Well, the people warning that the normalization of same-sex marriage would create a slippery slope toward legitimizing many other behaviors that destroy traditional marriage have been proven correct once again. This article points out that academics are now openly defending polyamory (group marriage). I would encourage everybody interested in the future of marriage to read it (for the conservative-averse, forget for a second the source and read the article and judge it on its merits alone).
The arguments used to defend polyamory are, not surprisingly to me, exactly the same that are used to justify SSM: some people can only be happy in open relationships, it is “unfair” to confine the definition of marriage to just two people, etc, etc. You could almost accuse the writer of being a conservative plant trying to undermine SSM if not for the fact that the article is printed in an academic journal and the writer really believes what she says.
From the LDS perspective, it is inevitable that the old canards about polygamy will come out in the years ahead as polyamory debates make their way into public discourse. 10 years ago, it would have been unimaginable that SSM would be acceptable and defended as “the only fair solution” by most elites. 10 years from now, the same things are almost certain to be said about polyamory. And as these discussions take place, prepare for intense studies of 19th century polygamy in Utah. I won’t get into the differences between the two here, but it’s certain to be an issue under discussion in the years ahead.
There are certain moral and ethical lines that should not be crossed. We have crossed one as a society by normalizing SSM and getting away from the God-given definition of marriage. The slope is very slippery indeed.
I’ve long been saying that if the principle of traditional monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is replaced with the principle of consenting adults, just about any combination is possible.
It seems to me that in many ways normalizing Polygamy could lead to higher conversion rates in the US. I know John W. Taylor would probably be very happy to see it legalized.
I think that the legalization of polygamy has potential to be detrimental to the economy. If polygamy were widely practiced in the United States it might kill the mobility of the workforce.
Right now people can look for employment in any state of the union, and if they are offered a good job they can move their family to a new state. Moving 4 wives and 16 kids from one state to another could make accepting a job in another location extremely difficult. What kind of effect would the immobilization of the workforce have on the national economy? I don’t know. But I speculate than in an industrialized/specialized career environment like we have today, it would cause some major problems that didn’t exist to the same extent in the second half of the 19th century.
Geoff, being a journalist and all, you surely know that it is exceedingly sloppy and misleading to extrapolate from *one* University of Chicago legal writing instructor’s thought piece on potential arguments for polyamory to “academics are now openly defending polyamory (group marriage).”
Interesting post, Geoff. I have always kind of assumed that the slippery slope argument would only serve to strengthen the argument against same sex marriage, as it seems like you have assumed in your post (maybe not?). However, at a Sunday School meeting last fall (at the time Oregonians were voting on the constitutional amendment regarding same sex marriage), a woman raised her hand and commented that her parents would not be voting in favor of the one-man-one-woman amendment, simply because “we†believe in polygamy (??).
Regardless of what some members believe regarding the eventual reinstatement of polygamy (note – this is not a belief I share), it seems absurd to support same sex marriage in the hopes (or the anticipation) that the secular practice of polygamy will eventually occur. Not only has our media sufficiently exposed the devastating effects of polygamy on women, girls, and entire communities, our prophets have unequivocally denounced the practice as wicked and inconsistent with righteousness.
While I have not had any direct revelations on why polygamy was practiced in the 19th century, I believe that it was of a different character than what we see in rural Utah or even in other countries of the world. Thus, it does not make sense to me that any member would support same sex marriage for the reasons stated at the beginning of this comment. Perhaps the woman in my Sunday School class is an anomaly, but I have a suspicion that others may feel the same. I hope not.
Kristine, you might want to re-read the article I linked. At least three people are mentioned by name: Elizabeth Emens, Adrienne Rich and Laura Kipnis, all of them academics in one way or another. As you may know, an article like Emens’ does not get published in the “NY University Review of Law and Social Change” without a group of academics reviewing it and approving it as worthy of being printed in a respected academic journal. For example, if Prof. Neonazi from WeluvHitler University were to write an article entitled, “New Evidence that the Holocaust Never Happened,” it would never get published in a respected academic journal because the academics who review such things would rightly reject it as unworthy of publication. So, I think it’s pretty clear that there are some academics who indeed approve and believe in polyamory and believe it should be moved into the public as a legitimate issue of debate. It’s interesting to note that this is exactly what happened with the normalization of homosexuality in the 1960s and 1970s. The first discussions took place in academic journals such as this one.
