Gay marriage and polygamy
A not-so-slippery slope
A growing majority of states have legalized same-sex marriage, overturned bans that argued that marriage could only be a bond between a male and a female, and upheld the rights granted by civil unions. In June 2013, the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which banned the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriage and left the issue of gay marriage to be decided by the people living in the 50 states of the country. The progressive decisions on the behalf of marriage equality are indicators of a higher prominence of tolerance in both American societal and political spheres. Seemingly in tandem with the increasing amount of states that allow same-sex couples to marry came a growing speculation. People began to ponder if the limits of marriage equality and tolerance could be exceeded to allow the reconsideration of another controversial marital concept--polygamy.
Rick Santorum, a once social-conservative Republican favorite for the 2012 presidency, cast a prediction that stated that the legalization of same-sex marriage would ultimately, even inevitably, lead to the legalization of polygamy. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision that deemed the section of Utah's state law, that prohibits polygamy, to be unconstitutional, Santorum fears that his prediction is coming true. In a country that mandates that punishment for polygamy be considered among the same sentences for murderers and rapists, is the fight for marriage equality leaning away from same-sex couples and stretching towards polygamous and polyamorous relationships? The answer to this polemical and attention-grabbing question lies within the specifics of the Supreme Court's decision and the ruling of Lawrence v. Texas.
Judging from a purely legal standpoint, the prospect of bigamy becoming legal in Utah, let alone nationwide is very dim. Furthermore, cases like Hollingsworth v Perry and United States v Windsor, the two same-sex marriage cases that decided the legal status of gay marriage in Utah, had no affect over the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling on Utah's polygamy law; in fact, the two cases were never even cited in the court's ruling. If there was such a case that seemingly lead to a higher preponderance of cases that tested and questioned the legal virtues of gay marriage and bigamy, it would be the 2003 ruling of Lawrence v. Texas; due to this ruling, Texas' anti-sodomy law was struck down and dismissed. This case crushed the previously widespread belief that ""[T]he good order and morals of society served as an acceptable basis for a legislature....[and that] criminal laws [could] enforce compliance with these values."" The outcome of Lawrence v. Texas was a newly accepted social norm that whatever is committed by two consenting adults in their bedroom...is their business. Furthermore, the Utah ruling did not break down the doors and announce bigamy to be legal--rather, it repudiated the branch of the anti-polygamy law that banned "religious cohabitation." According to the ruling, states cannot prevent married couples from living with others in ""personal relationship[s] that...would not be legally recognised as marriage.""
It is important to note that although they stemmed from the same intentions, the decision to eliminate religious cohabitation from Utah's state law did not directly ensue from the decision to nullify DOMA. Additionally, the ruling of Lawrence v. Texas and victories for the marriage equality movement, such as the rejection of California's Proposition 8, did not establish some constitutional right to have sexual conduct under whatever relational circumstances a person would like to engage in. On the contrary, the importance of the aforementioned incidents is that they worked to lessen the government's ability to regulate the sexual and relational conduct of the American people. As a fervent proponent of the marriage equality movement it is difficult to cope with the realization that, while I advocate for the freedom and happiness of same-sex couples, there are polygamous and polyamorous couples who have to fear both social and legal repercussions for simply being in those relationships. However, I dismiss the belief that legalizing same-sex marriage could possibly lead to something that the American government and proponents of anti-polygamy laws make out to be so horrible, that it would be deemed illegal.
Rick Santorum, a once social-conservative Republican favorite for the 2012 presidency, cast a prediction that stated that the legalization of same-sex marriage would ultimately, even inevitably, lead to the legalization of polygamy. In the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision that deemed the section of Utah's state law, that prohibits polygamy, to be unconstitutional, Santorum fears that his prediction is coming true. In a country that mandates that punishment for polygamy be considered among the same sentences for murderers and rapists, is the fight for marriage equality leaning away from same-sex couples and stretching towards polygamous and polyamorous relationships? The answer to this polemical and attention-grabbing question lies within the specifics of the Supreme Court's decision and the ruling of Lawrence v. Texas.
Judging from a purely legal standpoint, the prospect of bigamy becoming legal in Utah, let alone nationwide is very dim. Furthermore, cases like Hollingsworth v Perry and United States v Windsor, the two same-sex marriage cases that decided the legal status of gay marriage in Utah, had no affect over the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling on Utah's polygamy law; in fact, the two cases were never even cited in the court's ruling. If there was such a case that seemingly lead to a higher preponderance of cases that tested and questioned the legal virtues of gay marriage and bigamy, it would be the 2003 ruling of Lawrence v. Texas; due to this ruling, Texas' anti-sodomy law was struck down and dismissed. This case crushed the previously widespread belief that ""[T]he good order and morals of society served as an acceptable basis for a legislature....[and that] criminal laws [could] enforce compliance with these values."" The outcome of Lawrence v. Texas was a newly accepted social norm that whatever is committed by two consenting adults in their bedroom...is their business. Furthermore, the Utah ruling did not break down the doors and announce bigamy to be legal--rather, it repudiated the branch of the anti-polygamy law that banned "religious cohabitation." According to the ruling, states cannot prevent married couples from living with others in ""personal relationship[s] that...would not be legally recognised as marriage.""
It is important to note that although they stemmed from the same intentions, the decision to eliminate religious cohabitation from Utah's state law did not directly ensue from the decision to nullify DOMA. Additionally, the ruling of Lawrence v. Texas and victories for the marriage equality movement, such as the rejection of California's Proposition 8, did not establish some constitutional right to have sexual conduct under whatever relational circumstances a person would like to engage in. On the contrary, the importance of the aforementioned incidents is that they worked to lessen the government's ability to regulate the sexual and relational conduct of the American people. As a fervent proponent of the marriage equality movement it is difficult to cope with the realization that, while I advocate for the freedom and happiness of same-sex couples, there are polygamous and polyamorous couples who have to fear both social and legal repercussions for simply being in those relationships. However, I dismiss the belief that legalizing same-sex marriage could possibly lead to something that the American government and proponents of anti-polygamy laws make out to be so horrible, that it would be deemed illegal.