Author Archives: IndyNinja

Since we seem to have reached watershed status and state after state is now allowing same-sex marriage, many of us have come very accustomed to hearing slippery slope arguments about how gay marriage will ultimately lead to similar laws allowing people to marry multiple spouses, children, or even animals and household appliances. 

Usually, these arguments are rightfully ignored, but let's consider the question honestly for a moment. 

Marrying your Mr. Coffee or pet poodle is simply ridiculous. Neither is capable of expressing consent. Similarly, children are considered to not be capable of rendering consent. Although, the laws establishing the age of consent and the ability to marry with parental permission vary widely across the states.  

But when we reach the question of polygamy, I think the doomsdayers may have a point. It is, in my opinion, entirely plausible that the next fight after gay marriage will be for multiple marriages. After all, we allow unlimited serial marriages, as evidenced by this Indiana woman who is considering her 24th husband. Totally legal. 

So is we are ok, legally, with somebody marrying 24 men one right after the other, why are we so frightened by the idea of someone marrying two men at the same time, with everyone involved consenting?

Unfortunately, polygamy carries with it the stigma of some very famous cult-like communes in which young girls were forced into plural marriages with much older men. But that is a separate issue of age of consent and should not be lumped in with the debate over polygamy.

Meanwhile, tv shows like Big Love and Sister Wives are raising awareness and priming the country for a discussion about the limits of marriage. And in fact, the family featured in Sister Wives was the subject of a recent court case which resulted in the weakening of Utah's bigamy prohibitions, essentially allowing people to choose polygamy as a lifestyle without fear of prosecution, while upholding the state's right to decline recognizing the marriages. 

Colorado currently has a similar law, making it a class 6 and class 2 felony respectively for "Any married person who, while still married, marries or cohabits in this state with another." 

This decision could easily be compared to the Supreme Court case in 2003 which struck down sodomy laws. Once gay couples could be "out" without fear of government persecution, the public was able to see how common it was and how many "normal" people were gay. We may see a similar effect as state cohabitation laws begin to fall all over the US and plural marriage families begin to live openly. 

So perhaps some on the right are correct when they say that the next step in the liberalization of marriage is polygamy. But they are wrong in thinking that the gay rights movement is the first step, this progression began long before gay rights. And they are wrong to draw that line farther by concluding that children, animals, and objects will follow, because those prohibitions are not based in religious preference, but rather in the question of consent. 

As for me, I maintain the position that marriage is not the business of the government. I would rather see governments at every level end recognition and regulation of marriage altogether and replace those laws with a system that allows any number of adults to unify their finances and property if they wish, regardless of their romantic relationship with one another. 

But since that is unlikely in the near future, I will continue to support the movement towards recognition, or at least decriminalization, of consenting adults who choose to be in uncommon relationships, whether they are interracial, same-sex, or polygamous. 

The stage was set, Monday, for an inter-party showdown over the repeal of the death penalty.

Competing House Bills 1264 and 1270 both call for an end to the practice of executions by the state, but while 1264, sponsored by Representatives Jovan Melton and Claire Levy simply repeals the practice, 1270, sponsored by Rep. Rhonda Fields, would refer the question to the voters.

Now, there is certainly plenty of debate to be had over whether repealing the death penalty is the right thing to do, beginning with today's Judiciary Committee hearing, and I have my own strong opinions about that, but what I want to talk about is Rep. Fields and her tactics.

Two of the three people currently on death row were responsible for the death of her son, meaning she is hardly objective on this issue. But the fact is, the voters of her district knew her history and her positions when they elected her. So the fact that she has crusaded against guns and opposes ending the death penalty is no big surprise, nor do I think it is unethical for her to participate in this debate.

What is surprising, and upsetting, is that she has chosen to run a competing repeal bill rather than simply oppose Melton's.

She has said, openly and repeatedly, that she is against the repeal. But rather than debate that point, she has decided to make it about who has the right to make that policy decision. And in doing so, she is undercutting everything that democrats have been working for.

The argument on civil unions, on TABOR, and uncountable democratic positions is that the ideal form of government consists of empowered elected officials who write the laws on behalf of the voters. So when Rep. Fields says the legislature is underqualified to handle something as serious as the question of whether the government shoud be executing people, she seriously jeapordizes that message, and someone from her party really needs to tell her so.

I hope there will be a substantial debate over the death penalty, but that debate should be one with an honest opposition, not a dishonest counter-measure sponsored by someone who actually hopes her own bill will fail.