Thursday, July 2, 2015

From the "'Slippery Slope'? What 'Slippery Slope'?" file

This, my pal Justin Brink tells me, can also fit in the "Never Saw This Coming" and "Tolja So" files. From the Associated Press (via The Blaze):

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man has applied for a marriage license so he can legally wed his second wife.

Nathan Collier of Billings said Wednesday that last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage inspired him to try to force the acceptance of polygamous marriages.

He says he’ll sue the state if his application is rejected.

Collier says Yellowstone County Courthouse officials initially denied the application Tuesday. When he told officials he planned to sue, they said they would consult with the county attorney before giving him a final answer.

Collier married his first wife, Victoria, in 2000. He and his second wife, Christine, had a religious wedding ceremony in 2007 but didn’t sign a marriage license.

The trio recently has appeared on the reality cable television show “Sister Wives.”

Now, the majority opinion in Obergefell (see The Other Blog for my take on it) leaves no clue or potential rationale as to why marriage must be restricted to two people, or two (unrelated) adults, or two humans, or even two living beings ("What have you got against animal-mineral relationships, you hater!?"). Once you casually dismiss the relevance of reproduction and complementarity to marriage, any number of absurdities become possible. Hey, it's all about LOVE, right? Why should we hold back on polyamorous couples? Isn't it wrong to deny them their dignity, which is only conferred by law ... at least, according to SCOTUS?

Doubtless the Court will wait until it feels the national debate has progressed far enough for their enlightened sensibilities to come to a "better informed understanding", so they can impose a solution upon the rest of us. Yes, folks, Anthony Kennedy's text really does assert, in many ways, the supremacy of the Court's moral insight. And you know what? The bulk of the American people are more or less content to let them think so, at least when we like the decision. When we don't, they're just a bunch of old, white, Catholic men. This is not just bitterness talking; it's cold-blooded realism.

Now, it is possible that the Court would rule against polygamous marriages; the rationale would be in the interests of protecting women's equality. Even polyandrous societies tend to give the bulk of the social power to men; a wife to multiple men in such societies isn't much more than a shared sex slave (but if it's her choice, what's wrong with that? he asked sardonically). However, the rationale wouldn't hold where the three or more people wishing to marry were all of the same sex. Besides, you're only a woman/man/neutrois/whatever if you think you are. So ....

Sorry, William Saletan, you're full of crap. You have a very selective memory, and are apparently tone-deaf when it comes to cognitive dissonance. The only thing that can stop polygamy from becoming a Constitutional right is a string of SCOTUS appointees who are confirmed and also committed to judicial restraint. Good luck with that.

Semper Fi. Carry on.