Be warned, traditional America. Bill O'Reilly prophesied that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy and now, OMG, a Montana polygamist has petitioned for a marriage license. And according to Tucker Carlson, we can blame gay marriage advocates for this.
This morning, on Fox & Friends, Carlson began by noting how "progressives are celebrating, but [drum roll please] Bill O'Reilly predicted what would happen next." He played video of O'Reilly's prediction that same sex marriage will lead to polygamy. He didn't show O'Reilly's prognostication about sex marriage leading to interspecies marriage. The banner framed the propaganda message: "Gay Marriage Aftermath, Is Polygamy Next To Get Codified By Court?"
Carlson credited O'Reilly with a "prescient prediction" and reported that after the SCOTUS gay marriage decision, a Montana polygamist requested, on the basis of marriage equality, a marriage license to marry his second sister-wife. He introduced his guests, Trevor Burrus from CATO and Kerri Kupec from the anti-gay Alliance Defending Freedom, a group specializing in persecuted Christians.
Carlson wanted to know the basis for the government's case against polygamy now that gay marriage is legal. Burrus cited legal complications emanating from an arrangement that includes more than two people. Carlson asked Kupec if "that's the argument, it's inconvenient to change all the words." He claimed that for "a thousand years, marriage was defined as between a man and a woman, now we've redefined it?"
Kupec, whose last Fox & Friends appearance was about a persecuted Christian student, proceeded to misrepresent the SCOTUS decision as being based on "feeelings" and emotion. As clearly documented in Obergefell v Hodges, the court states that "the right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection." She claimed that if the decision was based on feelings "how could it not support" polygamy.
The banner proclaimed "Gay Marriage Ruling Fallout," as Carlson delivered the agitprop. He claimed that he wasn't arguing against gay marriage or polygamy; but was "merely pointing out the profound dishonesty of gay marriage advocates in claiming that we can have one without the other...this is a political ruse designed to pretend that the logic doesn't extend to other forms of marriage and of course it does."
As the banner asked "Is Polygamy Next," Burrus explained that polygamists aren't part of protected class because it's a behavior and not "something you're born with." Carlson sputtered "actually the debate is still ongoing." (Right, among homophobic right wingers) The banner read "The Next Marriage Fight." In citing groups that practice polygamy, an indignant Carlson asked why, if gay marriage is legal, we "deny them the right" to practice polygamy. Kupec noted that polygamy is an old practice, while gay marriage is new. Carlson continued his effort to show the unfairness of anti-polygamy laws now that we have gay marriage.
So, uh, it's not fair that polygamists can't get married and it's all the fault of gay marriage advocates. Okkkaaaay.......
And since any change leads to a slippery slope, the best solution is to change nothing.
Hey Burrus, don’t confuse us with facts. We’re Fox.
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.
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.
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.)
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.