Geoff,
Regarding the journal, you’re almost certainly wrong on the facts.
Law reviews are run by law students, who select articles for publications. Some of them get faculty input from time to time, but article selection is generally a student act. (There are perennial laments about this from law professors).
As for “respected academic journal” — well, perhaps. NYU Journal of Law and Social Change is published out of NYU, which is a top-10 law school. However, it’s _not_ the flagship journal out of NYU, which is the NYU law review.
Law review rankings are notiriously unreliable, but I would posit that it’s certain that NYU Review of Law and Social Change is not considered a top-20 or top-50 legal journal. After that, rankings get a whole lot fuzzier, but I still doubt that you could find anyone who follows legal scholarship who would place it even in the top 100 of journals. According to a website tracking law review citations, that journal ranked #234 in citations between 1997 and 2004.
This isn’t to bash NYU Review of Law and Social Change for not being the Harvard Law Review. Not every journal is a flagship journal with wide readership and influence. It’s just to point out that this is a niche publication, and that fact, which is common knowledge to anyone with any knowledge of legal academia, is something that the National Review seems to be ignoring in order to hype up their story more.
I should have summed up better —
NYU Rev. L. & Soc. Change has four law-student article selection editors. (See the masthead at http://www.law.nyu.edu/pubs/socialchange/masthead.html ).
I think that acceptance of a piece by four law students for publication in a specialty journal is probably not evidence of “a group of academics reviewing it and approving it as worthy of being printed in a respected academic journal.”
Regarding Johnathan’s comment, think what it would do to employee benefits. What employer is going to want to share the cost of benefits when a family consists of a spouse and children times 2 or 3 or 4 or more?
Bring on the polyamory! I want to hear someone tell me, “This is my wife Jane, and this is my husband Bob” with a straight face.
Whatever the arguments of the academics, I think we’re still a ways away.
This made me laugh:
Geoff, it’s not just 19th century polygamy in Utah that will be examined, but Joseph Smith’s polygamy and his wives’ polyandry in Nauvoo.
Who knows, maybe you’re too hasty in referring to “old canards about polygamy”—while it’s repugnant to our current sensibilities, it may turn out that Joseph was simply way ahead of his time. Is society simply beginning to catch up with him? (Remember, the 19th century arguments for polygamy weren’t just to defend the practice by Mormon elites—they gave naturalistic reasons for the benefits to all of society, inside or outside of the Church, with or without priesthood keys.)
I’ll add that Ms. Emens is _not_ a regular faculty member at the University of Chicago. She is what’s known as a Teaching Fellow. See http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/emens/ . Teaching fellowships vary from school to school, but in general require the fellow to teach some bottom-end course like legal writing. That’s exactly what Ms. Emens taught — see http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/emens/courses.html .
This is readily available information on Google.
Schools like to sell teaching fellowship programs as a chance to interact with faculty, but the reality is that teaching fellows are non-tenured faculty on the bottom of the totem pole; actually, there’s some question as to whether they’re even really _on_ the totem pole. It is the legal equivalent of a post-doc, internship or fellowship.
This is not meant to downplay Ms. Emens’ achievements. There are lots of applicants for these positions; she looks like a very bright young woman.
But the NR’s insinuation that she is a regular faculty member is dishonest and wrong. And as to the assertion that “The University of Chicago is investing in polyamory” — well, a teaching fellow there published a piece in a student-edited specialty journal.
You decide whether the evidence really supports the assertion.
Kaimi, you make some interesting comments and I appreciate the research and input on the source of the article. Question for you: when, as is certainly inevitable, another academic or this same one gets a similar article printed in a more respected publication, will you accept that as evidence that the slippery slope argument I mentioned is correct? When exactly will that tipping point come?
Once again you seem to be nit picking around the edges of the argument rather than taking it on directly.
Danithew summarizes my argument quite nicely: once the “principle of traditional monogamous marriage between a man and a woman is replaced with the principle of consenting adults, just about any combination is possible.” There are people today who justify SSM because it’s not “fair” to “discriminate.” Well, there are also a significant number of people who will argue it’s not “fair” to “discriminate” against polyamorous “marriages” or, eventually, marriages between 20-year-old men and 11-year-old boys or even perhaps bestiality. When Rick Santorum made this point, I’m sure you were quick to vilify him. But you must admit that it seems quite likely that it’s only a matter of time until these other arguments become mainstream. I am simply pointing out that there are people, be it just three academics and four law students at a mediocre publication, who consider that argument worthwhile right now. How soon until it will be many, many more people?
