Gordon Smith, Gay Marriage, and Polygamy
Would someone please try and help me translate this bizarre statement by Gordon Smith?
It seems that earlier this week he was at a gay-rights panel discussion at the Center for American Progress. He seemed to understand that he shouldn't be speaking his mind - "My campaign people will kill me for saying this" - but managed to equate gay marriage and polygamy.
And I think he might have defended polygamy. At least, maybe, a state's right to define marriage to include legal polygamy and gay marriage. Or maybe not.
The video comes from Talking Points Memo, where Eric Kleefeld calls it "one of the strangest things we've seen in some time."
He's got that right.
And for the record, Senator, those of us who support gay marriage aren't automatically pro-polygamy. It's really, really simple to define marriage: Two consenting adults.
Duh.
|
June 13, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (83 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 13, 2008 2:36:11 PM
Here's the moral difference between gay marriage and polygamy: people are born gay. For whatever reason, gays end up not being attracted to members of the opposite sex, and are attracted to members of their own sex. It likely has to do with fetal development, but it is quite common in the animal kingdom. Homo Sapiens Sapiens is hardly the only species which has a (apparently biologically fixed) percentage of its population being homosexual.
Polygamy, on the other hand, is to put it conservative values voters' terms, a "lifestyle choice". People decide to be bigamists. They don't decide to be gay. It's really as simple as that.
And I really don't think I need to go into the exploitive nature of the polygamist lifestyle, other than to blandly note that females are so disinclined to it, it is nearly always imposed by males through pedophiliatory sexual predation along with threats of violence.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 2:37:18 PM
Ok, points he makes:
1. He's OK with Oregon's domestic partnerships (which confer the same rights and responsibilities as marriages at the state level).
2. He wants marriage equality or inequality to be decided at the state level "democratically," not at the federal judicial level.
4. There's a long history of defining marriage in America.
5. Mormons historically have been the victims of that.
6. Mormons were literally driven from the United States in the dead of winter, [for?] following their religious beliefs.
7. Smith does not want that to come back.
8. There are some on newspaper front pages who are trying to now.
9. When you tinker with the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage...
10. Marriage is defined by religion but accommodated by the state.
11. The implications are broader than just the gay and lesbian community.
12. Smith is trying to do all he can without creating a much bigger problem.
I'll try to analyze this later.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 13, 2008 2:42:31 PM
I think calling polygamy immoral as a truism is off base. Children are out of bounds, but they are in single marriage as well. (I mean 12 to 14 or younger; some states still find 15 old enough I think.) And clearly forced polygamy under cult-style circumstances are bad news. But many people happily practice cohabitational polyamory. Oregon is actually a state with a lot of them,
I understand. It's emotionally tricky for sure, but what's fundamentally immoral about consenting relationships of more than two people?
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 2:46:58 PM
I'm not sure who Smith is saying is trying to define marriage. Is it the gays, who are trying to "tinker" with the one-man-one-woman definition of marriage? Or is it conservatives, who are more commonly referred to as "defining" marriage (as between a man and a woman)?
I think point 10 makes it seem like he's talking about the gay community AND anti-gay conservatives, both of whom are trying to get the government to define marriage the way they want. But since many religious institutions currently marry same-sex couples, and he says the state should just accommodate whatever religions decide, that would seem to indicate support for state recognition of gay marriage. However, that is not his position. Perhaps he's thinking that religions by and large have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, so the state should just go with that.
Regardless, I think a follow-up is warranted.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 13, 2008 2:54:47 PM
He's just being a gynormous, concern troll with an ounce of pander. He voted for the constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality, for starters. Then he notes how people of his own Mormon faith have been persecuted for trying to define marriage away from "one man, one woman." So, he in deep concern says, we need to be careful to not redefine marriage so people in the LGTBQ community and their allies do not suffer similar discrimination.
Give me a break!
First, discrimination is not okay, and that's the whole point behind marriage equality. I'm glad he's supportive of Oregon's domestic partnerships, but that doesn't account for his atrocious federal votes. Secondly, his concern is so damn hollow and strange that it's simply puzzling.
