Well that didn’t take long: Utah bigamy law to be challenged.

BigamistsNow that so many places are enshrining into their laws a definition for the word “marriage” that bears no resemblance to what the institution of marriage actually is, an openly bigamist “family” who fled Utah is challenging Utah’s laws against bigamy.

And, if Adam and Steve can get married, then there is no logical argument against Adam and Eve, Betty, Patty, Jane, and Suzy. Or Adam and Steve and Betty and Jane and Bill and Patty and Jim and Suzy and Leo.

So while all they seek at present is a decriminalization of bigamy, the logical progression will take us toward the actual enshrinement in law of bigamist “marriages” and then why not polyamorist “marriages”?

Some will scream that bigamy and polyamory are not the same as the monogamous same-sex relationships, which is true by definition, but the legal argument is the same: my relationships are my business and there is no reason why my relationships as I deem them appropriate should not be recognized by the state as “marriages” with all rights and benefits accruing thereto.

Yes, yes, I’m being “intolerant.” But while you’re hurling the ad hominems, how ’bout an actual argument. Because if you don’t have an argument, then your response is illogical.



  • http://www.easyrest.com/ Alexz Ross

    Marriage is one of the best part of our life

  • Adam

    This is not that hard to argue. Monogamy is preferrable because the boundaries of the relationshishp are clear. Two spouses give themselves to each other and split their assetsbe tween each other. Polygamy is a nightmare for the state because it is not clear who is married to who and it s not clear how to split the assets once someone dies or leaves the relationship.

    That is a short version of my argument, but it is certainly reasonable and does not involve an ad hominem.

    • Greg Smith

      Dear all ~ One of the benefits of these forums is that we can pool our experiences and help get what is called the “ground truth” of an issue. let me ask that we focus on what our experices with non-tradtional relationships has been. I know and know of a great number of gay and lesbian couples. Mainly, but not exclusively because I live in San Francisco. Most of them seem to live the same lifestyle as my wife and I or other hetrosexual couples. Some, have dysfunctional relationships but most seem relatively happy. I don’t know, or know of any multiple “marriages.” Perhaps if I lived in rural Utah I would. It would be helpful if the Toms, Truthful MD, Petersen, Bruce et. al could see thier way clear to share thier personal relationships with gay and lesbian people and especially with gay and lesbian couples. ~ Pax vobiscum, Greg

      • Truthful MD

        I treat many warm, wonderful people who have active homosexual lifestyles, some in couples some not. Unfortunately every one of the same-sex couples I have known over the years has ended unhappily, six with one member committing suicide, two with domestic abuse of a serious nature. This is not to say that my heterosexual couple patients do not also have their issues, but I was struck by the sheer PERCENTAGE of the same sex couples who were unhappy, and didn’t think it was fair for them to be so overwhelmingly represented by breakups, but whoever said life was fair, anyway? Sure, I know lots of divorced and separated and abused spouses among the heterosexual community, but maybe I’m just unusual in that all of my homosexual couple friends have such bad luck. So again, to reiterate–this is just my own experience, of course, but that’s what you asked for.

        Additionally, I have many single same sex patients whom I counsel regarding their lifestyle as a risk factor, and who obviously do not think I am a bigot or hateful–in fact, many of them refer their friends to me–one man, whom I’ll call GG said he appreciated that I “told it like it was” and did not treat him any differently than anyone else. He is witty, handsome, and takes lots of risks,(and he tells me all his friends do, too), which we assess at each visit. I have also had to hold the hand of patients in the hosptial who were dying of AIDS, whom I’d known for years and grew to care about very very much, and feel the same sorrow that I feel when my smoking patients die horrible slow deaths from lung cancer. I have also had three, yes, THREE wonderful, bright young physicians commit suicide (only one in the relationships noted above), in spite of being well liked, well respected in their jobs, friends, community. The politically correct response of the medical folks was, “there was nothing we could do–it was society’s fault.” No, it was our fault for not reaching out to them and acknowledging their risk, assuming instead that just by paying lip service to “normalcy” we could somehow erase their pain and that since they were respected and well liked, they had no pain at all.

        That, dear Greg, is simply not right. Peace to you, as well.

  • Victoria Dreksler

    I am a human being. I make judgements all the time. is this wrong or right, should I do this or that. My human nature allows me to make a judgement if something goes against human nature. As a human being, I can’t condem a person, that is up to God, but I can make a judgement that nature it’self tells us is abnormal.

    • Truthful MD

      This is correct, Victoria. Society may say what it wants about same sex marriage, but the laws of human physiology dictate otherwise. Of course people do a lot of things that are not good for them, but we don’t celebrate these things or make them protected entities. Smokers are still able to do so legally, but it is being restricted in many areas. I’ve noted multiple times that in the last few years medical data has repeatedly shown that the healthiest behavior is heterosexual marriage–from a brain chemistry standpoint, as well as a chronic disease standpoint, and general longevity standpoint. We are legislating meal choices in the schools in the name of health promotion–we no longer allow soda machines and pastry vending in schools because it’s not as healthy as other choices. Why is it so hard to see that by virtue of their harm to each individual’s health, and by extension their harm to society, that advocating marriage choices other than one-man/one-woman is a poor choice indeed. It doesnt’ even matter if you are Catholic, Buddhist, atheist, or whatever–it’s a bad idea.

      I suppose a third grader’s Twix bars are considered more dangerous than altered brain chemistry, lowered immune systems, decreased longevity–all of which are associated with marriage choices other than heterosexual marriage.