Geoff,
First, I think your logic is faulty. I don’t think I’m nitpicking the edges. The argument is based on evidence — “academics are saying X” — and I’ve critiqued that evidence.
It’s like saying “Steve Evans critiqued me, and Steve Evans is a Times and Seasons permablogger, therefore Times and Seasons doesn’t like me.” If the counter argument is “well, Steve isn’t a T & S permablogger” that’s not nitpicking, that’s a challenge to the factual assertion upon which the original argument was based.
(And “it’s inevitably going to happen” is also not supported by the facts. That’s like saying “well, Steve critiqued me, so some T & S permablogger is bound to critique me some time.”).
Second, I follow legal scholarship to some degree and there are thousands of articles published every year in hundreds of journals. The presence of a piece on polyamory doesn’t show much.
After all, the Harvard Law Review — which _is_ the undisputed, most important legal publication, and has been since time immemorial — recently published a student piece advocating “intelligent design” creationism. Does that mean that legal academia is now a bastion of creationism and that we’re on a slippery slope to the teaching of Genesis in schools?
Yes, it’s possible that this will be the start of a new trend. But lots of law review articles think that they’re the start of a new trend, and 99% of them aren’t.
Geoff (14), you’re ignoring an important operative phrase in danithew’s statement: neither 11-year old boys nor beasts are consenting adults.
CYC # 12: you will have a hard time convincing me that nineteenth-century polygamy involved group-sex performed by pornography drenched sex-crazed hedonists. I would argue that nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints had never seen nor could have even possibly imagined the debasing and debauched acts that are routine fare in hard-core porn, which is itself routine fare for far too many and certainly for people engaged in polyamory.
I think there is a strong argument that nineteenth-century LDS polygamy wasn’t really even about sex at all, except to the extent that is a necessary component of birthing children.
The fact that Emens apparently combines a discussion of group sex with a discussion of nineteenth-century LDS polygamy (that is how the NRO article makes it appear; I haven’t read the NYU journal article) reveals that Emens fundamentally misunderstands the practice and is misguided in thinking that it provides an argument for hedonistic licentiousness.
I am a recent U of C law grad. Some observations. 1. Kaimi is right that Bigelow Writing Fellow is not a very prestigious job in the grand scheme of things — my Bigelow facetiously described himself as “one notch above westlaw reference attorneys” — but they tend to be very smart. 2. I once heard Mary Anne Case, the Law School’s resident expert on law and sexuality, argue that polygamy is an entirely different issue from same sex marriage on various logistical grounds. 3. When we talked about it in class, my sense was that many left-leaners in the student body dismissed the polygamy analogy on the grounds that polygamy is/ has been patriarchal (bad argument I know). 4. I came across this paper when it was a draft, and I had some thoughts similar to Geoff’s.
jf: “Emens fundamentally misunderstands the practice and is misguided in thinking that it provides an argument for hedonistic licentiousness.”
If I remember right, I think she was just giving a lay of the land for where polygamy has been and where it might go, not accusing early Mormons of being hedonists. It’s been a while, though.
CYC (#16), you are correct. It was not my intent to twist Danithew’s argument but instead use one of my own. My own argument is that the normalization of SSM will *inevitably* lead to the normalization of other sexual practices that damage traditional marriage. Polyamory is one example. By the way, if you can marry a 16-year-old girl, why can’t you “marry” a 16-year-old boy if SSM is legal? I’d be interested to know what Massachusetts law says about this if anybody knows.
Kaimi, you once again make some interesting points, but it is nevertheless true that at least three academics and probably many, many more whom neither of us is aware of are making the argument that polyamory should be normalized. And they use the arguments for SSM as their justification.
As far as the Harvard Law Review article on intelligent design goes, I think it does indeed represent a social trend that is worth noting: if the intelligent design movement had not until recently become more academically acceptable, there is no way the article would have been approved. So, its publication does indicate something interesting: the normalization of academic discussion of intelligent design, which is a fascinating trend in itself.
According to Brian Leiter, yes it does!
Did anyone else see the firestorm that ensued in the Blogosphere after Lawrence Van Dyke’s BOOK REVIEW (not even an article) appeared? Brian Leiter led some of the harshest vitriol against Lawrence and the Harvard Law Review that I have ever seen.