At least you know that any time a guy like him says "my campaign team would kill me for this," make sure you perk your ears up!
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 2:57:10 PM
Also, what's this about Mormons being driven from the United States? Did he mean across the United States? I know there was a mass migration west out of New York, with Utah being the most well-known outpost (others were in Ohio, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa, New Mexico, etc.). I mean, obviously the religion has spread beyond the United States, and clearly Mormons are ridiculed by many, but I've never thought of it as Mormons being driven out of the United States.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 13, 2008 2:57:46 PM
Setting aside for a moment any moral debate about polygamy, there is an important structural difference which makes it outside the scope of discussing who can or cannot marry in a two-person marriage. It just doesn't logically follow that opening marriage to same-sex partners begins a slippery-slope journey to polygamy.
The reason is structural: In a 2-person marriage, the rules are clear as to who gets to make decisions if the partner is incapacitated, the rules are clear who gets property after a death, the rules are established (if a bit less clear) how to divide that partnership in a divorce.
Broadening marriage to include same-sex couples requires no changes to those already-defined structures and procedures whatsoever.
This is not to say that polygamy can't be set up with clear rules of succession, care, etc., or that it shouldn't be, but there is no way that it can cleanly fit in to the current structures. Everything would have to be rewritten and would have to include a variety of means for multiple partners to have an equal and appropriate say in the legal construction of their relationships.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 13, 2008 2:59:18 PM
He meant they were persecuted and seemingly banished from somewhere for trying to redefine marriage away from standard Christian one/one stuff... so his forebears are no different from those who are persecuted today for trying to fight for marriage equality. So he feels our pain. Suuuuure.
Posted by: Steve Maurer | Jun 13, 2008 3:01:20 PM
Yeah, yeah. Free love and all that, especially among 20 somethings with no children are involved. But we're not talking about the indie rock scene. We're talking about legal contracts, and the presumption of informed consent.
Fundamentally, there are powerful biological reasons why when women settle down, they prefer to settle down with a single reliable partner - as opposed to sharing one. So to get them to do otherwise, nearly always involves some sort of psychological and/or fear-based control.
Again, I'm not for police kicking down the door of every guy who has dreamed of a threesome. (Cops would have to start by kicking their own down.) But when you start talking about giving legal sanction to the kinds of cults that practice polygamy, you're removing one of the only tools in the law enforcement arsenal to stop the kinds of abuses that go on there.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 13, 2008 3:04:17 PM
exactly right bob--I didn't mean to suggest the state has no compelling interest not to license polygamy, but there are legal reasons just as you describe. And it is the lack of those complications that distinguishes same sex marriage from polygamy. Moral grounds for prohibiting it are much dicier. (polygamy OR gay, really)..
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 13, 2008 3:10:52 PM
legal contracts have little to do with morality, Mr. Silent Majority. What is the research basis for claiming a biological imperative for women to have one partner, and what aberrance links those polyandrous cultures that have existed during man's history?
I find no daylight between your rejection of a love relationship between three or more adults, and the rejection of it between two of the same sex. They both appear to rely on personal animus, the way you derisively describe it.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 3:10:59 PM
TJ, what concerns me about polygamy is the unequal power dynamic. Even outside of an oppressive religious environment that subjugates women (and this is pretty hypothetical, considering the realities of polygamy), a man with multiple wives has an unequal share of power in the relationship. He can decide who is added, kept, or expelled. The only choice a woman fundamentally has is to stay or go herself, but not who else is in the relationship.
Now, I know there are some polyamorous relationships with multiple men and women, and there's same-sex polyamory as well, often with internal democratic systems of making decisions, but as Steve said, these are lifestyle choices rather than inherent to who people are. If the state could come up with some way to accommodate polyamorous relationships with equal power-sharing arrangements, I suppose I would be open to that, but I don't see how you could really enforce that. It would seem like traditional polygamous relationships with men as the "boss" would still be more common.
And all of this is so theoretical and academic at this point, though, that I'm not really interested in thinking about it too much.
