Archive for Thursday, January 12, 2012

Change overtaking bigoted views

January 12, 2012


We gather here today to parse the meaning of “boo.”

Not “boo” as in the greeting of ghosts and goblins but, rather, “boo” as in the chorus that drowned the bigot Rick Santorum last week after he defended his opposition to gay marriage before an audience of college students in Concord, N.H. Santorum took the same header into non sequitur and illogic that gay marriage opponents often take, i.e., if we legalize this, then we must also legalize polygamy.

It is a line of “thinking” that conveniently ignores a glaring fact. Namely, that there is not and never has been a large culture of people who felt biologically driven toward polygamous behavior, much less who seek social sanction for it. Santorum raises a classic straw man argument, tries to win the debate by stoking fear of what has not and will not happen.

And as you watched him washed from the podium by that song of opprobrium (i.e., “boo”), there was to it a certain sense of last stand, last ditch, last bitter dregs of resistance before the coming of a change that now feels inevitable as the dawn. The former senator and would-be president tried to minimize the question by noting the youth of his questioners — “I’m surprised I got a gay marriage question at a college crowd,” he quipped. “Really, that’s a shock to me.” — but in so doing, he manages to simultaneously make and miss the point.

There is an absolute historical pattern to the bigotry of social conservatives. They rally using terms of moral Armageddon against the freedoms sought by some despised or condescended to Other, whether that be a woman wanting to work outside the home, a Jew seeking to join the country club, an African-American trying to get home on a city bus. Then the freedoms are won, and people — even socially conservative ones — realize the world kept spinning after all. Armageddon did not come. Only change.

The point is that change is usually spearheaded by the young. They are the ones who are quickest and most likely to reject lame arguments built of straw and fear. So while Santorum tries to laugh off the youth of those pressing him about gay marriage, he might be well advised to ponder the deeper implications thereof.

A 2010 survey by the Pew Research Center found support for marriage equality on the rise among all age groups, but noted that the support is highest among the young. Among those born after 1980, 53 percent approve (as opposed to 39 percent who do not).

Santorum seems to believe the children will grow out of their foolishness. Actually, the truth is probably closer to what the songwriter said: “I believe the children are our future.” Consider that prominent conservative blogger Meghan McCain, who is not yet 30, dubbed Santorum’s views “dated” and “gross.”

The trend lines are clear. As children, even children of the right, now find it hard to fathom there was ever a time women could not work outside the home or Jews were banned from the country club, so will there come a day when they will marvel that once upon a time, gay people could not be married.

The future is coming and not all the frothing and spewing of people like the bigot Santorum can deter it. Or, to put that another way:


Leonard Pitts Jr., winner of the 2004 Pulitzer Prize for commentary, is a columnist for the Miami Herald. He chats with readers from noon to 1 p.m. CST each Wednesday on


JayhawkFan1985 3 years, 1 month ago

Santorum claims to be for getting government out of our lives. Radical right is wrong whether it is Nazi Germany, Taliban Afganistan or Fundementalist Christians in the US. What Santorum really wants is to use the government to impose his worldview on the rest of us just like the Nazis and the Taliban did.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

Santorum does not claim to be for getting the government out of our lives. In fact, quite the opposite:

"One of the criticisms I make is to what I refer to as more of a libertarianish right ... They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."

So if you're going to criticize the guy, at least try to criticize something he actually says. There's plenty of that available.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

That said, Santorum's view is simpletonish. The "libertarianish right " does not believe that individuals must "go it alone" unless the federal government directs their every action. They believe that individuals, families, churches, clubs, associations, and communities are able to organize their own lives in a healthy and meaningful manner without Santorum's wisdom directing them from Washington.

JayhawkFan1985 3 years, 1 month ago

It is part of their "cultural revolution" and "great leap backward." If he gets his way, schools will be teaching that the earth is flat and less than 6000 years old.

