Normalized Polygamy
By dpayton Posted in User Blogs — Comments (10) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Behold, the slippery slope in action. (Hat tip to The Brussels Journal.)
The Netherlands and Belgium were the first countries to give full marriage rights to homosexuals. In the United States some politicians propose "civil unions" that give homosexual couples the full benefits and responsibilities of marriage. These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
Meanwhile in the Netherlands polygamy has been legalised in all but name. Last Friday the first civil union of three partners was registered. Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal "married" both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.
Yes, I understand that "slippery slope" arguments can be ... slippery. It's easy to make them, but harder to prove that they're happening. Well, this story is that proof. First same-sex marriage, then civil unions, and from civil unions you can go literally anywhere. Quoth the groom:
Victor: "A marriage between three persons is not possible in the Netherlands, but a civil union is. We went to the notary in our marriage costume and exchanged rings. We consider this to be just an ordinary marriage."
Next stop, normalized polygamy. That's not some dire prediction. That's what is happening and will happen if we don't hold the line somewhere. I've heard those who suggest that they're for same-sex marriage but not anything further. But this story proves that, having opened the door a crack to let in just one person, a whole multitude stands ready to take advantage of the breach. You can call those who wanted the door to stay closed all sorts of names--prudish, intolerant, homophobic, narrow-minded--but regardless of how accurate or inaccurate those names are, when it comes down to what was predicted would happen, you can also call them "correct".
Will that change the minds of those pushing for civil unions here? For most, I have my doubts, although I have no doubt that they'll be shocked--SHOCKED--when the first trio get married here. "I had no idea" will be no excuse.
But, perhaps, an important one.
No, because we can easily define a civil union as being between partners only
A significant part of conservative objection to gay marriage/civil union is not the "what", but the "how". I.e., not that gay marriage etc has been legalized, but that it has been done by judicial action based on a claim of a right to marriage.
If the basis for extending the status of marriage to gays etc. is the will of the people as expressed through their legislature, what you have said will hold. Assuming, naturally, that that is what the majority of folks want.
If the basis for extending the status of marriage to gays etc. is the assertion of a fundamental right to marriage, the statement you have made can be challenged on the grounds that refusing to recognize the marital status of polygamists amounts to denying them that right in defiance of Constitutional protections.
I guess I should have looked at the diaries before I posted in the open thread this AM.
I'll be back later.
you will see that I am already on the page you establish with several paragraphs above. Of course brand new institutions like civil unions should be established by legislative action not by judicial fiat! But if it's done that way I fail to see how it feeds into support for polygamy.
I can take a date to my own wedding! Any of you ladies out there looking for a hubby? wink, wink
The only point I was raising is that the judicial path, as opposed to the legislative one, can be achieved without popular support.
Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes it isn't. I think it depends on what things are considered to be protected rights.
to current laws beiung ruled unconstitutional (in principle that is). But I do think it's illegitimate from the get-go for judges to demand that legislatures create brand new laws, whether for civil unions (which I strongly support) or anything else.
As a true conservative, I am surprised to see conservatives turn to big government on marriage. "Anti-Polygamy is the Real 'Slippery Slope'" that led to same sex marriage, say polygamists. It makes you think. Why have conservatives these days turned into big government liberals on the marriage issue?
No slippery slope here.
You have been victimized by the conservative Brussels Journal. The three didn't enter into a civil union; they in fact entered into a legal relationship that predates the civil union laws in the Netherlands.
Most, if not all, civil union statutes prohibit more than two people entering into a civil union. This statute does not apparently bar such an arrangment, but it's not a civil union.
Re: These civil unions differ from marriage only in name.
No, Marriage is a great deal more than just a piece of paper from the government.
Re:Will that change the minds of those pushing for civil unions here?
No, because we can easily define a civil union as being between partners only. After all, by your logic the fact that we allow heterosexuals couples to marry could lead to the slippery slope of heterosexual polygamy too. Moreover as long as civil unions (with explicit restriction to couples) are enacted by the legislature not imposed by the judiciary no precedent is created that could result in judicially-imposed polygamy.