Polygamy case is about religious freedom

A follow up on our previous discussion about the recent court decision in Utah. From The HuffPo first, de-coupling polygamy and same sex marriage:

Gay rights however do not inexorably lead to the legalization of polygamy. While the ability to choose one's sexual partners is an important element of constitutionally protected privacy, the government may have stronger reasons to ban polygamy than gay sexual or marital relationships. Polygamy has long been associated with unique harms: the repression of women; underage girls too young to consent forced into ma rriage; the severe displacement of young men in geographically concentrated communities. Gay rights don't pose any of these problems. Rather, they are about the very opposite: reducing the oppression of minorities, allowing adults to engage in consensual sexual activity, and minimizing the social and psychological displacement caused by anti-gay discrimination....

And next, explaining how this is really about religious freedom. You remember religious freedom, don't you? (my emphasis)

What's unconstitutional is Utah's ban on a married person cohabiting with another, and here's why. First, the court says the law impinges on religious freedom by targeting only religious people for prosecution. Adulterers sometimes cohabit -- that is, live as a spouse with someone else -- but the state admitted to only going after Mormon cohabiters. As a result, the judge ruled, Utah's law was in practice discriminatory. Second, the court said that this distinct treatment of cohabiters was irrational. If a married person cohabiting with another is a threat to society, then why target only religiously motivated people? Utah, by only restricting in practice some cohabitation by married people, violates the baseline requirement of the Constitution that every law must further some rational government policy.

No, the Utah decision has nothing to do with civil marriage

In Utah, as in other states, it is illegal to seek a marriage license when you are already married to someone else.  THat is, no civil poly-marriage.

However, in Utah, they also criminalize people who cohabit for religious reasons.  That is, even if you aren't seeking civil marriage, if you simply live in a polygamous situation, you are breaking the law.  But only if you are doing it for religious reasons.

You know what?  As long as your sexual expression is private and consensual, the state has no business criminalizing it.

And that's all the judge found.

From Think Progress:

The Utah case involved a suit filed by Kody Brown and his wives, Meri, Janelle, Christine, and Robyn, who are featured on the TLC documentary show Sister Wives. They argued that Utah’s anti-polygamy laws infringed upon their Mormon religious practice and their privacy, and District Court Judge Clark Waddoups, a George W. Bush appointee, agreed. But Waddoups’ decision leaves in place that it is illegal in Utah to be legally married to more than one person at the same time, which begs the question of what exactly he actually overturned.

Utah’s laws go far beyond limiting an individual to only one marriage license. As Waddoups recounted in his decision, the statute also prohibits “cohabitation,” referring to any situation in which a married person “purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person.” Even though Kody Brown only has a marriage license with one of his wives, the fact that he has a living arrangement that includes other individuals he refers to as wives — deemed “religious cohabitation” in the Mormon context of multiple marriages — was thus a violation of the law. Indeed, the law seems to punish those who claim multiple marriages even if those marriages exist only in a religious — not civil — context. This, Waddoups ruled, was not only an intrusion into their religious beliefs, but also a violation of their right to private consensual sexual behavior as guaranteed by the Supreme Court in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the country’s so-called “sodomy laws” criminalizing same-sex relations.

Not about marriage.  Simply about religious freedom and privacy.

Slippery slopes and other fallacies

Well, now they've done it. In Brazil, a judge has legitimized a three-way relationship, and now the fundies are all shrieking "see, we knew it!  next, people will marry their dogs!"

This is all part of the "slippery slope" logical fallacy, which states that "once X happens, how will you stop Y?"  And the answer is, the same way you stop Y now.  X has nothing to do with Y.

Legalizing marriage between two unmarried adults in no way changes bars to polygamy.  Sorry, uh-uh, just doesn't do it.  Just as marriage between a man and a woman does not promote marriage between a man and many women, or between a brother and sister (all of which are man-woman marriages.)
I also found this article comparing (again) the movement against inter-racial marriage to same-sex marriage.  And, yes, the slippery slop argument was used there too:

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intermarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

Same argument.

Still false!

BTW, I am a firm believer that marriage is between two people.

The polygamy question

Those opposed to same sex marriage often claim that the same arguments used by the LGBT community could be used by those who want to support polygamy, or plural marriage.

This is a fallacy, of course. And there are sound arguments against it here, here, and here. Ask yourself, would any laws about marriage have to change for same sex couples to marry? The answer is, "no". Marriage law is based on a couple. Then ask yourself, would any laws have to change for multiple partners to marry? The answer is, yes. For example, what happens if one person in a polygamous marriage leaves. Are the others still married? How much property does the leaver get to take?

The UN condemns polygamy, stating

Polygamous marriage contravenes a woman's right to equality with men, and can have such serious emotional and financial consequences for her and her dependants that such marriages ought to be discouraged and prohibited. The Committee notes with concern that some States parties, whose constitutions guarantee equal rights, permit polygamous marriage in accordance with personal or customary law. This violates the constitutional rights of women, and breaches the provisions of article 5 (a) of the Convention.

There's a new article by Elizabeth Abbot on polygamy that is wrestling with the issues raised by fundamantalist Mormons in Canada, and religious freedoms. It asks rhetorically whether one has "religious freedom" to practice abuse. Abbot concludes

[Le]galizing [polygamy] is not ultimately in the same category as granting a pastor the right to express his loathing of homosexuality, or as legalizing gay marriage. While much has been made, in particular, of the parallel between sanctioning same-sex unions and sanctioning polygamy....the outcomes couldn’t be more different. The former brought people into an existing system of rights; the latter poses a significant threat to that system. And that’s probably our cue, as a liberal society, to hold our noses and draw the line.