Posted by: Bob R. | Jun 13, 2008 3:13:03 PM
Thanks, Joe... Actually I didn't take your comment in any negative way regarding compelling interest. No worries. (And I have known a few families who have done, or are doing, the polyamorous dance in Oregon.)
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 3:13:43 PM
It looks like Bob said stuff along the same lines as me.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 3:16:53 PM
Hm, maybe Ben's right, that he at least at some theoretical level feels sympathy for gays wanting to define relationships differently than one-man-one-woman, but his opposition to gay marriage (and he has made his opposition much clearer elsewhere), suggests otherwise.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 13, 2008 3:23:35 PM
OK, before we get into deconstructing a theory of polygamy, or biological imperatives for monogamy, or all that jazz... can we pick up where James X left off - and try and figure out what Gordon Smith was saying?
Posted by: Ben | Jun 13, 2008 3:23:54 PM
No no, don't get me wrong: I think it's phony. I think he's just being a big damn, pandering concern troll using that "sympathy" as a front to cover his ass on horrible votes.
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 13, 2008 3:24:46 PM
"TJ, what concerns me about polygamy is the unequal power dynamic. Even outside of an oppressive religious environment that subjugates women (and this is pretty hypothetical, considering the realities of polygamy), a man with multiple wives has an unequal share of power in the relationship. He can decide who is added, kept, or expelled. The only choice a woman fundamentally has is to stay or go herself, but not who else is in the relationship."
I don't think that's necessarily the case. There's no fundamental REASON the man shall be the only one to decide who comes and goes; I'd be willing to bet that in many families, a new 'spouse' is not accepted until she is accepted by the existing 'spouses.' Similarly, if three wives decided the fourth had to go, they could make live pretty hellish for the husband until he did what they wanted. Ever watch Big Love? I thought it was just Hollywood until I saw a docu that showed just such a family.
I wasn't making an argument for legalizing polygamy; I was objecting to the labeling of it as immoral by theory rather than by practice. On purely relational grounds it is almost as paternal to declare that no woman would go for it, as it is to be your own human stud farm.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 3:30:39 PM
Also, the one part that does seem clear is that he feels that Mormons were unfairly persecuted for polygamy.
Posted by: Ben | Jun 13, 2008 3:31:57 PM
... even if he strictly believes that marriage is "one man, one woman."
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 3:32:19 PM
TJ, if the man goes, the show's over. That's not true of any of the women. That's why I believe the man inherently has more power.
Posted by: cw | Jun 13, 2008 3:34:08 PM
Steve- you make some excellent points and I agree for the most part, except for one thing. I think that people should be able to choose who they marry, whether they are born a certain way or not. I'm not debating that people are born gay, I'm sure some people are. But in the case where it IS a choice, I believe it is a choice we have the right to make. This is NOT to say that it is or is not a choice, but I know some people do feel that they have made a choice (ie, bi-sexual people who are in same-sex relationships). The only reason why I mention it, is because people shouldn't have to explain WHY they should be treated equally, it is a basic human right, not a generous exception that we are making. Does that make sense? I hope that this is not offensive to anyone. This discussion was brought up many years ago in a women's studies class I took, and it has always stuck with me.
Posted by: tl | Jun 13, 2008 3:40:17 PM
I really think this cartoon sums up my feelings about the "definition of marriage" in the US:
A Brief History of Marriage in America
As I have posted before, several of my aunts and uncles, all US citizens by birth and many who fought in the US forces in the Pacific against Japan in WWII while the rest of the family was interned in a concentration camp in Wyoming, had to cross into Washington state to get married. The reason, Oregon was one of the last states to allow interracial marriage.
Their love, commitment and contribution to society is no less than any other two (or more) consenting adults.
-tl
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 13, 2008 3:45:09 PM
"TJ, if the man goes, the show's over. That's not true of any of the women. "
Well, they all have equal autonomy over themselves, but I understand your point on the power dynamic. However, I think a potentially equal force is the power of numbers, when the multi-gender (for lack of a better term) may exercise power as a group over the one. If all three women decide as a group to kick Mr. Asshole to the curb, what's he going to do about it?
