What's next from Gordon Smith? "Man on dog"?
Kari Chisholm
It seems that Gordon Smith's bizarre comments about polygamy and gay marriage just aren't going to go away -- and not just because he made them at a gay-rights forum at the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington DC.
You know that his comments are hurting him with conservative Oregonians when RNC fax-machine David Reinhard pops up with a defense of ol' Gordon:
Smith, as is his wont these days, apologized, but not before critics had their say. "Talking about polygamy and same-sex unions in the same breath -- on the face it's offensive," Frank Dixon, a Democratic Party and gay-rights activist, told The Oregonian.Smith can speak for himself. What interests me is Dixon's notion that talking about polygamy and same-sex unions in the same breath is, ipso facto, offensive. ...
The point is that once legislators, judges and other gay-marriage advocates head down the path of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, there's no consistent principle that would restrict marriage to couples or consenting adults unrelated by blood. If marriage isn't between a man and woman, why can't it just as easily be defined as something else down the line? What principle would stop this?
Divorce marriage from its traditional moorings -- an institution of one man, one woman that best nurtures children and strengthens society -- and you enter the realm of the subjective and arbitrary. The definition of marriage becomes a matter of fashion. Polygamy becomes the new gay, the latest frontier in taboo-breaking and advancement of "civil rights."
This is the old slippery-slope argument. You see, we can't give gays and lesbians equal rights because, if we do, the whole of civilization will plunge off the cliff into the abyss. Yeah. Right.
Gordon Smith didn't just accidentally mention polygamy in his musings about gay marriage. He was trying to figure out a way to thread the needle between his self-perception of being a nice guy to gays and lesbians ("some of my best friends...") and his vote for the Federal Marriage Amendment barring federal recognition of any same-sex marriage (not, as Smith has said, leaving it up to the states.)
In short, Smith was giving us a cleaned-up version of the old argument marched out by Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), whose bizarre statements caused a firestorm that eventually led to his defeat in 2006.
Here's what Santorum had to say in an AP interview in 2003 (my bolds):
SANTORUM: I have no problem with homosexuality. I have a problem with homosexual acts. As I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships. And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual. I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual.We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does.
Every society in the history of man has upheld the institution of marriage as a bond between a man and a woman. Why? Because society is based on one thing: that society is based on the future of the society. And that's what? Children. Monogamous relationships. In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality —
AP: I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.
Gordon Smith is just as nutty as Rick Santorum - he just sounds smoother, wears nicer clothes, has better hair, and (usually) is able to keep his mouth shut.
But make no mistake: The argument he's making is exactly the same argument.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jun 23, '08
Homosexuality?
Man on Dog?
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Jun 23, '08
Thanks for that post.
Gordon Smith is not, in any way, shape, or form (and no matter how many heart to heart talks he's shared with Terry Bean) a "gay friendly" Senator...
Maybe Dan Savage (and his readership) could come up with a good definition of a "Gordon" to match successful efforts with the term "santorum..?"
5:10 p.m.
Jun 23, '08
Dammit, Kari, can't you see he's right? Tradition is the only consistent source of principle about marriage. I mean, look how much things have gotten out of hand since traditional "moderate physical chastisement" of uppity wives by husbands became grounds for divorce, and subject to criminal prosecution: it led straight to the loss of the right to marital rape! It's all been downhill since the abolition of coverture. And now we won't even know who should have the traditional right to beat or rape whom, or who should be traditionally folded into the legal personhood of whom else.
Come to think of it, this is all just a plot by Democrat Party stooges to increase business for Big Law. Just like the abolition of trial by ordeal. Face it, Kari, there's just no better guide to what's right than tradition.
Jun 23, '08
Wow! That's disgusting! Are "Christians" into their sisters, and their dogs?
6:22 p.m.
Jun 23, '08
David Blowhard probably couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag if he couldn't spot the monumental logical gaps in his own reasoning.
How does the definition of marriage being solely between a man and a woman, in and of itself, restrict marriage to couples unrelated by blood?
It doesn't. In fact, there isn't unanimity between all 50 states in the Union as to whether and/or under what conditions related hetero couples may marry each other - think: Jerry Lee Lewis and his 3rd wife/cousin.
The "consistent principle" Blowhard alludes to simply doesn't exist and never has in the history of this nation.
Jun 23, '08
I agree with Reinhard.
If you aren't going to limit marriage to one man and one woman, why can't two men marry two women?
Why can't one woman be married to two men?
If the gender of each party can't be dictated by the State, why let the State dictate how many people you can marry?
Jun 23, '08
Hullabaloo:
I'm a man who is happily married to one woman. I don't buy the "traditional" argument though. The definition of "traditional marriage" has changed a lot in the last 2000 years. Sometimes it's one man, many women. Sometimes it's one man, one woman -- as long as they're the same race. Sometimes, it's one man, one woman -- who is owned as property. Sometimes it's what we have now.