John (#17): you will have a hard time convincing me that nineteenth-century polygamy involved group-sex performed by pornography drenched sex-crazed hedonists. I would argue that nineteenth-century Latter-day Saints had never seen nor could have even possibly imagined the debasing and debauched acts that are routine fare in hard-core porn, which is itself routine fare for far too many and certainly for people engaged in polyamory.
Ouch, is this the kind of thing the article in question discusses? If so, shame on me for commenting before reading. Obviously that’s not what Joseph was about. Geoff said “polyamory (group marriage)” in the original post, which I (perhaps naively) thought meant polygamy/polygyny/polyandry, but separately (as in Joseph’s practice), not group sex. If it’s commonly understood to be the latter, then I recant.
Geoff (#20), I don’t think the “consenting adult” idea is in any danger. And the interest of a law review in ID has to do with the fact that it has appeared in court cases, and says nothing about it being “academically acceptable” to scientists.
Kaimi, as a follow-up, here are the profiles of the two other people mentioned as “academics” in the article: Adrienne Rich, one of the best-known lesbian poets and somebody who clearly rejects traditional marriage and everything it stands for, and Laura Kipnis, a professor who is polemicizing against marriage and fidelity. These are not fringe figures. Adrienne Rich received one of the most prestigious prizes in the world, the MacArthur, and it constantly lauded for her “ground-breaking” philosophizing.
So, is it just them? Or are there other prominent academics who champion non-traditional relationships, including polyamory?
Well, take a look at the dozens of academic advisors listed here: or perhaps you would like to read some of the writings of Peter Singer, a Princeton professor called by the New Yorker the “most influential” philosopher or our time. (Singer, by the way, is fervently in favor of polyamory and has no moral problem with bestiality and necrophilia.)
Kaimi, I wish it weren’t true, but unfortunately more and more academics have no problem denigrating traditional marriage. This article is just the tip of the iceberg. And it all starts when you abandon the the basic priniciple that, just as modern-day prophets have said, “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.”
Jordan, please refrain from using profanity on this site. Thanks.
OOPS! I acidentally copied something from another site- the angry mormon- that I was responding to there. Terribly sorry. I did not write that nor did I intend to post it here. Those are the words of someone else, and they are not words I would have ever used, except when copying to quote what someone else said to avoid confusion. I am kind of surprised that people haven’t caught on to the fact yet that I don’t use that kind of language, seeing as I have never posted anything profane.
Here is the quote that SHOULD go above, and if you are kind enough, you will replace the one that is there with this one:
After all, the Harvard Law Review — which _is_ the undisputed, most important legal publication, and has been since time immemorial — recently published a student piece advocating “intelligent design” creationism. Does that mean that legal academia is now a bastion of creationism and that we’re on a slippery slope to the teaching of Genesis in schools?
That should make more sense. Thanks, and apologies all around. You can thank the “Angry Mormon” for that particular choice of words.
Geoff,
Philosophy and lit-crit are not areas where I have sufficient grasp of the literature to make an informed statement. I’ve heard of some of those names, but I’m not qualified to judge how prevalent any of those views are in philosophy or literature or other fields.
I will note that any legal change is likely to need to be vetted in the legal literature before it is implemented. (That is, it seems unlikely to me that statements on polyamory by Peter Singer will become the basis for legal rights, without first passing through the legal literature). And to date, I’m not seeing that trend in legal literature. I could be wrong; I don’t claim perfect knowledge of legal scholarship, but it’s not something I’m seeing right now.
Kaimi, OK, now we’re getting somewhere! We’ve found some common ground. Here is my argument: in the 1960s, homosexuality in general was illegal and considered a mental illness. The first step was for the normalization of homosexuality was for it to be considered socially acceptable. You could argue Walt Whitman started doing that in the 19th century, but there are probably many other writers/philosophers who in the same time frame made those arguments more and more palatable. Then, around 1970 (can’t remember the exact date) homosexuality was no longer considered a mental illness. Companies were pressured to provide benefits to domestic partners. Then, more and more states began to over-write anti-sodomy laws. Then, civil unions in Vermont and SSM in Massachusetts. What was the process?: first, writers/philosophers, second, normalization within society, third, dropping of legal restrictions.