Again, we can talk about practical realities in many cases, but is there a fundamental, biological precept that makes what you say true? I don't think so. Even if it were true that gay marriages showed higher rates of child sexual abuse (a popular canard on the fearful right), it clearly occurs frequently enough in hetero marriages as well, that we might ask why we don't ban all marriage on those grounds. So to say that the power structure argues against polygamy--even if you are correct by and large in practice--I'd suggest it's more of a pitfall than a decision rule.
Posted by: petr.ichor | Jun 13, 2008 3:45:37 PM
the strange thing with this video is that smith almost seems like he wants to say what he really believes (though i have no idea what it is), but he's not really willing or able to. thus he winds up navigating that maze that consists of the horrible anti-gay legislation he has signed, the more moderate legislation that election-year-smith has signed, and what he really believes (without actually saying it). i can only hope that this is a common occurence throughout the entire race.
"Here's the moral difference between gay marriage and polygamy: people are born gay..."
how do you know people are not born ployamorous? i understand the biological argument as reason for gay marriage, but i don't really care for it; why should two consenting adults have to be born a gay in order to deserve the same rights? why can't it be a choice? i don't think the choice part is that relevant.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 3:46:43 PM
CW, I agree that bisexual people can choose whether to be in a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship. I also think that anyone who can honestly make a "choice" is inherently bisexual. But I don't think you can really choose whether to be gay, straight, or bi, and I think most gays would bristle at any suggestion otherwise. You can certainly explore your position on the Kinsey scale, and you can discover some latent desire toward a different gender, but if you do discover such a desire, you were never a 0 or 6 to begin with.
That said, even if we were all bisexual, I would agree that we should all be able to choose to be with whomever we want to be with.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 3:51:40 PM
TJ, if the women collectively kicked out the guy, they would no longer have a marriage. But the man can kick out any woman he chooses and still have a marriage. And in a four-person relationship, any alliance of three people could exercise power over the fourth, it's just that the man wouldn't have to bother with that. If the man made a decision that the three women didn't agree with, they could individually take it or leave it, but none of them would have a marriage if they left it.
Posted by: Nick from Eugene | Jun 13, 2008 3:59:50 PM
Test of FMA:
"Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."
Gordon Smith said he voted for it because he wanted states to be able to democratically choose how to define marriage, not allow federal judges to impose their own definition. If he can read, the amendment does not allow states any discretion. Methinks he is thoroughly confused about what he voted for when he voted for the Amendment. Maybe if the first sentence of the Amendment were deleted then he could claim what he claimed. Otherwise, he needs to figure it out.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 4:06:43 PM
Nick: as appalling as FMA was, it didn't ban gay marriage, it said that no constitution shall be construed to require it. So a legislature or a majority of voters could enact a same-sex marriage law, but a court couldn't interpret a constitution as requiring it.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 4:08:54 PM
By the way, I remember Smith saying something along the lines of him being for gay rights, but that he has always told the gay community that that stopped at gay marriage, so gay people should not have been surprised by his opposition. I can't find that quote right now, but it would be interesting to compare to whatever he is saying in the video. (Also, those previous warnings to the gay community that he wouldn't support same-sex marriage would also be of interest.)
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 13, 2008 4:32:46 PM
TJ, James -- Presumably, if polygamy were suddenly made legal, we'd legalize it irrespective of the gender combos (one woman/three men, two women/two men, etc.) But that's neither here nor there, because it's absurd.
Petrichor is right on this one -- what's fascinating is that Gordon Smith is trying really hard to keep his feelings bottled up, but they just escaped his mouth before he could stop 'em.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 4:47:41 PM
Let us not forget the context of this exhibition and all over the map pandering by the confused Gordon Smith.
