Hey SSM Proponents, The Christian Wacko Paranoiacs Have A Point

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

The Facebook page Gaytheist described this as “The Christian Right’s paranoia complex in a single tweet:”

fischertweetI’ll admit this guy is indeed just a wee bit paranoid because pedophilia and bestiality are easily distinguishable from same-sex marriage or polygamy as the former involve a lack of consent or coercion. So, calm down dude, they’ll remain crimes for the foreseeable future.

But, using the majority’s reasoning in U.S. v. Windsor, please explain to me why a ban on SSM is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but bans on polygamy and marriage between adult siblings are not. If the state cannot regulate the sex of who I marry, then explain why it should be permitted to regulate the number.

When I last discussed this issue with classmates back in law school, the vast majority of whom were and are SSM supporters, they would roll their eyes or throw up their hands and make some crack about marrying a duck. Some of them, with a lack of irony that practically knocked me over, would express disgust at the idea of a man having multiple wives! Regardless of their reaction, though, they completely avoided the issue. Apologies to my friends, but a refusal to deal with the blindingly obvious logical consequences of your position is intellectually dishonest.


The best reason not to fear a polygamy legalization movement is a practical one: The Cathedral and its like-minded acolytes don’t like Mormons. The only group that could conceivably generate the kind of groundswell necessary to legalize polygamy are our brothers and sisters in Utah and they’re just kinda icky and silly, right? Magic underwear and all that. Indeed, when I asked a friend today why the Supreme Court’s reasoning shouldn’t be applied to polygamy, her response was, “I don’t give a fuck about Mormons.” Precisely. The only difference between her and the majority of SSM supporters is her blunt honesty.

This is not to say that any of us here at UR is a closet polygamist. God, no. One woman is headache enough.


About Blowhard, Esq.

Amateur, dilettante, wannabe.
This entry was posted in Politics and Economics and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Hey SSM Proponents, The Christian Wacko Paranoiacs Have A Point

  1. Will S. says:

    Polygamy will come when it’s not Mormon-fundy types, but rather liberal, progressive, wealthy, pseudo-hippies with an ‘alternative lifestyle’ who argue for it; then they’ll win the case, and Mormons and Muslims will be free to follow suit, as they desire.

    That’s how it’ll happen, when it does. Thus my prediction.


  2. Callowman says:

    Polygamy had a harmful effect on premodern cultures IMO. Whether it will have as negative an effect on postmodern culture is an open question. My preferred solution would have been “Don’t go there,” but it may not be all that important an issue in the grand scheme of things. We could have avoided it by making gay marriage something separate from ungay marriage (or grinding, quotidian marriage, as I prefer to think of it). However, a delightful feature of gay marriage, from a Cathedral status-mongering standpoint, was the way it scandalized the squares and served as a shibboleth separating Our Kind of People from those bible-thumpin’ jagoffs. That was the fun part of the package.


    • >>However, a delightful feature of gay marriage, from a Cathedral status-mongering standpoint, was the way it scandalized the squares and served as a shibboleth separating Our Kind of People from those bible-thumpin’ jagoffs. That was the fun part of the package.

      Agree. They *love* that feature.


  3. epiminondas says:

    “One woman is headache enough.”

    Come, now. You’re being ungenerous.


  4. FWIW, during last few days I’ve run into something new to me — liberal/lefty partisans of gay marriage who say, Hell yeah, legalization of polygamy’s going to follow in its wake. And who say it in a confident, open, celebratory tone — liberalism triumphant, going on to its next triumph. Now that they’re done lying to the masses about the likely legal implications of gay marriage, they can speak the truth and crow about it. Does mid-America know that its liberal lords have this in store for them?

    It’s funny, the liberal disease … For many liberals, there can simply be no such thing as Too Much Liberalism. Liberalism always needs to advance, and to reach into ever-more pockets of life. And if life is perceived to have a problem or two, OF COURSE what’s needed is an application of liberalism. Where *do* they get their conviction that More Liberalism is always an everywhere a good thing? Gives them a purpose in life, a crusade, I suppose …


    • As for where they get their conviction from, I dunno, but they hold it with a religious intensity. They exhibited the same sort of smug assurance during the Obamacare debate. “Moi? Why, I have pure motives, so there cannot *possibly* be any negative consequences to my position.”


      • “Since it’s perfectly evident to any intelligent person that I and my kind know what’s best for everyone, if you disagree — or if you merely dislike my presumptuousness — that can only be because you’re an idiot.”


    • Fabrizio del Wrongo says:

      What’s amusing (or perhaps horrifying) to me is how they dismiss reasonable arguments while the battle’s being fought — as “insane,” “paranoid,” etc. — then do a blatant victory dance once they’ve won the battle. That’s what happened with immigration. People who voiced concern over population replacement were treated like nut jobs, but once a non-white majority became a fait accompli, it was rubbed in all our faces, screamed from the front of magazines, etc. The same will probably happen with gun control and free speech. Now, you get laughed at if you speculate about a future where people who say things will get thrown in jail. But once it becomes a widespread reality, I have no doubt that many will be giving each other high fives and saying things like, “Finally! These assholes are going to jail for their hate!”


  5. So they’ve changed their tune on polygamy in your neck of the woods, eh? That’s interesting. I’m sure that stance will spread to here soon enough.


  6. agnostic says:

    “Where *do* they get their conviction that More Liberalism is always an everywhere a good thing?”

    There’s a dimension of personality that hardly anyone talks about, and it’s the body vs. mind orientation. Liberals are farther toward the cerebral side, conservatives toward the corporeal side.

    For instance, liberals don’t feel disgust as strongly, let alone apply it to morality. And they’re weaker and less coordinated. They favor the verbal over the visceral in art and entertainment. Hell, even within the verbal arts, they prefer the treadmill jog of a novel over the punching beat of verse.

    Grounded in physicality, conservative morality feels satisfaction and fulfillment when the task is done. When you’re hungry, you don’t eat forever and ever. When you’re horny, you don’t fuck for 100 hours straight. You feel a need, you set about meeting it, there’s a pleasant climax, then a negative feedback loop kicks in and brings you down, finally reaching a resting state where you aren’t interested in doing the activity anymore.

    Uprooted into airy pure thought, liberal morality is incapable of stopping itself. There’s always one case more to apply an abstract logical principle to. Sure, some cases are easier to gobble up than others, and you’ll consume those first. But you can always cook, season, or otherwise adulterate the elements of the case to make it more palatable. Gobble, gobble, gobble, with no end in sight.

    It’s no coincidence that the liberal cause-junkie is less of a crusader, who would feel cathartic triumph and let it go for awhile after success, and more of an OCD headcase. Always obsessing about all aspects of the current cause and future causes. Burning through micro-causes like they were compulsive addictions from which they never derive any joy from, but feel compelled to keep searching for another little fix to get them through the week.


  7. Pingback: Around the Blogs, Vol. 101: Long Wait, Long List | Symposium Magazine

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s