David Fowler President

November 3, 2009

While running the campaign in 2006 to make sure Tennessee’s Constitution protected the definition of marriage from liberal, activist judges, I heard opponents say that the law should not discriminate by allowing only heterosexuals who love each other to get married. Some folks think that’s discriminatory, too.

 

That’s right—if the essence of marriage is only love, then it’s discriminatory to limit marriage to just two people ... at least to those who recently gathered in Snowbird, Utah, for the first ever Polygamy Conference. If two is good, why not three? Perhaps, “the more the merrier” might apply. After all, if one spouse is mad at you, you would have an alternative spouse to relate to.

 

I know that’s not really funny, but accepting homosexual marriage isn’t very funny if you later want to provide someone an intellectually honest answer to why polygamy should not also be embraced. When debating the marriage amendment, I would point out to all who would listen that if marriage were redefined, what would be the proper response in opposition to those who would later advocate for polygamous marriages. I never got a reasoned answer to that question. What I heard were things like, “America just won’t accept that,” or, “No one’s arguing for that,” or, “That’s not the issue.” In other words, the answers were based either on mere fiat (“just say no”) or avoidance.

 

Well, 15 years ago no one was seriously arguing for homosexual marriage, and America would not have accepted it either.

 

If Gay Unions, Why Not Polygamy, Too?

 

I’m reminded of a brilliant law review article by distinguished Yale law professor Arthur Leff, who dismissed the notion of the existence of the Christian God who, as the transcendent Creator of man, could authoritatively say what was right and what was wrong. His conclusion was that, in the absence of God, “we can say all kinds of things” about what the law should be, but “what we cannot say is why one’s ‘say’ is any better than another.” And logically, he is correct.

 

Those who insist that any notions of God be left out of public policy and that public values not be based in one’s views about God have left themselves no reason to oppose policies with which they disagree. Oh, atheists and “practical” atheists (including Christians who don’t believe God is relevant to politics) can oppose anything they want, but who is to “say” that their position is the truly right one? Yes, they can argue their position is the most reasonable, but who is to say that reason or “reasonableness” should be the means by which we make decisions? The tyrant with more guns than those who advocate for the “rule of reason” might not think that very reasonable. Like the professor said, we can say reason is better than guns when it comes to making public policy, but who is to say so? Maybe the guy with the gun is actually right (but again, who is to say what is right?).

 

So, I guess time will tell as to whether those who think us intolerant for our view of marriage will be intolerant as well as hypocrites by denying marriage to those who just met in Utah. After all, unless marriage is rooted in something transcendent, then “who on earth” is to say marriage should be limited to two people?