d have seen a lot more of it in the States prior to the passage of the 19th amendment, the one regarding women’s suffrage.
I explain this by acknowledging the sexual insecurity of the average male. Possession is more important than choice.
As for not fucking corpses… Well, yes, absolutely, it is difficult to get consent from a corpse. UNLESS said corpse grants permission in his or her will. Sadly, LegalZoom doesn’t have that checkbox on their wills.
But, if you’re so inclined, I strongly recommend The Fools’ version of the folk tune Tom Dooley. They… change it around… a little. You can catch a tiny sample at http://discark.com/en/products/view/458. If you are half, even a quarter as weird as me, or you REALLY hate the Kingston Trio or just red-striped button down shirts, it’s worth the 99 cent download.
Rene
September 2, 2014 - 6:49 am
Mike –
For polygyny to emerge, we need multiple ingredients. One of them is women being powerless, but not the only one. Believe it or not, I think Roman Catholicism (and later Protestantism) has not been a complete disaster for women.
There is an argument to be made that the history of patriarchal domination is the history of males making sure that their kids are THEIR kids. Thus all the religious, social, economic and legal dominations seeking to control and restrict female sexuality.
I think polygyny is a further, more radical step in this direction.
Did you ever read One Thousand and One Nights? It begins with a king that kills all his wives because his original wife cheated on him. And his brother’s wife cheated on his brother, and… It’s amazing how those Muslim dudes are obsessed about adultery! Suddenly, all the stuff about women having to cover themselves, not being able to even be alone with males not of their families, etc. makes a lot of sense, if you posit a society where males are literally all obsessed about being cuckolded.
A woman’s role is to provide an heir, and a rich man can have more women, to provide more heirs. It’s the ultimate devaluation of women.
And that is also why polygyny is much more common than polyandry. In pre-DNA testing societies, polyandry can only work if we assume that lineages run through the mother. It’s a Muslim’s worst nightmare, never being able to tell if your son is your son, or the other husband’s son!
As for link with the song, is it safe for work? 🙂
Mike Gold
September 2, 2014 - 7:49 am
The clip is barely safe for work — it’s cut right when things start involving making flies instead of babies. The song… is not. Particularly if you work at a funeral home.
Rick Oliver
September 2, 2014 - 10:00 am
I see no reason why multiple adults of any combination of males and females should not be allowed to marry. To those who claim the next step will be people marrying their dogs, my response is: Let me know when dogs can read, understand, and sign legally binding contracts. From a legal, government perspective, that’s what marriage is: a legally binding contract. (And personally I don’t care if you marry your dog.)
Mike Gold
September 2, 2014 - 10:03 am
Only if the adult dog is willing, Rick. And to be fair, no Scooby Snacks were involved.