Traditions come and traditions go. Sometimes traditions are good, like Christmas presents. Sometimes they're bad, like white only country clubs. Just because something is traditional doesn't necessarily mean it's right.
No one is proposing that the state must remove all restrictions on marriage. We are only proposing that the state must allow two consenting, human adults who are not blood-related and not already married to marry, regardless of gender.
That's not too complicated. There is no room for marrying multiple people, children, dogs or tractors. Really. If you believe lifting one restriction means all restrictions are lifted, you're insane.
But I don't think you believe that. I think you believe that gay people are icky, but you know that it's no longer socially acceptable to say so. So you're trying to find smoe way to deny gays the same humanity you enjoy in a way that sounds like it might not be straight out bigotry.
You failed.
Jun 23, '08
I'm a happily married heterosexual man, but I can tell you for sure that as soon as they legalize gay marriage, I'm totally goin' after the dog. It's the only thing keeping me under control. Also, can we please revoke marriage licenses for people who don't have kids within 9 months of marrying? It completely defeats the purpose.
11:44 p.m.
Jun 23, '08
The thing I have always loved about Rick Santorum's exchange with the reporter is her response: "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out." That always makes me laugh.
Jun 23, '08
I agree with Reinhard. I should stop reading there, but, ok...
If you aren't going to limit marriage to one man and one woman, why can't two men marry two women? I'm not sure how that works. Are they all conjoined twins?
Why can't one woman be married to two men? That's crazy. The Bible only allows men to have multiple spouses. If you're Solomon you get at least 700, and, like, 300 concubines.
If the gender of each party can't be dictated by the State, why let the State dictate how many people you can marry? This is actually a pretty good point. Why don't we just legally declare one person in each marriage "man" and the other "woman". Problem solved.
Jun 24, '08
True enough that same-sex marriage in and of itself isn't going to destroy civilization as we know it.
But there's a legitimate slippery-slope point to be made here. For good or for ill, the state imposes various restrictions upon marriage even for heterosexual people, most obviously age and consanguinity, as well as defining the requisite number and sex of the parties.
These restrictions are all, in one way or another, based on societal taboos.
So breaking one of the taboos does naturally and reasonably lead to questioning others. Me personally, I think this is a good thing. But it is certainly a legitimate concern for those who don't wish to see these taboos broken.
Of course the "man on dog" argument is specious. Canines can not, under the law, enter into contracts (as far as I know, but perhaps a lawyer can correct me on that point?) Seems that would be a prerequisite for marriage, since that's a contract recognized by the state.
But if a prohibition on gay marriage is denying homosexuals equal protection under the laws (and I believe that it is), then the exact same argument(s) can be applied to polygamy, consanguinity, etc.
I personally don't have a problem with that, either. But I suspect a fair number of other people do have a problem with that. And while you can rightly ridicule the extreme overreaction of worrying about "man on dog" action, conflating that ludicrous issue with the very legitimate issues of polygamy and other marriage restrictions is a big mistake.
Jun 24, '08
Also, a minor point:
Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but does the Federal Marriage Amendment actually ban same-sex marriage in any state?
I'm not familiar with the full text of the amendment, and I'm not arguing in support of it, but it seems to me if it prohibits the federal government from recognizing a same-sex marriage, wouldn't that rather imply that any state could allow same-sex marriage? Why prohibit the "recognition" of something that can't happen in the first place?
So it seems that same-sex marriage would be left to the various states to decide. The federal government just wouldn't be bound by those decisions. (And, IIRC, DOMA already releases states from the obligation to recognize the validity of same-sex marriages from other states... without actually prohibiting any state from recognizing such validity... again leaving it up to the states to decide.)
You may disagree with his position on the Federal Marriage Amendment, but it seems to me he has an honest argument to make that it does leave the question to the states. (It's a weak argument, for various reasons, but still legitimate.)
Jun 24, '08
David Reinhard's problem is confusing conventions of the 1950's television version of the American family with immutable principles of human society.
Jun 24, '08
Sen. Smith was lying. The FMA does not leave the question of gay marriage up to the states. It specifically takes it away from the states. The full text of the amendment itself:
Essentially, Sen. Smith voted to change the U.S. Constitution to make it impossible -- unconstitutional, even -- for gay people to marry in any state or territory in the United States. There's no way he could believe that the FMA does the opposite of what it clearly says.
And he doesn't even have the guts to say "I voted for FMA because I don't think gays should be allowed to marry." I used to agree with Steve Novick: Sen. Smith is not a bad person, he's just a very bad Senator. Now I'm not so sure. Anyone who lies so calmly and easily seems pretty dangerous and immoral to me.
Jun 24, '08
Are polygamists born that way?
11:18 a.m.
