Sean Trende presents an argument for why the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges legalizing same sex marriage is unlikely to lead to the legalization of polygamy, the abolition of age of consent laws, or any of the other things that lawsuits have already been filed to secure:
Melissa Etheridge came out in 1993. Ellen DeGeneres came out in 1997. A slew of celebrities followed: The “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy†folk, Anderson Cooper, Portia de Rossi, Suze Orman, Neil Patrick Harris, just to name a few off the top of my head. These celebrities didn’t comport with the preconceived notions of what a gay person “ought†to look or act like for many Americans. This “de-otherizing†of gays, I think, was one of the keys to public acceptance of homosexuality resuming its upward march in the 1990s.
There have been attempts to create a similar conception of polygamists, most famously with the popular show “Sister Wives.†But even they are associated with a religious group that most Americans are unlikely to associate with. Scandals such as the one involving Warren Jeffs have only reinforced the idea that polygamy is something that “others†do.
Perhaps celebrities will begin to take on multiple spouses in the next few decades. If that happens – if Brad Pitt had been happy to stay with Jennifer Aniston but just wanted to add Angelina Jolie to the club – things could change. But for now, it seems unlikely that a spate of relatable polygamists will emerge into the mainstream culture in the next few years. That remains a crucial distinction.
I remain unconvinced. I think there may be something akin to the “Feiler Faster Thesis” at work. The greater the social change the greater the push to even greater social change, arrived at with even less ability to adapt to it.
Forty years between the the same sex marriage court case and turning it into a right. Could be forty months for the next major social change. That’s probably the greatest problem with Justice Kennedy’s opinion. Basing his decision on an imagined “dignity of marriage” argument opens a door for a lot of other things that was closed before. I mean, you’ve to be pretty nasty to be against dignity, right?
Don’t think so. Lots of us know gays who have been negatively affected by not being able to marry. Just by the nature of what I do I have seen it a number of times over the years. Lots of us know gays or have them in the family. Not many of us know polygamists. I don’t know know any, nor do I know anyone who does, polygamists who have suffered from not being able to have a poly marriage. The state has no compelling interest in it. Could that all change? I guess, but we had over 50 years from the Civil Rights Act until gay marriage was legalized. I expect that kind of timetable, if it happens at all.
Steve
I mean, you’ve to be pretty nasty to be against dignity, right?
Depends entirely on who is defining what “dignity” means.
Polygamy will come from Muslim & African immigrants suing for the right to bring their own cultural practices here.
That’s exactly right, ellipsis. And as soon as you need to extend the dignity of marriage to people from MENA living here who in their own eyes are already married, it’s extended to people who aren’t from MENA.
Although I drifted into dreamworld at the thought of Jennifer Aniston AND Angelina……….now imagine Kate Upton. Remember the ice water scene from Raging Bull? A silver lining in all policy.
But I digress. I was thinking exactly what ice wrote when I saw his comment. Advocates will find willing accomplices, all the better that some may have the “imprimatur” of personal cultural norms, and off to court you go. The observations of time and rarity made in the first comment miss the point. That matters not to advocates, zealots really, who operate to different objectives. I assume that is why Dave focused on the problematic nature of Kennedy’s argument.
Yep. Who is not deserving of dignity?
Re: “Yep. Who is not deserving of dignity?”
Those not deserving of dignity are the singles and childfree, apparently. While gays are now entitled to feed at the gummint benefit and privilege trough for married couples, singles are still excluded.
Excluded from the 1000+ benefits in tax, inheritance, visitation, insurance and immigration benefits accorded married couples are such singles as:
1. Grandmother and grandkids she is raising.
2. Two aged sisters struggling to take care of each other.
3. Two cohabiting friends.
4. Single parent and kids he is raising.
5. Any common-law couple, one of whom has no Green Card.
Jimbino, you forgot to mention the marriage penalty. The gummint gives with one hand and takes with the other. Marriage has costs and consequences, which is why I don’t think people will fake it to get hypothetical benefits.