In 2004, Smith lent his name and endorsement to the Measure 36, which was the anti-gay/GOP GOTV "mini-DOMA" measure. So he voted for Federal level bans on giving equal rights to non-heterosexual couples, claiming he thinks it should be a states rights thing, but then campaigns against equal rights for gay people in 2004 at the state-level, then says that the recently passed domestic-partnership law which gives the same rights/protections under Oregon law as married couples, which Speaker Jeff Merkley got through the razor thin majority state legislature is a "fair compromise", and now adds that his forbearers were driven out of the country because of religious discrimination, even though he claims (erroneously) that marriage is a religious institution accommodated by the state.
The man is very confused about the issue indeed.
Smith is all over the map chasing his tail trying to appear "moderate" in order to get elected. But look at what the guy actually DOES as opposed to what rhetoric and obfuscation he vomits out.
Here is a blog post from 2004 about that Measure 36 mailer that Gordon Smith lent his name and photograph too.
Again, Smith was all for voting in favor of discriminating against non-heterosexuals in 2004 at the state level by lending his name to a mailer that claimed if we didn't outlaw same-gender marriages, gay sex would be taught in schools.
Now he claims in his desperate bid for re-election that giving those same rights to same-gender couples under Oregon law that opposite-gender marriage does is a "fair compromise".
The Smith myth of being a fair-minded moderate is just that... a myth. He is a hypocritical panderer running for his political life because he is polling under 50% with a 47% disapproval rate.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 4:48:55 PM
WTF... why did TypePad flag my comment as ptential spam and not post it?
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 13, 2008 4:50:39 PM
Just happened to me, too. I think it's because it's seeing a bunch of comments with flagged words. I'm on it.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 4:50:49 PM
Let us not forget the context of this sad exhibition and all over the map pandering by the confused Gordon Smith.
In 2004, Smith lent his name and endorsement to the Measure 36, which was the anti-gay/GOP GOTV "mini-DOMA" measure. So he voted for Federal level bans on giving equal rights to non-heterosexual couples, claiming he thinks it should be a states rights thing, but then campaigns against equal rights for gay people in 2004 at the state-level, then says that the recently passed domestic-partnership law which gives the same rights/protections under Oregon law as married couples, which Speaker Jeff Merkley got through the razor thin majority state legislature is a "fair compromise", and now adds that his forbearers were driven out of the country because of religious discrimination, even though he claims (erroneously) that marriage is a religious institution accommodated by the state.
The man is very confused about the issue indeed.
Smith is all over the map chasing his tail trying to appear "moderate" in order to get elected. But look at what the guy actually DOES as opposed to what rhetoric and obfuscation he vomits out.
Here is a blog post from 2004 about that Measure 36 mailer that Gordon Smith lent his name and photograph too.
Again, Smith was all for voting in favor of discriminating against non-heterosexuals in 2004 at the state level by lending his name to a mailer that claimed if we didn't outlaw same-gender marriages, gay sex would be taught in schools.
Now he claims in his desperate bid for re-election that giving those same rights to same-gender couples under Oregon law that opposite-gender marriage does is a "fair compromise".
The Smith myth of being a fair-minded moderate is just that... a myth. He is a hypocritical panderer running for his political life because he is polling under 50% with a 47% disapproval rate.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 4:52:59 PM
I changed the URL I as posting a link to a blog article about the confused Smith in 2004 on this issue to a TinyUrl one, and it went through this time.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jun 13, 2008 4:55:55 PM
Aha. Yeah, it's the phrase g-- s-- that got filtered.
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Jun 13, 2008 5:05:26 PM
What Gordon was trying to say is that the status of marriage can (and in his opinion, should) be regulated by the State. In his mind, if the State could prohibit Mormons from polygamy, then it can prohibit other kinds of marriage -- e.g., same sex marriage. I know that's his line of thought because we've discussed this. I'm the one who got him to quit using the term "special rights" by telling him that it's no more a special right for gays to be treated equally under the law than it is for Mormons.
What he was lying about is his stated motive for voting for the Federal Marriage Amendment. He says in this forum that he supports the FMA because he doesn't want courts telling us what to do. That's just not making sense. What he wants is what the FMA says: NO GAY MARRIAGE. I talked to him about this before his vote and told him that any fears about the Supreme Court revealing that the 14th Amendment requires the State to allow gay marriage will only become concrete when the issue gets to the Supreme Court and that any vote before that cuts off the political process as well as the judicial process. But he and his fellow Mormons are so upset historically about being fenced out of polygamy that they are willing to build a firewall for gays -- it's a "what's good for us is good enough for you."
