You are here: Home » Featured » Fundamentalists Have A New Argument About The Constitutionality Of Marriage Equality- Polygamy Was Banned!

Fundamentalists Have A New Argument About The Constitutionality Of Marriage Equality- Polygamy Was Banned!

07/12/10-by Bridgette P. LaVictoire

“In a rare double-whammy decision, the Court hereby rules that polygamy is Constitutional,” Chief Justice Myrtle Foo.

“I can’t wait to tell my husband!” Old Man Waterfall.

Apparently, the Alliance Defense Fund and the National Organization for Marriage have found a strong argument to push back against the recent decision by a Boston federal judge with regards to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act. Their fool proof argument is that marriage between a man and a woman is required for a state to be a state!

According to the ADF lawyer Brian Raum:

“Marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman by the federal government,” continued Raum. “In fact, it was a condition of statehood that marriage be defined as one man and one woman during the polygamy battle in the 19th Century. ADF will continue to defend marriage at the state and federal level.” (Emphasis theirs.)

Focus on the Family picked up the message with “The federal government settled the issue of marriage in the late 19th century when it refused to recognize polygamy as a condition of statehood.”

The National Organization for Marriage also crowed their victory over this “The simple fact is that the right of the federal government to define marriage for the purposes of its federal law and federal territories has been clear since the late 19th century, when Congress banned polygamy.”

Cal Thomas, one of the earliest voices of whole Conservative movement he is now desperately trying to catch back up to. He stated

“In 1878, the Supreme Court declared in Reynolds v. United States that polygamy was not protected by the Constitution.

If the federal government could reject polygamy then as a means of promoting the general welfare, why can’t it block attempts to redefine marriage now? If marriage is redefined by courts, what is to stop anyone from declaring a ‘right’ to any relationship they wish to enter and demanding ‘equal protection’ under the Constitution?”

But, like a hyper chicken, perhaps they should feel ashamed for their decision to pull these ancient laws into the argument. Of course, given that they are trying very hard to bring much more ancient laws into the daily lives of people, perhaps it is not so surprising. There is a risk with this argument, of course. What happens if they get up before the Supreme Court and they say “not only do we find same-sex marriage legal, but we find polyamorous marriages to be legal as well!” Um. . .oh crap. This constant conflation of same-sex marriage with polygamy/polyandry/polyamory creates some problems for the “traditional marriage” groups such as NOM, ADF and FotF. What happens if, when same-sex marriages are legal, people stop being afraid of polygamy.

Muslims and Mormons might end up having more than one wife!

The Federal Government did, indeed, ban bigamy back in 1862, but there was a perfectly good reason for that. It was done to prevent Utah from becoming a state. The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law of 1862 was designed to prevent the Mormon heavy state from gaining entrance into the Union until such time as they removed polygamy from their state constitution. The law punished and prevented the practice of polygamy in the Territories of the US, it was punishable by $500 and up to five years in jail, and nullified all laws pertaining polygamy and spiritual marriage.

Additionally, the Reynolds v. the United States in 1879 and the Edmunds Act of 1882 were also intended to force polygamy into the states. The Reynolds decision stated that polygamy could not be protected as a religious right. What this all means is that states could not become states by practice- not by law- unless they excluded bigamy. This did not, however, define marriage as ‘one man, one woman.’

Perhaps that is what the Mormon fueled push against same-sex marriage is all about. Perhaps they have been planning to get all the way up to the Supreme Court and argue that same-sex marriage is illegal based upon these old laws and, maybe, just maybe, get polygamy/polyandry/polyamory legalized!

Perhaps I could then found that lesbian coven I’ve always wanted since I first heard about it on Futurama. Well, that is if these guys get to join the suit at this point. If Obama appeals it and continues his current job of not really arguing this full out, they may end up crying instead of crowing.