      • petersen

        Truthful MD, seems an inaccurate name. The studies showing that gay men have shorter lifespans was a based on a long ago debunked study that was a fraud. The AMA finds that gay men have the same life expectancy of the society as a whole. Numerous studies have shown that lesbians are the least likely people to contract an STD, in fact almost half as likely as heterosexual couples and have much longer lifespans. The studies showing that married people are happier compared unmarried groups to singles. Most researchers have shown similar benefits of marriage apply to gay and lesbian couples. Those that are married report being happier and healthier than unmarried couples. Additionally, denying marriage to gay and lesbians doesn’t prevent them from shacking up together or having gay sex. It certainly doesn’t stop them from being promiscuous or having multiple sex partners. It seems that society would benefit if gay and lesbian couples were permitted to marry as they would be more likely to be monogamous and committed to one other person, which would, according to your argument, increase their life expectancy. So in your effort to defame gay and lesbian people, you just made the argument for them to get married!

        • Truthful MD

          I am not trying to defame anyone. Also,the “AMA” is not an organization that does any studies at all, they make policy statements–your post is not correct.

          Please see following references:
          Katheryn Fethers, “Sexually Transmitted Infections and Risk Behaviors in women who have sex with Women,” in the journal Sexually Transmitted Disease, vol 76 October 2000. Also see many releases of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, which acknowledges increased health risks for LGBT men and women.
          I think the study you are referring to was from 1997, which is not what I am referencing at all, but since you brought it up, it was from a Canadian group over 20 years ago. Interestingly Canadian LGBT activist groups in 2009 sued the Canadian Human Rights Commission because LGBT groups were not getting increased health care expenditures to care for health issues that the LGBT community recognized were epidemic among their members when compared to the general population, including HIV/AIDs, breast cancer, cervical cancer,depression and other issues that the LGBT group themselves identified as resulting from their chosen lifestyle. Regarding male gay marriage, which I presume would qualify as a “serious relationship”—-See news release from the CDC June 2011 “For Gay Men, Serious Relationships Still Harbor Risks for HIV Odds of transmitting the virus are 6 times that of men engaging in more casual sex, study finds.” http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory.aspx?docID=653572
          There are more, of course. THe last one was directly from the CDC–if you have a newer one from a more reliable agency, that would be welcome.
          I actually care for all people, regardless of their lifestyles, creed,etc. I deal daily with the suffering that results from choices of behavior, be it smoking, drinking, driving without a seatbelt, or engaging in risky sexual behavior. I do not put the lives and health of my patients at risk by denying them crucial information about the results of their lifestyle choices in regards to their health. To do so would be immoral and unethical. I also do not judge patients and do not live their lives for them–they need to make their own choices, and I will continue to treat them regardless of these choices, but we both must understand the consequences of the choices.

  • zach bowman
    • http://twitter.com/tomcrowe Tom Crowe

      Hey Zach Bowman. Check out the very last line in that HuffPo article: “Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post belong solely to the author and are not representative of the Orthodox Church.” … That man is so ignorant of Catholic thought, especially that of Aquinas, with regard to the relationship between divine law and natural law on the one hand, and the laws of man on the other. The latter is to be informed by the former if the latter is to have any real meaning and any substance undergirding it at all. That’s classic Western Christian ethical philosophy. And his notion of marriage as it has developed in the West is also tremendously flawed. The Eucharist is a miracle, but it is effected by specific actions of a specific priest acting according to a specific ritual and ceremony—as it is with marriages. The exchange of vows between the man and woman join them in a way beyond our comprehension, and the exchange of vows is witnessed and blessed by the Church for purposes of propriety and sanctification of the sacred event. But to say “never the two should meet” very much misses a whole heckuva lot of Christian sacramental and ethical thought.

    • John

      Dr. Dunn appears to me to have the best of intentions, but only a poor comprehension of appropriate Church/State relationships. Essentially, he’s trying to make believe that the State can allow for any kind of marriage it might wish, while the Church may be more selective.
      Unfortunately for Dr. Dunn, gay “marriage” has NOT been something merely allowed for by the State, something that two men or two women do with the Justice of the Peace. Advocates have, in fact, caused schools in various places to offer “education” regarding the “virtue” of gay marriage; children are literally REQUIRED to learn this material.
      Funny how the gay rights community is so “enlightened”
      that they can’t stand to set their proposals up for an honest vote.

  • TDPelletier

    To my knowledge, marriage is the lifelong partnership of the whole life, of mutual and exclusive fidelity, established by mutual consent between one male human and one female human, ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation of offspring. (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no 1601 – Libreria Editrice Vaticana and USCCB).

    When any part of this statement is challenged, we get troubles in our personnal life and in our social life.

    Take away the “lifelong” notion, and you get divorce.

    Take away the “exclusive” notion, and you get cheating and adultery.

    Take away the “male-female” notion, and you get homosexuality.

    Take away the “one” notion, and you get bigamy or polygamy.

    Take away the “ordered to the procreation of children” notion, and you get the contraceptive mentality and sometimes abortion.

    Take away the “human” notion, and you get bestiality.

    Take away the “good of the spouses”, and you get domestic violence.

    Unfortunately, a good plan such as marriage can go wrong in many ways.

    Fortunately, God’s mercy and forgiveness is a cure to them all.

    • petersen

      So we should ban divorce and only allow fertile couples to get married. I guess I missed all the rancor from the Church demanding that the civil laws do that. I’m also a little perplexed as to why the Church granted my mother three annulments (she’s now on her 4th marriage – all of which occurred in the church by a priest) after she paid the annulment “fee”. Seems a little hypocritical, no?



Receive our updates via email.