Would you be out if polyandry is reinstated?

[Harry Tic]

I'd like to see a similar poll on what people would do if the LDS church were to declare that same-sex unions would not only be honored but that gay marriages could be performed in the temple. What percentage of folks would be out the door if it were announced as a simple policy change? And what percentage would be out if something more dramatic, say a 1978-esque revelation, were announced?

[Jacob]

Why not? Again, assuming mutual love and consent, why shouldn't everyone be afforded the hundreds of laws at a federal level that married couples, currently only heterosexual couples thanks to DOMA, enjoy?

These are included in the tax code, immigration laws, reciprocity among the states, military benefits, etc., all of which provide advantages and rights to couples who are married, as that is defined in DOMA (one man, one woman). If we are making the case that everyone should be afforded these rights between those they love, why draw the line at two people? I could be missing something, but your response seems identical to the response of those who favor civil unions for gay couples but not marriage. BTW, the first sentence in this paragraph is a direct quote from PAC, so I'd be dishonest if I didn't source it.

The best response to your query, IMO, is that government sanctioned marriage has nothing to do with love. But that undercuts the gay marriage line of argument, so I don't see JL taking it up.

[Indy Coug]

I'd like to see a similar poll on what people would do if the LDS church were to declare that same-sex unions would not only be honored but that gay marriages could be performed in the temple. What percentage of folks would be out the door if it were announced as a simple policy change? And what percentage would be out if something more dramatic, say a 1978-esque revelation, were announced?

I'd like to see the new script for the sealing ceremony.

[LA Ute]

I agree. I think you can support government-sanctioned gay marriage while opposing government-sanctioned plural marriage. However, I haven't heard a good reason why plural marriage should be criminalized. I think the end is near for polygamy as a crime, and I think the gay marriage movement will largely be the reason: it's hard to argue that two loving gay individuals should receive the imprimatur of government, while three or four loving individuals should not only be unsanctioned, but a crime.

I think generally lawful gay marriage is inevitable, someday, perhaps soon. Plural marriage will probably be decriminalized, but not legally authorized for a long time due to the women's rights concerns polygamy raises and the general discomfort with both polygamy and polyandry. Regarding polyandry, there is a general sense in the USA that kids ought not to be confused as to who mom and dad are, or who mom and mom or dad and dad are; or (perhaps especially) who dad and dad and mom and mom and dad and mom are.

[Harry Tic]

I'd like to see the new script for the sealing ceremony.

First, I am just posing it as a hypothetical. It's very hard to imagine this happening. But, then again, it's not like the doctrine itself or even the ceremonies themselves haven't changed.

[Jacob]

I still fail to see why government needs to recognize ANY form of marriage. IMO, all this discussion about gay marriage and polygamy, etc., would be easiliy resolved if the government just got out of the business of recognizing any marriage.

Let marriage and relationships be the stuff of individuals and their churches.

In an ordered society, composed of families, parents and children, it would be very odd for the government to NOT recognize this foundational societal structure, no? Can you think of any society where the governing authority did not recognize marriage in some way?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Why not? Again, assuming mutual love and consent, why shouldn't everyone be afforded the hundreds of laws at a federal level that married couples, currently only heterosexual couples thanks to DOMA, enjoy?

These are included in the tax code, immigration laws, reciprocity among the states, military benefits, etc., all of which provide advantages and rights to couples who are married, as that is defined in DOMA (one man, one woman). If we are making the case that everyone should be afforded these rights between those they love, why draw the line at two people? I could be missing something, but your response seems identical to the response of those who favor civil unions for gay couples but not marriage. BTW, the first sentence in this paragraph is a direct quote from PAC, so I'd be dishonest if I didn't source it.

I don't think extending marriage rights to polygamists addresses a significant barrier to participation in a basic right. A lot of people will have this debate but I don't see your argument getting much traction in the courts.

[Jacob]

I'd like to see a similar poll on what people would do if the LDS church were to declare that same-sex unions would not only be honored but that gay marriages could be performed in the temple. What percentage of folks would be out the door if it were announced as a simple policy change? And what percentage would be out if something more dramatic, say a 1978-esque revelation, were announced?

What if they published a new doctrine of the trinity listing Yoda, Obi Wan and Darth Vader as the 3-in-one. And the priesthood was replaced with the Jedi?

