Being of the school that hears the word polygamy and forthwith tires, imagining a competitive household in which it is revealed that under pressure at least one adult participant is nuts, I have never engaged in a discussion of multiple spousing. And as a lawyer, I have never understood how an argument for polygamy as constitutionally protected could be made. After all, there is no equal protection argument to be had. But Kennedy’s loosy-goosy “due process” argument in the SSM case has perhaps opened a door a crack that could have remained slammed shut. Certainly, Justice Roberts thought so.
So when I stumbled across this article in The Economist, I read it with interest and decided to share it here.
I was struck by the author’s notion that it is libertarians who are actually pushing polygamy, and apparently liberals who oppose it. I thought everybody opposed polygamy except some folks in Utah who have TV reality shows.
I felt vindicated by his citations of studies of the damage one can expect from polygamy, because they seem evident to me.
Nevertheless, I wonder what it will mean to say there is no right to polygamy, while never prosecuting cases and failing to remove children absent reported repeated physical abuse. See:
Frankly, that case was awful. But that is what it has taken to enforce laws against polygamy in America.
Given three choices – recognizing polygamy, or banning polygamy with enforcement, or without enforcement – what do you think?
Filed under: Open Thread |