From Think Progress:
data=”http://www.youtube.com/v/EJwSprkiInE&feature?fs=1″>You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video
David Boies on Face the Nation
Brilliant Performances: Ted Olson On FOX News; David Boies on CBS Face The Nation
14About the Author
Wayne Besen is the Founding Executive Director of Truth Wins Out and author of “Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth” (Haworth, 2003). In 2010, Besen was awarded the “Visionary Award” at the Out Music Awards for organizing the American Prayer Hour, an event which shined a spotlight on the role American evangelicals played in the introduction of Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill.
Related Posts
A pretty epic smackdown, if I do say so myself. Ted handily disposes of the “judicial activism” and “voter’s rights” cards that the Christian fundies stubbornly repeat as fast as they can with their ears plugged.
Fantastic. I think he even convinced the Fox News anchor.
So if the right to marry whom you wish is a fundamental right why is it restricted to only two people at a time?
Why isn’t there a fundamental right to group marriage? Would not the same arguments apply? Why can’t three responsible adults enter into a legal three way marriage, or four… Isn’t that prohibition still traceable to the idea of a traditional family?
Bob,
Why are you trying to take attention away from the fact that those pushing Prop 8 couldn’t defend their position in court. They only had one witness and he actually ended up pushing the anti-Prop 8 side.
to a. mcewen;
My question was in response to Mr. Olsen’s (whom I admire) argument. Granted that some Prop 8 proponents may ask a similar question as a tactic, I asked it for a different reason. How is it determined that two men can marry but not three? Is it merely that there is no lobby to push the rights of group marriage yet or is there a fundamental reason why it is harmful to a secular society?
It’s a strawman argument, Bob, and it’s not even a good strawman argument. If multiple partners want to marry, they will have to prove that case on its own merits. The idea that acknowledging that a certain portion of the population is biologically wired to find mates of the same sex and make secular law accordingly is somehow a “slippery slope” to anything else is ludicrous and beneath literate people.
So Bob, on what basis do you oppose polygamous marriages?
Bob– assuming you are asking the question sincerely, I will politely answer with other questions. Take my questions as a starting off place, and see if you can’t come up with the answers yourself.
If a man can marry a woman, why can’t a man marry three women?
If a man can marry a woman, why can’t he marry a girl of 10. She will be a woman, won’t she?
None of of the answers to these questions has the slightest thing to do with same sex marriage.
You also said this. “Is it merely that there is no lobby to push the rights of group marriage yet or is there a fundamental reason why it is harmful to a secular society?”
There is no such lobby, so that is true. Regarding the second: It is an assumption that it is harmful. It as yet unproven. But actually, since a good portion of the world is polygamous, it is in fact proven that it is not harmful, at least according to the religious practices that approve it, including Christianity as it is practiced in a good portion of Africa. However, since it’s always one man and as many women as he can support, you might want to ask the women how lovely it is. And since multiple marriages mean even more children in societies where families can least support them, that might not be so good either. and then, if women are a shortage, what about those men who can’t even get one wife? I can assure you they are not turning gay.
If same sex marriage is reality, all laws that say “two people” needn’t be changed. If polygamy is legal, every law dealing with contracts, marriage, family and child law, labor, will have to be rewritten. Example: if john marries sue who marries Fred, are John and Fred now married, even if they aren’t gay. what about John and Sue’s child? Is Fred now her father? Suppose Fred thinks John is a b***h, can he divorce just John, but stay married to Sue? What about Sue and John?
Here is a better way to look at it. Marriage is the simple, easily affordable means to create a family. Why do only heterosexuals have the right to create a family for $75? Why does my family cease to exists if we go to Arizona? what heterosexual would tolerate that? Why do the children of heterosexuals merit the legal protection that having married parents provides, but not the children on gay people do not?
Won’t no one think of the poor, innocent children? certainly not the right wing. they would rather see a child in an orphanage, than with two parents of the same sex, no matter how admirable as parents that they are.
Bob’s perspective is backward and hypocritical:
Truly “Biblical” heterosexual marriage encourages polygamy and incest. Has Bob even read the Bible? Hello???
If anything, marriage between two people of the sex defends marriage as a healthy two-person relationship in stark contrast to the anti-family immoralities of Lot and David.
Michael,
I’ve been listening to anti-gay preachers who would claim that ‘polygamy & incest’ were not ‘part of God’s plan’. They claim that Adam & Eve had some kinda marriage ceremony (yeah, right, try finding THAT in the bible!)& when they ‘sinned’ everything went to hell (so to speak). It was only in their ‘sin’ that mankind practiced polygamy & incest. I don’t buy that reasoning at all but in their homophobic, transphobic rants, that’s the best they can come up with.
David was supposedly a ‘man after God’s own heart’ or some such & he had hundreds of wives. Clearly sex is NOT a big deal to God. Too bad that ‘purity’ ‘anti-sex’ sellers can’t see that!
I think it was Solomon that had hundreds of wives.
As usual Bob makes a fallacious comment and then is unwilling to participate in the discussion that will demonstrate that.
I can see that I was misconstrued. I agree with Ted Olsen’s argument. Let’s not get into a long thread.
Evan, It was not meant as a stealth question to imply that Gay marriage is a “slippery slope” and will lead to polygamy. As Ben points out, there are already societies which allow a limited (unequal) form of polygamy- mostly in the Islamic world, about fifty counties. In fact, the U.K. recognizes Islamic multiple marriages for legal welfare purposes.
Priya, from the point of view of living in a secular state, I don’t know that I do oppose the concept of legality of polygamous marriages unless harm can be proved although the best known examples in the U.S. have been harmful cult like religious groups which tend to abuse minors.
Ben, I basically agree with what I think you meant in your
response.
Michael, you are reading into my question more than was there. It was simply a question of where the principles Judge Walker enshrined go in the future.
Anyway, from a legal perspective I don’t really care who marries who. I agree with Ted Olsen’s perspective and was just wondering how far that perspective will go.
One final point. The State governs only the legal aspects of a marriage but the larger issues of marriage, those aspects which go beyond legality are brought into the marriage by the participants whatever they may be (or not be) and whoever they are. Fortunately, the State does not define what marriage may mean beyond the civil aspects.
It is for this reason I would argue that legal Gay marriage is not a threat to any other kind of marriage.
Priya,
You gave up too soon. :)
“As usual Bob makes a fallacious comment and then is unwilling to participate in the discussion that will demonstrate that.”
Comment by Priya Lynn — August 10, 2010 @ 12:17 pm