Abdu Omar 3 years, 1 month ago

The people of New Hampshire spoke quite loudly to Santorum on Tuesday.

JayhawkFan1985 3 years, 1 month ago

What makes you think he bothers to read or even can read? Perhaps he has hired someone to type his lunatic rants thereby creating one of his prized private sector jobs. I would even bet he offers dental...

jaywalker 3 years, 1 month ago

Ten years. Another decade and I'm bettin' the ridiculous opposition to homosexuals garnering "real people" status will be in the minority. Thank God. Pitts' is right that hope lies with our youth.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

What's wrong with polygamy? If consenting adults choose to enter into that sort of relationship, that's their business.

And, he's wrong about there being no evidence of it - isn't the Bible filled with patriarchs and their multiple wives?

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

He didn't say there isn't evidence of it. He said that people aren't biologically equipped at birth toward polygamy. That is something learned.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

How would we know?

He also said nobody seeks social sanction for it, but of course that's not true either - Mormons for many years did exactly that.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

We know because only those who are raised in a polygamist community are the ones who seek to practice polygamy. You don't find random people in societies around the world trying to be polygamists, at least not in any real number. You do find gay people around the world and in all societies, not just in ones where they learn about how to practice being gay. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are innate, polygamy is learned -- according to its practice.

You are right about 19th century Mormons.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

According to Wikipedia, of over 1200 societies studied, only about 180 are monogamous.

Perhaps only the people raised in monogamous cultures are the ones practicing that?

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

Well, if you are going to throw down on me with Wiki, I must stand corrected. : )

asixbury 3 years, 1 month ago

Good point. How can we push for homosexuals to be treated equally, but then prevent people of a less popular life choice (polygamy) from doing what they want? I do not think they should be granted any special rights, just the same as any heterosexual would have.

esteshawk 3 years, 1 month ago

Treating people equally (see 14th Amendment) is not granting "special rights." It is equal rights. Allowing people to maryy one person is not the same as allowing them to marry several people, just like it is the same as allowing them to marry animals.

asixbury 3 years, 1 month ago

True. I agree with your statement that granting people equal rights is not granting special rights. That is the exact point I was making. I was saying everyone should be treated equal despite their sexual choices. I also agree that marrying one person is not the same as marrying several. I did not mean rights such as marriage alone; I meant that it should be the individual's choice to be involved in polygamy or homogamy, and should not be treated differently because of their choices. I also am not against people marrying more than one person. The only reason this is not legal is due to religious-based views that polygamy is unethical or immoral. That should not be the sole-basis of making anything illegal. What happened to separation of church and state? Who really cares what a person's religious views are (that's their personal choice). That said individual should not have the right to prevent other people from practising something they feel is not immoral or unethical, and may even be a part of their own religion. The State's job is not to enforce religious views of the majority onto the minority.

littlexav 3 years, 1 month ago

He said "not 'special' rights" but just giving them "the same" rights... Like, marriage is a right for everyone.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

Bingo! Polygamy actually has a long and widespread tradition all over the world. Pitts can argue that homogamy is 'biological' whereas polygamy is not, but that's just a convenient opinion designed to get around the obvious. Marriage itself is not biological in any sense; it's cultural and legal. Santorum, for all his faults, is absolutely correct on this.

I'm not in favor of banning polygamy (or homogamy - I really don't care). But if you allow one, there is really no argument left against allowing the other.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 1 month ago

Of course there is. We're not talking monogamy versus polygamy/ We're talking monogamy for all consenting adults versus monogamy only for straight consenting adults.