That having been said, at least he's sticking to what he told me several years ago. He still supports civil unions/domestic partnerships with the same rights and privileges flowing to such partners as are accorded to married heterosexuals. That means he's addicted to lables and as long as you frame it as civil unions or domestic partnerships then it ain't marriage and everything is hunky dory.
I wish someone would ask him if the polygamous Mormon approach (marriage is one man/one woman but the man can have lots of live-in girlfriends) is equally acceptable to him. Any answer he gives would get him on the hot seat.
Posted by: golden | Jun 13, 2008 5:12:09 PM
HMMMM, I don't get the controversy here. I feel like those who are negatively questioning Smith's intentions may be stuck in the "Gordon Smith Bad Box." I think GS is an ass in general but what he is saying sounds like a strong attempt to empathize with the oppressed. Polygamists/Mormons were treated like shit from the fed gov. and his hope is to avoid the same path. He is not saying he is pro polygamy either. Just because you don't like something like gay marriage or polygamy doesn't mean you want those people to be treated like crud. GS said something profound, let’s enjoy it while it lasts. DUH!
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 5:17:36 PM
Posted by: Lee Coleman | Jun 13, 2008 5:05:26 PMThat having been said, at least he's sticking to what he told me several years ago. He still supports civil unions/domestic partnerships with the same rights and privileges flowing to such partners as are accorded to married heterosexuals. That means he's addicted to lables and as long as you frame it as civil unions or domestic partnerships then it ain't marriage and everything is hunky dory.
Except his position is still full of crap, because he continues to want to deny Federal level rights, protections and obligations because he supports the FMA and DOMA. This is why both changes that Measure 36 wrote into the state constitution, and what DOMA does at the Federal level still violate the 14th amendment, regardless of what semantic dodge Smith does for political/re-ecletion cover.
This is why both Merkley and Novick were/are correct in that DOMA being overturned must occur for heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals to have equal rights under the law.
It also is rather disingenuous of Smith to claim he advocates honestly for fair-minded equal treatment under the law regardless of gender or sexual orientation when in 2004 he lent his name and picture to a Measure 36 mailer which stated that if we don't outlaw gay marriage in Oregon, then gay sex will be taught in school.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 5:24:29 PM
Posted by: golden | Jun 13, 2008 5:12:09 PMI think GS is an ass in general but what he is saying sounds like a strong attempt to empathize with the oppressed. Polygamists/Mormons were treated like shit from the fed gov. and his hope is to avoid the same path.
What a crock of shit. He has voted for and supports the Federal government treating non-heterosexuals like shit because he supports the FMA and DOMA. At the Federal level he is doing to non-heterosexuals what he acknowledges was historical discrimination by the Federal government against Mormons, and then claims he wants things settled at the state level, then advocates treating non-heterosexuals like shit when he supported and campaigned for Measure 36, then disingenuously says that the domestic-partnership law which does the same thing as marriage on the state level here in Oregon is a "fair compromise".
He is confused and all over the place in trying to bamboozle the voters into buying into his "moderate" schtick which is an front and nothing more.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 5:24:55 PM
Sorry for the double posts there.
Posted by: lestatdelc | Jun 13, 2008 5:42:54 PM
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 4:06:43 PMNick: as appalling as FMA was, it didn't ban gay marriage, it said that no constitution shall be construed to require it. So a legislature or a majority of voters could enact a same-sex marriage law, but a court couldn't interpret a constitution as requiring it.
Which makes the FMA in inherent contradiction of Article 4 and the 14th Amendment to the Contestation.
Posted by: Chris Lowe | Jun 13, 2008 6:08:41 PM
James X. "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman" ... doesn't that forbid same-sex marriage? Especially in light of the 14th Amendment that enjoins the federal constitution upon the states?
