In my first link, I'll link to R. Alex Whitlock, who claims he's running out of blogfodder and then goes on to have an extremely productive day, as part of which he posts on polygamy and the slippery-slope argument:
What Volokh doesn't address, which I find pertinent, is the particular way that homosexual unions are poised to become legal: the courts. With little or no Constitutional mandate (I'm in favor of gay marriage and I see none) some courts have come to the conclusion that the Constitution ought to say that gays have the same rights as straights (which it does not). It therefore takes a standard legal mechanism (marriage) and applies Constitutional mandates to it. A Constitutional case could be made that anti-polygamy laws are discriminatory on religious descrimination grounds. It's a stretch, but the bands have already been stretched by the court dictates on gay marriage.
I think that's the way it will go, when it does. And it will. For what it's worth, both from personal knowledge of members of both groups and from listening to advocates for both groups put forth their case, I support legalization of polygamy more than I support legalization of homosexual unions.
In some ways, I take my initiative from the Church: while both are seen as going against God's will, one is overabundance while the other is misdirection. It has often been the practice, when accepting polygamous converts, to maintain that relationship while making it clear that no new ones will be tolerated (or which wife will you cast out? which children will you declare illegitimate?); similarly, married Anglican priests may currently be received into the Roman Catholic Church, although priests received while single are held to subsequent celibacy (a practice with which I disagree, but that's a topic for another day). It has, on the other hand, not been official practice (although it has happened) to accept the continuance of any misdirections.
I have drawn my opinions from non-ecclesiastical sources as well. As is quoted in R. Alex's post, polygamous communities are more conservative in general, as well as more religious. In my own experience, I've been much more distressed by the worldview (sexual, political, religious) of many (by no means all) of my homosexually-inclined friends than by that of many (ditto) of my polygamously-raised ones. The "polyamorous" (or bisexual) people I've known have perhaps more distressing worldviews than the homosexual ones, but I do tend to take their part in arguments for argument's sake, because they're fun from a logical standpoint (and, from a legal one, end up rather in the polygamous camp, but making the alliances more like a spiderweb than a starburst).
Recent Comments