Jeez Louise. This is NOT a hard concept to grasp.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

What's the argument against polygamy?

jayhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

Some time ago I was reading about how and why opposition to polygamy evolved in the 1800's. The problem was that as many went to the western frontier, men outnumbered women by a large number. When Mormons came into the region, with one man having several wives, there was the fear that resentment would lead to social discord and violence. One can imagine a small town where one man had five wives and several young men had no eligible women around.
Obviously, I would not support a policy that is bigoted in it's roots. However, I may support a policy if it's intent to prevent social discord and violence. A prohibition against polygamy seems to have elements of both. I could easily see that in large metropolitan areas, the ratio of men to women would be impacted so little, that a prohibition against polygamy might be rooted in religious bigotry. But in areas with small populations like Southern Utah or Northern Arizona, the imbalance might become substantial. In those areas, prohibitions may well be rooted in preventing discord and violence. Tough call.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Not for me.

I wouldn't base these sorts of policies on fears of "social discord" - all change creates some of that.

With our greater mobility these days, if there aren't enough women in your hometown, you can always move somewhere else.

If a bunch of women want to marry one man, instead of others, I feel no obligation to change that situation - our government has no responsibility to provide young men with possible wives, in my view.

jayhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

I don't know. Hate speech isn't protected specifically because it could cause discord and violence. We wouldn't say the speech is protected and the listener should simply remove himself from listening range. Why impose moving on a person simply wanting to engage in one of the most normal of activities? I'm high on the fence on this issue, playing a little devil's advocate because I'd like to hear arguments both ways.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

I didn't "impose" anything on anybody. If somebody isn't satisfied with the local potential marriage partners, they can do whatever they like - they can not get married, they can complain about it, they can move to find a more suitable place.

The question of what restrictions on speech are reasonable and correct is a very complex question, and different people have different views on that. Speech that deliberately works people up into a frenzy and aggressive state may in fact cause violence.

However, if my choice of marriage partners is one that you don't like, I wouldn't call that causality in the same way - otherwise anything that anybody does that somebody else might not like falls into that category, and should be restricted.

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

You mention speech that works people into a frenzy. Might that also happen if you live next door to some guy that has multiple wives and there are no available mates for you. What if you live on the family farm or in the house that's been passed down. We all have ties to certain communities, some so strong that leaving would be very hard. (North Dakota has an unemployment rate of near zero, yet inner city unemployed aren't being asked to relocate). I'm not saying there will be discord and violence. But I see how that argument can be made.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

And, when the guy next door is in a frenzy because you're married to somebody of a different race,...?

Or because you're involved in a homosexual relationship?

Or because you don't fly the American flag outside your door?

Or because you criticize the government?

Ultimately, in a society that values freedom, we don't regulate all of these activities because others may have negative reactions to them - we consider the people reacting responsible for their behavior.

I'm a little on the fence about hate speech, also, for a similar reason - whose responsibility is it when people get all worked up and act on it?

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

When it was illegal for black and white people to get married, many made similar arguments to this one.

And, in fact, I'm sure that interracial marriages resulted in social discord and some violence.

Should we have continued banning them?

jhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

Hopefully not, since I'm involved in one.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Well, there you have it.

The folks involved in polygamous marriages want it to be legal just as much as you want yours to be legal.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Also, of course, polygamy could mean that one woman has several husbands.

jayhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

What percentage of polygamous relationships are one woman with multiple husbands? My guess is that it would be close to 1%, if that.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

I have no idea.

Let's make polygamy legal, and then we'll find out.

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

Polyandry (Greek: poly- many, andras- man) refers to a form of marriage in which a woman has two or more husbands at the same time. The form of polyandry in which a woman is married to two or more brothers is known as "fraternal polyandry," and it is believed by many anthropologists to be the most frequently encountered form. (Taken from Wikipedia)

It's not and has probably never been common, but has been practiced in a number of societies throughout the world. Some obvious problems are that the father of a child could not be known (until modern testing became available) and pregnancy/childbirth could keep the woman unavailable for sex for long periods of time.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago


Sounds fine to me, as long as those involved are consenting adults.

Also, I see no problem if 2 guys want to marry 5 women, or vice-versa.