This looks to me a lot like Smith being slippery and trying to avoid being pinned down -- creating room to say to conservatives, "see, I voted for FMA," and to his Democratic and NAV and moderate Republican voters, "see, I support domestic partnerships."
It might be useful politically in a couple of ways to press Smith to oppose the anti-domestic partnership initiative being promulgated. If he does oppose it, it reduces the chance of it passing and undercuts his conservative base. He might not mind that though, I guess, since he's playing to the middle. If he won't oppose it, it forces him to reveal something about where he really stands.
----
When the Mormons first moved to Utah, in 1847, it was nominally part of Mexico, though little governed by that nation-state. A military expedition was sent against Utah in 1857. There is a Smithsonian article that's a nice well-written short read on all that, plus the development of plural marriage within Mormonism (which was quite restricted initially).
I am very leery of all the psycho-social-biological arguments. There's a recurrently popular one that says men are inherently polygynous that gets used to defend all kinds of double standards. The current U.S. pattern of serial monogamy (=temporal polygamy) for both men and women, which in certain respects is similar to sociological findings in Swaziland that despite nominal cultural ideals, widespread labor migration leads to a situation where both men and women have children with multiple partners, suggests that seeking the source in biology is going to be off the mark.
Polyandry is exceedingly rare.
Polygyny (multiple wives) inherently depends on differential average age of marriage for men and women, men marrying older. Basically while men delay marriage, the women who are their age counterparts become available to marry older men. This tends to increase inequality based on age as well as other factors within marriage, and it also tends to ensure that women begin bearing children relatively young, which from a demographic point of view matters much more in the case of women than men (unless age of first childbirth is forced too low, which raises maternal mortality).
Polygyny tends also to be related to patrilineal descent -- kin-group identity in the male line -- and patrilocal residence -- married couple lives with or near husband's father. The combination tends to produce a strong kind of patriarchy (literally "rule of fathers" which includes not just men over women but elder men over all juniors). In such societies historically in southern Africa, when a polygynous man died, it became the occasion for new homestead (quasi=household) formation, as what had formerly been the "houses" of each wife within a homestead became a new nuclear homestead headed by the eldest son of each wife -- such mothers having the highest status attainable by women while they survived. At least, that was the social ideal. Actual random distribution of births by sex combined with high infant and child mortality could disrupt the ideal considerably.
Although polygyny was a social ideal to which men universally aspired -- children were wealth, women did a disproportionate share of subsistence labor -- in fact most men (ca. 75%) only ever had one wife, often married rather late in life, and the most common form of polygyny was two wives, usually one married relatively young and the second much later in life, whose status tended to be quasi-servile in relation both to the husband and to the senior wife. It was only in the lineages of chiefs and among wealthy men (heavily overlapping categories) that multiple polygyny was much found. With chiefs, this was partly a function of diplomatic marriages, and high status wives often had their own physically separate homesteads -- with weatlthy men it would be a matter of separate dwellings within a homestead.
When Christian missionaries came in, most of them wanted simply to impose European-style monogamy (rooted particularly in Roman law), and made it a condition of polygynous men converting to Christianity that they marry the first wife by Christian rites, and "put away" the other wives. This caused a serious controvery in the Anglican church, in which one bishop came to argue that this was essentially promoting divorce, further getting mixed up with his being anti-literalist in his biblical interpretation. Many denominations allowed wives of polygynous men to convert, however, since they were monogamous, having only one husband.
In matrilineal societies polygyny tends to be less frequent and usually is related to matrifocal or uxorifocal residence, as well as male brideservice to a wife's maternal uncle, as opposed to husbands make bridewealth prestations to a wife's father. Residential clusters would be based on groups of related women and polygynous men would be marrying women who were related to one another and living in that loosely female-defined community -- or alternatively with their sisters. But matrilineal polygyny tended to re-inforce marriage alliances between particular kin-groups (lineages or clans). While not matriarchal, matrilineal societies did tend to have more gender equality in Africa.
