It begins

A man convicted of polygamy intends to argue that the conviction should be overturned in light of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision. He hasn't got a prayer - first because several of the brides were too young to consent and also because reversing a criminal conviction on the basis of a change in law is extraordinarily difficult, even when the change applies directly (as this one does not). But this is the start of what I have been predicting - that to the extent homosexual persons have a right to marry, so do polygamists.

Caveat #1: The members of such marraiges would have to be non-incenstual, of age and fully consenting. At least some (and maybe many or most) polygamous marriages involve young girls, and the state still has a basis for regulating that, as well as incest, I think.

Caveat #2: The state might be able to articulate a basis for limiting paid benefits to one partner - I suppose the law in this area would have to change.

But the basic point is that if Lawrence's explicit holding that morality alone can never be a compelling state interest means homosexuals have a right to marry - and that's a big if - then polygamists who meet caveat # 1 should have the same right. I invite readers (and my Remove All Doubt colleagues) to prove me wrong, but I have been unable to imagine and articulate a compelling state interest in preventing polygamy that is not independent on a moral judgment, which the Court says we need. I assume tradition won't be enough, and neither will enforcing cultutral norms - or at least they won't be enough unless they are for homosexuals as well.

I have put this point to friends who explicitly support homosexuals unions and have yet to get a convincing answer. So that's my contention for the day - if states are constitutionally required to recognize homosexual marriage (a long way off, I know), then they are also required to recognize polygamous ones. As Seymour Skinner famously said, "Prove me wrong kids. Prove me wrong."
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:53 PM