The speculating probably doesn't do any good. And none of that is likely to happen, ever.

[Jacob]

I don't think extending marriage rights to polygamists addresses a significant barrier to participation in a basic right. A lot of people will have this debate but I don't see your argument getting much traction in the courts.

I hope you are right about that. The courts should have nothing to say about it.

[cowboy]

I think generally lawful gay marriage is inevitable, someday, perhaps soon. Plural marriage will probably be decriminalized, but not legally authorized for a long time due to the women's rights concerns polygamy raises and the general discomfort with both polygamy and polyandry. Regarding polyandry, there is a general sense in the USA that kids ought not to be confused as to who mom and dad are, or who mom and mom or dad and dad are; or (perhaps especially) who dad and dad and mom and mom and dad and mom are.

So we're okay sending adopted kids to homes where they can't have a mom or a dad as long as they have two parents, but can't have more than one mom? BTW, I doubt there is much confusion about who a polygamous kid's parents are. Regardless, we are choosing to legislate morality, when a primary argument of gay rights advocates is that the government has no place in doing so.

I don't think extending marriage rights to polygamists addresses a significant barrier to participation in a basic right. A lot of people will have this debate but I don't see your argument getting much traction in the courts.

I was just about to reply to Jacob that you're no lightweight, and you'd respond. I'll accept your response, but respectfully disagree. You're probably correct about traction in courts, but to me, you're argument is analogous to telling someone they have to choose only one child to receive their estate upon death.

[Lost Student]

What if they published a new doctrine of the trinity listing Yoda, Obi Wan and Darth Vader as the 3-in-one. And the priesthood was replaced with the Jedi?

First of all, the Priesthood would be replaced by the Force, not the Jedi. Second, it would be awesome. I would begin training immediately.

[Jacob]

First of all, the Priesthood would be replaced by the Force, not the Jedi. Second, it would be awesome. I would begin training immediately.

Help me if I misunderstand, but the priesthood, in common church parlance means 2 things 1) the power (force) of God; and 2) the people ordained or trained to use such power. Thus the Force is priesthood definition #1 and the Jedi are priesthood definition #2.

This is very important, so I'd like clarification.

[Jacob]

I was just about to reply to Jacob that you're no lightweight, and you'd respond. I'll accept your response, but respectfully disagree. You're probably correct about traction in courts, but to me, you're argument is analogous to telling someone they have to choose only one child to receive their estate upon death.

I wasn't implying that he was a lightweight or that he'd no respond. Only that he wouldn't tell you that the government should be unconcerned with love, as I argued. In fact, he makes love part of his primary case for extending marriage to gays (he did just a few posts ago). So, IMO, he ought to address why gay love is more deserving of government sanction that polygamous love (actually merely homosexual love). After all, one recent supreme court opinion dealing with these issues states:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

Unless you are polygamous.



NOTE 1: I abhor polygamy. Not sure I'd make it illegal, but I'd sure oppose it in any institution I was part of.

NOTE 2: The quoted paragraph above would be humorous except that it was actually published as part of a deciding opinion in an controversial case.

[Harry Tic]

What if they published a new doctrine of the trinity listing Yoda, Obi Wan and Darth Vader as the 3-in-one. And the priesthood was replaced with the Jedi?

The speculating probably doesn't do any good. And none of that is likely to happen, ever.

Not likely, granted. But I hardly think the church is under any pressure to reaffirm that its doctrinal and policy positions are absolutely incompatible with re-interpreting the Trinity as Star Wars characters. That's a pretty serious analogy fail.

And lest you think that the church would never dream of altering practices to accord with federal government mandates, well, turns out that there's some history there you may want to look at.

[LA Ute]

So we're okay sending adopted kids to homes where they can't have a mom or a dad as long as they have two parents, but can't have more than one mom? BTW, I doubt there is much confusion about who a polygamous kid's parents are. Regardless, we are choosing to legislate morality, when a primary argument of gay rights advocates is that the government has no place in doing so.

I was just talking about public perceptions/biases. Polygamy/polyandry are a step or three beyond gay marriage in most people's minds, for many reasons. I agree about polygamous families and kids knowing who their parents are, BTW.