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

We already have serial monogamy and, according to surveys, a lot of sex by married people with people outside of their marriages. I would posit that is essentially polygamy or polylandry.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Except that when somebody cheats on their spouse, the spouse hasn't consented to that arrangement.

Seems like an important distinction to me.

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

Fair point, but polymarriages aren't always consensual either. But that wasn't the point I was trying to make---I'm just saying that our society in general forbids polymarriage, but what we already have isn't much different.

I see stable and consensual relationships as being the best thing we can have for a stable society. I don't know that extending or limiting types of relationships will have a whole lot to do with that. It depends on the person and their dedication to stability and loyalty.

Would polymarriages cause there to be less "cheating"? Hard to say.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

I support any and all forms of consensual adult relationships - non-consensual ones are a different story.

It's very different - one is a decision by informed adults to enter into a certain kind of relationship, and the other is an example of lying, and breaking one's vows.

I'd like to find out - my first inclination is that the answer is yes, because one wouldn't need to cheat in order to have variety in sexual partners.

The more interesting question, to me, is whether or not these sorts of marriages can be stable or not.

But hey, our current statistics on monogamous marriages aren't stellar either.

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

I think we're saying pretty much the same thing here, perhaps in different ways.

My opinion would be that some people are going to cheat and will do so whatever type relationship they are in. Whether there would be less cheating with more variety, as I said, is hard to say.

I see the most important thing, both for marriage and our society as a whole, as being a dedication to honesty and loyalty.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 1 month ago

This is only a problem if the society is patriarchal in nature. In a matriarchal society, no one gives a flip who the father is.

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

Yes, I thought about adding that. Myth/legend has it that in societies like the pre-Christian in Britain and the Amazon in central Asia, woman took lovers as they pleased and sustained no long term relationships. They kept the girls and gave the boys to their fathers. Interesting, but who knows?

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

From the same source, of over 1200 societies studied, only about 180 were monogamous.

That's pretty interesting.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

That's a theoretical reason for why polygamy might cause discord, but it's not how opposition evolved in the 1800s. For northern Europeans historically there has been (virtually) no polygamy nor homogamy, going back into pagan times. It has simply never been an institution associated with Europeans.

Therefore the Mormons were implementing a cultural change almost against universal experience - opposition did not evolve, it appeared immediately and brutally. It might have even been expressed in religious language, but the opposition was at its base cultural.

jayhawkinsf 3 years, 1 month ago

The way I read it, the cultural change the Mormons were bringing came into a region that already had a male/female ration problem. They were not going into a region that had established cultural norms like in Europe, with a stable male/female ratio. Essentially, what was happening was there was a big problem that was then exacerbated (at least in perception) by the appearance of polygamy.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

Joseph Smith instituted Polygamy in the 1830s, when the Church was still headquartered in Ohio, with an outpost near Kansas City in Missouri. Both were states that had "established cultural norms like in Europe."

They went into Utah only after Smith's death, and partly as a result of the harassment brought on by polygamy.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 1 month ago

This isn't just a problem in "olden times". Some of the largest, polygamous, "fundamentalist" Mormon sects kick young men and boys out of their cults because they represent a sexual and matrimonial threat to the elder males. These young men and boys (some as young as 14 and 15 years old) are routinely abandoned in the streets of Salt Lake and Provo. They represent a huge headache to Utah state social services because so many of them are minors. In a cult where being male is being in a position of power (only males can attain "priesthood"), being actually born male is a distinct disadvantage. I really urge everyone to research what's called the "lost boys" phenomenon.

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

No argument that this is true and a bad consequence. However, I don't know that this is inherent in the concept of not limiting marriage to one male and one female. More a result of older men having too much power and abusing it.

If our society does move in this way, I predict quite a few years of experimentation before we get it right---but that is what always happens with change.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Exactly what I might have said :-)

Also, if parents are allowing their children to be kicked onto the streets, they're negligent parents.

If adults choose to get involved in a church that then kicks them out, that's their choice.