The stress on sexual orientation as genetically defined is very hard to sort out. This is exactly because culturally our rhetorics of non-discrimination tend to treat discrimination on bases someone "can't help" as unfair, while discriminating against people who make particular choices may be seen as more acceptable. So that cultural value system creates a strong incentive to see sexual orientation as biological and genetic, terms our culture privileges in defining what is "inherent," if you favor non-discrimination, and to see it as a choice if you favor discrimination and unequal treatment.
The well-attested subjective experience of "knowing" where one's sexual attractions lie actually need not rely on a biologistic definition of who we "inherently are," but our current cultural prejudices press us strongly to understand "inherence" in biological/genetic terms. But it would be perfectly plausible to believe that such inherence was the result of a divine act of creation, for those inclined to see the world in such ways; it just happens that our particular dominant religious-cultural heritages don't do that.
Genetics gets overemphasized in biology anyway, as genes often have multiple possible expressions that are biologically shaped by physical and social environments (which e.g. may affect endocrine systems that have a bearing on development of sex hormones and their processes in individuals). It is pretty clear that childhood sexual experiences and traumas can affect sexual orientation in later life.
And although it is not so popular these days, there are gay and lesbian thinkers like Gore Vidal (who focuses on something like a variant of Freudian "polymorphous" sexuality) or Adrienne Rich (whose rather different idea of a "lesbian continuum" sees connections among various forms of homosexuality and homophilia within the many forms of inter-female affection and mutual support, emotionally and otherwise) who call into question the dichotomization (or trichotomization) of sexuality.
I don't draw any definite conclusions from all of this, but I do think we should be careful about projecting ideas and debates that are historically and culturally specific in our own time and place too universally.
Posted by: John Dunagan | Jun 13, 2008 6:47:27 PM
This is such a smokescreen.
His own church, if I understand him to be a member of the mainstream Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints, disavows polygamy and has done at least since Nixon was President.
Unless he's trying to say he comes from the Fundamentalist LDS Church, which is full of those monsters like Warren and Rulon Jeffs, this is a false comparison. "Mormons" aren't oppressed for polygamy in this day and age because they DON'T COMMIT IT.
He pulled this same moderate bluff way back when Matthew Shepard died in Cheyenne, WY. And back then it pulled in some groups whose opinion I normally respect, like BRO, and Human Rights Coalition. I pray that those normally stalwart defenders of personal liberty aren't so stupid as to believe the same canard a second, or even third time.
This is such a ploy for political points, and if he's reelected with even a sniff of the Democratic vote, Oregonians have learned nothing from the past eight years.
Gordon Smith doesn't care about the LGBT community any more than he can hide behind them at the Pride Parade to avoid detection by the cheeto brigade.
So my answer to "what is he saying?" is "who cares?" Throw his ass out!
Posted by: torridjoe | Jun 13, 2008 7:00:35 PM
"Polygyny (multiple wives) inherently depends on differential average age of marriage for men and women, men marrying older."
I'm not sure what you mean by inherence in this case. I have to assume you mean ethnographically, but that presupposes an entire society built around that standard, as you describe, rather than the organic development of those relationships in a broad, diverse, highly modern society such as ours. In other words, polyamory in the US (if legalized) would be more of a flavor than a cultural standard here, which suggests to me that conclusions derived from other societies might not necessarily apply.
I also want to say I fully agree than polyandry is highly rare--but it has existed now and again. Which is why I asked the question, what aberrance would those societies share to make it something to go against the "inherence" of a male-dominated intimacy power dynamic? Otherwise, you have to assume that females are not completely indisposed towards multiple-partner lifestyles, depending on the situation. And if they're not, then one wonders how to reach the conclusion that polygamy is somehow "unnatural."
Also worthy of consideration is the idea that even where polygamy is strictly speaking illegal, intimate relationships like triads--of both combinations--are more common than many people realize. Surely the percentage of those that are truly cohabitational is much smaller (which would be the only category to really approximate full polyamorous 'marriage'), but they're out there.
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 7:04:26 PM
Chris, you're right. I had gotten my anti-gay nuttery confused.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: James X. | Jun 13, 2008 2:24:11 PM
Um, I think I'm going to have to watch that a few more times to figure it out...