Standard Fox narrative: Any societal change leads to a “slippery slope,” and the next thing you know you’ll be marrying your dog.

And since any change leads to a slippery slope, the best solution is to change nothing.

Some people are polyamorous just like they are left-handed. Under a system of gender equality, there is no good reason to deny that we must keep evolving until an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, monogamy or polyamory, race, or religion is free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (and any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults. Polyamory, polygamy, open relationships are not for everyone, but they are for some. The limited same-gender freedom to marry is a great and historic step, but is NOT full marriage equality, because equality “just for some” is not equality. Let’s stand up for EVERY ADULT’S right to marry the person(s) they love. Get on the right side of history!

So why does Tucker hate the Bible? That is to say all of the parts of the Old Testament that clearly approve of his presumably revered patriarchs having polygamous marriages? Fox claims to be the champion of religious freedom….at least as far as God Fearing Christians is concerned. Don’t Mormons have to right to follow THEIR “deeply held religious beliefs”? Joseph Smith claimed that “celestial marriages” were revealed to him as being holy. Why do they have to comply with Tucker Carlson’s definition of marriage? This should turn out to be interesting.

“Burrus explained that polygamists aren’t part of protected class because it’s a behavior and not “something you’re born with.” Carlson sputtered…"

Hey Burrus, don’t confuse us with facts. We’re Fox.

The good news is sideshow freak Tucker Carlson isn’t pushing the standard Fox News hysterical bs that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their hamster.

The bad news is Tucker Carlson is cranking up right-wing fear-porn over polygamy. The mere thought of polygamy sends bile up the throats of casual Christians, a mainstay of GOP TV, who learned all they know about the Bible listening to talk radio and on the back of bubble gum wrappers.

The reality is the Old Testament is chocked full of polygamy and worse and in the New Testament Christ tells us all we’re better of not getting married to focus on God.

Of course, never confuse Fox News’ right-wing populist vomit with reality.

@ truman: And I think the couple should consummate their relationship in the tub.

(Too far?)

Let’s also not forget that the Church of Latter-Day Saints (aka Mormons) had—as doctrine—polygamous marriage. And the only reason they recanted that doctrine was to become a state. Why aren’t the right-wingers mentioning that little case of government overreach into religious beliefs? Especially those “sincerely held religious beliefs?” It’d be interesting to see how RFRA would stand up in a case by the LDS against the government’s “extortion” for statehood.

But, there are groups of LDS people who still follow the church’s “original” teachings and, I think, per RFRA, their “sincerely-held religious beliefs” should allow them to engage in polygamous marriages.

It’s really the right-wingers who’ve brought polygamy into the picture by standing up for all these bigot entrepreneurs who think that providing a service for same-sex couples is somehow the same thing as endorsing marriage equality.

Now that I’ve dispensed with my incredulity over Christopher’s nonsense, I’d just like to remind Tucker that it’s actually NOT the polygamists who are trying to “redefine” marriage; that was the medieval Christian church.

See, if you go back to The Bible®, you’ll find that there are plenty of God-sanctioned plural (ie, polygamous) marriages.

There’s the case of Jacob. After having stolen his brother’s birthright, he fled to his uncle’s (his mother’s brother) place where he falls for his younger cousin, Rachel. He works for her for 7 years then has a big wedding, only to wake up the next morning married to his other cousin, Leah. He then agrees to work for another 7 years to get Rachel. And even with two wives, he also gets busy with their maids. None of which even merits the slightest drop of rain much less large-scale Sodom-and-Gomorrah-level destruction from a displeased God.

Now, sure. We can excuse this (as many “Christians” seem to do) because it happened before the great revelation of the Commandment against adultery. BUT, it’s not long after that Commandment is issued that another law MANDATES that a virgin who’s raped be married to her rapist (while a man who rapes another man’s wife merely has to pay him, essentially for damaging the man’s “property”)—granted, this isn’t polygamy, but we’ll get to that in a second.

And, in fact, here it is: Solomon. According to The Bible®, Solomon has 700 (again—SEVEN HUNDRED) wives plus 300 concubines. In the era that Solomon is believed to have lived, concubines were in an unusual legal situation—they were often given the same legal protections as wives and recognized by the men with whom they were in the relationship BUT, as a story in the Book of Judges suggests, they were still considered less important (although, the story suggests they could still be worthy of causing a civil war—though that story is especially gory; it’s worth noting too that it takes place generations/centuries after God “punished” Sodom and Gomorrah AND the events were perpetrated by some of God’s “Chosen People” but God takes NO hand in the punishment of these evildoers—funny how the “Cities of the Plain” could so distress God that He could destroy them personally but when the townsfolk in a city filled with His “chosen” repeat the “sin of Sodom,” he lets others of the “chosen” exact revenge as if that really makes a difference).

Also, in that story from Judges, some translations use the words “husband,” “son-in-law” and “father-in-law” to refer to the two men’s relationship with each other THROUGH the concubine (the Levite is the concubine’s “husband” and he is the “son-in-law” to her father while her father is the “father-in-law” to the Levite, who is the concubine’s “husband”).

And even if we allow that concubinage isn’t exactly the same as marriage, it still seems odd that God would allow His “plan” of “one man/one woman” to be so easily disregarded. Unless it was done to show that God liked to play favorites—especially as God allowed His “favorites” to carry on with their adultery (remember that, under Biblical law, adultery was a major sin for BOTH husband and wife).

Hell, it took God’s personal intervention (via dream) to ensure that Joseph married the very pregnant little Mary because Joseph was a “righteous man” and his betrothal to Mary was at risk due to the scandal of the “Holy Pregnancy.” (Joseph’s reputation was that he would never have relations with his betrothed until the wedding night and, under the Law of Israel, a righteous man would be well within his rights to refuse an obviously pregnant woman carrying a child that wasn’t his. In fact, it would’ve been the honorable thing to do—not marry the obvious slattern.)

It is my fundamentalist Christian belief that fTucker (the “t” is silent) and his toaster oven should be allowed to be joined in marriage.

Typical Faux News failure to do any in depth investigative reporting. Just a cursory internet search would turn up that polygamy in Montana is not recent.
According to the Missoula Independent of April 24, 2008 (not the date) Pinedale, MT "Most of the residents of Pinesdale, population 742, belong to the Apostolic United Brethren (AUB), a Utah-based fundamentalist group that has long favored polygamy, or “plural marriage.” "
But notice that it a fundamentalist sect, so to criticize them would be to criticize christian beliefs. And on Faux news that if unforgivable.

Christopher, I’ve read that same comment elsewhere and it didn’t make sense then. WTF is that word salad actually supposed to mean? Even more, WTF does it have to do with THIS article?

Nothing changes in reality, headlines should read: “Gay Marriage – 2 Out of 3 Ain’t Bad.” 1. Civil marriage = (secular, any sexual orientation, paper marriage and divorce) 2. Spiritual marriage = (religious, any sexual orientation, paper marriage and divorce) 3. Physical marriage = (natural children/inseparable union, heterosexual only, no paper required) “Heterosexual Marriage – 3 for 3” So much for equality.