The best way for these situations to be resolved is for people, both male and female, to simply stop joining such churches/groups.

If there's some sort of coercion involved, of course, that's a different story.

esteshawk 3 years, 1 month ago

The idea of polygamy (multiple partners) is basically the opposite of marriage (one partner, for ever and ever and ever . . . ).

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Not exactly.

It's a commitment to more than one person, instead of just one - so the commitment is similar.

The opposite of marriage would be a complete lack of commitment, and multiple partners.

guesswho 3 years, 1 month ago

You could make an argument that polygamy happens in its own form with guys (or gals) dating and sleeping with several people at the same time. (Others would have choice names for them).

But what it comes down to are the legal benefits 'marriage' provides that same-sex couples cannot have. Legally it may be much more complicated to divide properties among multiple wives/husbands and resulting offspring as opposed to one partner.

One problem with traditional polygamy is that you need more women then men. There are some Mormon sects in Utah who kick out teenage boys because they do not want a balance of men/women (google "Lost Boys Mormon)".

However, those are not reasons to ban polygamy; just as you cannot ban women from being in abusive relationships or ban stupidity (and I am not saying women in abusive relationships are stupid, I am referring to stupidity in general) .

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

It might be a little more complicated, but it certainly would be feasible - my first thought is that each spouse gets an equal share.

And, again, polygamy would be legal marriage with more than one spouse, and with consenting adults. All of this other activity isn't anything like that really.

verity 3 years, 1 month ago

Almost any time you have people involved in sharing/dividing property, you are going to run into problems. So you are right that it will make property division more difficult even when there are legal ways of doing it. One has only to think of the often homicidal relationships between half-brothers/sisters in dynastic families throughout history.

The state has one way of property division and would have to amend those laws if polymarriage were allowed, but a will overrides the state and we all know what kinds of problems that can cause.

As you have said, not a cause for banning polymarriage, but certainly a cause for concern and thought.

esteshawk 3 years, 1 month ago

(sigh) It doesn't matter what religion: The US Government cannot enact laws that are based on religious views; that is why banning gay marriage is inherently unconstitutional: objections are based on religious views.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

Pitts is absolutely correct here. The same arguments being used against gay marriage are the same conservative arguments that were used against racial integration. Social conservativism is wrong on many issues again and again.

Satirical 3 years, 1 month ago

Hey bea, how is life treating you?

I think the strongest argument against changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage, polygamy, group marriage, incestuous marriage, etc., isn't that it will lead to Armageddon (straw man argument by Pitts); it is that there will be negative social consequences.

I consider myself a social moderate, but I agree that when you water down the definition of the most important social relationship (marriage) to include essentially any contractual agreement between consenting adults, marriage becomes everything, which essentially means marriage is nothing. With marriage and the legal structure to encourage it essentially ending, the stability of the traditional family will erode and we will live in a more transitory society with less to bind families together.

I could use as an example African American families where close to 72% of African American children are born to unwed mothers. This transitory nature of hooking up and then jumping to another mate has clearly had a negative impact on the African American community. While many people have disagreed on the exact impact, I think most people would agree that the African American community would be better off it that number would drop significantly.

Again, I think society would go on if the definition of marriage changes, but our society would be very different, and I think it could have serious negative consequences.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

Hey Sati, I'm doing well, thank you. Hope you are too.

Here is the rub to Santorum's question about polygamy. If we grant one man and one woman the right to marry, what is preventing that one man from marrying three women? That is the Santorum logic. His logic is basically that nobody should be allowed to marry because they might off and marry more than one person.

Now, assign whatever gender you choose to the following question. What is the difference between one person and one person marrying, and another person being allowed to marry another person? Two people being allowed to marry does not change the total sum of people. It does not mean allowing multiple people to marry.

Changing the gender does not change the number.

Satirical 3 years, 1 month ago

I am doing great. Thanks for asking.