Jun 24, '08
It creeps me out that David Reinhard actually gets paid, probably good money, for cranking out the predictable dribble that he calls an "editorial." But, that being said, what exactly is the problem with polygamy? I think he makes a good case in favor of it, although I doubt that was his intention.
Polygyny has been pretty common in human cultures, polyandry a little less so. That pretty much wipes out the "tradition" argument, so I have to wonder what inherent interest society has in limiting "marriage" to two people. What has struck me about the cases involving the Mormon fundamentalists is that their behavior clearly oppresses women by marrying them off absent their will, while they're still children. And it oppresses men by abandoning teenage boys that don't fit in, in the interest of increasing opportunities for the privileged few men. But all this is about that particular culture, and says nothing about polygamy itself.
I've known some people in fairly complicated relationships, including plural marriages, that appeared to work as well as the standard heterosexual variety. What possible harm were they doing?
Jun 24, '08
The only traditions meaningful to Mr. Reinhard are Calvinism and Puritanism as embodied in this country by bluenosed elitist money-grubbers.
Jun 24, '08
Kari Chisholm,
You really don't realize how silly your article is do you? Do you really expect people to believe that gay marriage will not change society? Do some research before you post this junk.
1:58 p.m.
Jun 24, '08
David Wright,
Marriage has changed a lot in the last 200 years or so in Anglo-American legal culture. On David Reinhard's argument, we should ban divorce except for a few male aristocrats who can convince special courts that their wives had committed adultery.
You're confusing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) with the Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA). Under DOMA, the federal government is prohibited from recognizing same-sex marriages and states are allowed not to recognize such marriages if recognized by other states.
This doesn't really "leave the decision up to the states," because substantial benefits of heterosexual marriage are provided by the federal government, and states are required to recognize one another's heterosexual marriages, if a couple travels, or moves to another state. So under DOMA, same-sex in-state marriages are distinctly second class. A real "let the states decide" approach would require the federal government to treat all marriages recognized by any state as marriages, and require all states to recognize all legal marriages performed in other states.
As for FMA, what Bert Lowry said ...
Jefffrane, polyandry has been a lot less common than polygyny. It is and has been extremely rare.
You also paint a rather rosy picture of polygyny (not to say pollyannaish...). In societies where it is a systematic cultural ideal it is mainly the prerogative of high status, wealthy and older men, is generally associated with intensely patriarchal cultures, and tends to be particularly oppressive of junior wives.
You can see more extensive commentary here and here, if you care to.
Jun 24, '08
Trox,
just how does same-sex marriage change society? I am old enough to remember the warning that cross-racial marriage would change society, especially caucasian-asian and caucasian-black marriages. Seems to me we "survived" such changes.
The real impact to society is the high level of broken heterosexual marriages that many times leaves a single-parent family (mothers especially) in poverty. Also a child welfare system that requires the father leave the home in order to get government assistance.
So educate me about this supposed danger to society. Seems to me the impact is negligible and the argument against it, in secular terms, just doesn't cut it.
RichW
3:53 p.m.
Jun 24, '08
Trox wrote... Do you really expect people to believe that gay marriage will not change society?
Of course it will change society. That's the whole point!
We should have a society where any two consenting adults who love each and want to commit themselves to each other have the legal protections, rights, and responsibilities accorded to marriage.
We should honor and defend the lifelong commitment that two people make to each other - regardless of their respective genders.
Jun 24, '08
Is there research on how gay marriage will change society? I mean, other than, "well, it don't seem right to me, what do you think?" I'd love to see something legitimate on the subject. I keep waiting to hear exactly how gay marriage harms others.
Jun 24, '08
Why not three consenting adults, Kari? Haven't you heard of polyamorous relationships?
You're so old fashioned!
Jun 24, '08
I want to know how it will be Me and her or you and me You both sit there with your long hair flowing Your eyes alive, your minds are still growing Saying to me What can we do now that we Both love you, I love you too But I don't really see Why can't we go on as three
You are afraid, embarrased too No one has ever said such a thing to you Your mother's ghost stands at your shoulder Got a face like ice just a little bit colder Saying to you Can not do that it breaks all the rules You learned in schools But I don't really see Why can't we go on as three
You know we love each other it's plain to see There's just one answer comes to me Sister lovers, some of you must know about water brothers And in time maybe others So you see what we can do If we try something new, that is if you're crazy too And I don't really see why can't we go on as ... three
CSN&Y
Jun 25, '08
Hallabaloo:
Why not three consenting adults, Kari? Sigh.
Here's why not three: because that's not what we're talking about. If your only concern about gay marriage is your opposition to polygamy, then you should just relax. They are not the same thing.
But I don't think that's your concern. I still think you are simply a bigot who can't bring himself (herself?) to publicly say "I just don't like homosexuality."
<h2>The question I have for you is: are you truly ashamed of your bigotry? Or do you just want to avoid the social discomfort of people finding out what sort of person you really are?</h2>