Court agrees: if homosexuals can marry, so can polygamists.

Once you blow up a societal consensus it cannot be easily reconstructed to protect only those practices or beliefs you like while still banning those you think ought to be kept beyond the pale. That’s the upshot of a case decided late on Friday in a Federal District Court in Salt Lake City, Utah that essentially decriminalized polygamy. The case, Brown v. Buhman, which was brought by the stars of Sister Wives, a TLC cable channel reality show depicting the life of a man with four wives and 17 children, who challenged the Utah statute that not only prohibited marriage with more than one spouse but said it was illegal for a person to cohabit with someone who was not their legal spouse. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling that struck down state laws that prohibited sodomy, Judge Clark Waddoups heeded the plaintiffs’ argument that said Utah’s law violated their right to privacy.

Of course some Liberal bigots like Stanley Kurtz, would deny polygamists their rights with this ridiculous argument:

Polygamy in all its forms is a recipe for social structures that inhibit and ultimately undermine social freedom and democracy. A hard-won lesson of Western history is that genuine democratic self-rule begins at the hearth of the monogamous family.

So denying people the right to marry who they wish, as many times as they wish is the new meaning of "freedom." The idea that people deciding to marry more than one person is a threat to democracy is ludicrous.

But cheerleaders for gay marriage may not like that yucky polygamy, but they may have to swallow their disgust, realizing that there is absolutely no rational argument against polygamy once you decide that gay marriage is a good thing.

All that is needed is a little candor on this issue on the part of critics of the dwindling band of opponents of gay marriage. The floodgates have been opened, and if that makes some of us uncomfortable, especially those who understandably view polygamy as synonymous with the exploitation of women, then we should be honest enough to acknowledge that it is merely part of the price that had to be paid to give gays the same right to marry afforded to other citizens.

The case for polygamy becomes legally compelling

I have argued many times that there is actually a better case for polygamy than for same sex marriage.  It has a longer and more diverse tradition and is supported and sanctioned by a number of religions.

Matt Lewis:

 

Discussing the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage recently, Sen. Rand Paul joked about bestiality. This was unwise. If Paul wanted to make the slippery slope argument, the case for polygamy is much more compelling — and realistic.

This is not some straw man argument. As BuzzFeed’s McKay Coppins pointed out, polygamists are, in fact, celebrating the court’s decision. And they have every reason to do so. After all, why shouldn’t marriage equality apply to them, too?

The arguments are essentially the same. For example, Sen. Al Franken recently issued a statement saying, “Our country is starting to understand that it’s not about what a family looks like: it’s about their love and commitment to one another.” Polygamists couldn’t agree more.

I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love each other — shouldn’t be allowed to do so?

What’s magical about the number two?

There are practical reasons, too. It’s harder and harder these days to make ends meet. As a man, I can only imagine how much more efficient it would be to have one wife in the workforce and another wife at home with the kids. This would be much better for the children than shipping them off to some nursery school. And having three parents is a lot better than having just one … or none.