With regard to your argument that changing the gender does not change the number, see my argument at around 9:18 (if we are going to oppose non-arbitrary discrimination regarding who may marry, then both gender and numbers seem to be in the same boat).

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

Your argument seems quite flawed to me.

First, allowing differing forms of marriage in no way includes any contractual agreements between adults - there are many contractual relationships that have nothing to do with marriage.

Second, given divorce rates, marriage is not a fundamentally stable institution already.

Third, this argument about social consequences is always used to restrain change - it was used about interracial marriage, now about gay marriage, etc.

Are there problems in the black community? Sure, but what relevance does that have to this discussion?

We currently don't have gay marriage nationwide, or polygamy, etc. so they can't be any sort of cause of the problem you mention.

Kendall Simmons 3 years, 1 month ago

As I posted previously, the issue of gay marriage is NOT about monogamy versus polygamy. It's about monogamy for all consenting adults versus monogamy only for straight consenting adults.

Why is this such a frickin' hard concept to grasp???

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

That may be one of the discussions, but it's not the only one.

What's the justification for limiting marriage to two people, if all involved are consenting adults?

gudpoynt 3 years, 1 month ago

And how is that different from Libertarians claiming that civic and economic Armageddon will not only ensue, but is already ensuing, as a result of taxes being levied for public services?

gudpoynt 3 years, 1 month ago

"Libertarians don't even talk in those terms, because we are realists"

[one post earlier]

"The leftists proclaim that society will end if we have economic freedom"

Consistency loses it's value if you're a hypocritical idiot.

esteshawk 3 years, 1 month ago

Look back a 100 years when the robber-barons had economic freedom. Elderly and poor were dying in the streets. And had no healthcare. And were starving. And living in squalor. And were uneducated (sort of like many current day conservatives).

Getaroom 3 years, 1 month ago

A very well placed article and great points made once again from Pitts. There must be some truth to the saying "ignorance is bliss" because there sure is a lot of it flying around amongst the wannabe GOP Presidential hopefuls(reminds me of that cloud swirling around pig pin). And then of course there are The Tea Party supporters who so fervently feel the need to chose one of them and anoint him as most Conservative Christian. There have been a throng of Republican Christian Values politicians passing through the door of "THE HOUSE" on "C" St. Enough of 'em to see how that works out as a measuring stick of morality and ethics.

And since it seems clear that one of the driving forces behind those Conservative Christian values are Corporate PACS, Here is something else that is spot on: Bill Moyer's Texas friend commenting on Corporations being hailed as persons via the Supreme Court, "will believe Corporations are people when Texas executes one of them". That sums it up well. Anyone noticing the increase in noxious odors coming out of FOX NEWS lately?

Ragingbear 3 years, 1 month ago


Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

So Meghan McCain is now a "prominent conservative blogger"? It's nice to see Pitts' grasp on reality is as tenuous as ever.

Fossick 3 years, 1 month ago

Prominent yes, but not conservative. She is a self-admitted "social liberal" who voted for John Kerry in '04 and didn't even register as a Republican until her dad was running for the party's nomination.

If she's a conservative, so am I.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

Have you seen the girl? She is "prominent" all right.

(sorry, couldn't avoid the easy cheap shot. Just a joke. I actually like Meghan McCain.)

goodcountrypeople 3 years, 1 month ago

If only the title of Pitts' column spoke to a more local trend. It would create a true motive to cheer!

Mike Ford 3 years, 1 month ago

some people try to bait fish in ponds with dumb comments. let those people starve from their dumb comments.

Satirical 3 years, 1 month ago

A few quick points:

(1) Santorum is not going to win the nomination, so who cares what he thinks?

(2) "(T)here is not and never has been a large culture of people who felt biologically driven toward polygamous behavior, much less who seek social sanction for it." - Pitts

Exactly, because the evidence is clear that no one has ever felt biologically attracted to more than one person in their entire life....and polygamy wasn't criminalized in order to discriminate against a small unpopular minority....

(3) I am against polygamy because of the social consequences. There wouldn't be enough women to go around after George Clooney, Brad Pitt, and I split up the world's women. With each of us getting 1/3 of available women, all the other unwed men would start wars and Armageddon would ensue.

(4) Pitts only has one method of writing articles (when he isn't claiming your dog is a racist). Find a statement made by one individual, apply it universally in non-relevant contexts, then claim moral superiority of the Left. Yet for some reason people think he has something relevant to add to the national discourse. He needs to stick to his bread and butter of claiming everyone who doesn't agree with his point of view is a racist.

Getaroom 3 years, 1 month ago

Your Point # 1 - great!

's 2 and 3 - who cares what you think.

Your Point #4. Wrong, but can easily be applied to most any Republican who has hijacked political rhetoric to twist fact and truth. FOX NUZ included.

Satirical 3 years, 1 month ago

"#'s 2 and 3 - who cares what you think" - Getaroom

Looks like someone is jealous.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

While I love most of your post, I don't exactly agree on the stance that Pitts is extrapolating what one person says without it actually applying to others. Many beyond Santorum have made the polygamy charge as a reason to be against gay marriage. It really is a line of thinking that resonates with a certain segment of the population.

Yet, in the end you are right. Santorum will never get the nomination.

Nice to know you would leave some women for George and Brad.

Mike Ford 3 years, 1 month ago

conservatives who are the problem flipping the hate issue on the people they offend.... priceless...

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

If we allow a man to marry a woman, what is stopping that man from marrying three women? Since he might attempt it, we shouldn't allow men to marry women.

That is Santorum's argument, but without switching genders. One man marrying one man (or a woman marrying a woman) does not mean that he or she would off and marry three. It also doesn't mean we need to change the numbers of people allowed to marry. Marriage would still involve two people, just as it does now. Santorum's is a silly argument.

Satirical 3 years, 1 month ago


I think his argument could be supported if he stated that ending non-arbitrary discrimination for who the state allows to marry shouldn't stop with gender. Discriminating against someone who loves two (or ten) people is just as immoral as discriminating based on sexual orientation. Discrimination is still discrimination.

The best argument I have heard that support same-sex marriage and can't also be used for polygamy, etc., is that if same-sex marriage is not allowed, gays and lesbians can't marry anyone they love, whereas if polygamy were not allowed, that person can still marry at least one person they love.

Whereas, if gender discrimination is arbitrary, then the numbers distinction you bring up is also arbitrary discrimination.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

I believe the "at least one" is a fine argument.

Besides, denying gay men the right to plan their own wedding? That is just cruel and unusual punishment. Imagine how it would stimulate the economy.

Cait McKnelly 3 years, 1 month ago

"The left is in a constant state of paranoia/panic/hate/hysteria....." This from a man who uses a Fox "News" logo. The irony is priceless.

beatrice 3 years, 1 month ago

Um ... okay. You really stuck it to us lefties with that one.

yourworstnightmare 3 years, 1 month ago

The laws against polygamy are based in fact and experience.

There is, on the face of it, nothing wrong with consenting adults entering into polygamous relationships.

The "consenting adults" part is key. Polygamy has a tried and true history of abuse associated with it. Abuse of young girls taken as brides. Abuse of young boys to prevent them from usurping the bigamist. Abuse and disempowerment of women.

From biblical times to the present, polygamy is always associated with abuse. Recently, Warren Jeffs is the example of this.

There is no history or record of abuse in homosexual relationships that goes beyond heterosexual relationships, as abuse in polygamous relationships does.

Reason 1, straw man 0.

jafs 3 years, 1 month ago

There is plenty of abuse in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, though - too much.

Any legal polygamy would not condone abuse, any more than our current laws do so.

asixbury 3 years, 1 month ago

Vertigo: 1, ksfbcoach: 0.

Talk about a pot calling the kettle black!

Commenting has been disabled for this item.