My argument is that the entire process is being played out in front of us again on polyamorous relationships. The first step is with writer/philosophers. We now have the most influential philosopher in the country saying he is in favor of polyamory (and bestiality and necrophilia). How long until his thoughts begin to permeate into society? Well, clearly, he is going to be interviewed and he will convince some people. People will buy his books and read his articles. So, it’s only a matter of time until a large number of people say, “well, if gay people can get married, what do I care if two guys want to marry or woman, and, yeah, now that I think about it, they should get health benefits from their companies just like homosexuals do. They are, after all, in a committed relationship.” Changes in laws are the result of changes in mores. Laws will have to be changed to allow these types of relationships. Will this process take 10 years or 20 or 5? I have no idea, but we are well on our way.
There is only one way to stop this process: as modern-day prophets have warned us, marriage is between a man and a woman. Period.
Interesting point Geoff. It seems like the SSM debate and now polyamory issues are a perfect example of why “slippery slope” arguments can’t be dismissed out of hand, as many like to do. After all, the current state of SSM is the result of such a slippery slope as society took tiny steps at a time towards this eventual end. This NRO article points out that the slope doesn’t end with SSM but goes to the normalization, acceptance as (genetic?) “disposition,” and eventual legalization of group sex. Matt Evans has pointed out in some of the T&S SSM slugfests that the slope extends even further (and I agree with him) to the criminalization of anyone who speaks against the rightness of homosexuality, which includes churches.
(of course, group sex is already legal, I meant the legalization of group-sex-as-marriage, i.e. group marriage or polyamory)
The dreaded Control-V zaps Jordan.
I narrowly missed making the same mistake just a few days ago. A friend e-mailed me and mentioned some very private and embarrassing information. I copied that in my reply. Later that day, I was in the ‘nacle and hit Control-V to copy in part of a post in my reply, and — well, I caught it. But if I hadn’t, it wouldn’t have been pretty.
Geoff,
I think we still differ significantly on the inevitability of the move down the slippery slope.
You correctly note that a present day legal institution in at least one state — same-sex marriage — began as a general philosophical argument.
However, it does _not_ follow that _every_ general philosophical argument will become a legal institution.
To analogize:
You assert that the current “tree” of legal SSM was once a philosophical “seed.” You say “this tree grew out of that seed.” To simplify the argument, we’ll posit that that is correct.
You then point to another “seed” and say “since the seed of SSM grew into a tree, this seed will inevitably grow into a tree as well.”
And that’s the fallacy in your argument. Yes, all trees start out as seeds. But not all seeds become trees. In fact, the vast majority of seeds never become trees. Philosophers and writers float hundreds of ideas every year, and very few of them ever become law.
I’ll concede that it’s possible that your polyamory seed will grow, just as it’s also possible that any of a number of other philosophical seeds — creationism, constitution-in-exile, animal rights, plant rights, whatever else — might eventually become trees. But we can’t say that any particular seed will become a tree. Most seeds won’t grow; I suspect that polyamory is a non-growing seed. Thus, it seems premature to throw our arms up in despair over a seed.
Isn’t the caution for this type of analysis that we are at the early part of the process? Of course, it may turn out the way Geoff B and others have suggested, but it may not. As far as I can tell the ONLY way to resolve the question is to wait X number of years and see if predictions made by Geoff B (or whoever) come true. The fact that the two processes look similar today is far from a guarantee that they will end up looking exactly alike.
As an example …
Someone could have written that the ERA was taking the same path (talked about in academic journals, about to be discussed in the legal literature etc.) in the 1950s. By the late 1970s it looked like a foregone conclusion. But the truth is that it wasn’t a foregone conclusion.
History is messy stuff. The truth is that it is probably premature to declare national gay marriage a foregone conclusion. It seems a likely outcome to many. But who knows?
I now see that I shouldn’t have taken so long composing my (less eloquent) thoughts …
The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they are always justified by reference to historical events that led inexorably to the present. Hence, the present will lead inexorably to one potential result in the future.
There are a thousand and one different potential futures that could follow the acceptance of same-sex marriage. The ones credited in a slippery slope argument are the ones most feared, not necessarily the ones most probable, not to mention the only possible ones.
Kaimi, what you say is true, yet you are neglecting the role of agricultural cultivation in the success of a seed. The chances that certain seeds will become trees is improved when they are nurtured by individuals and institutions that desire the fruit that they may eventually bear.
What kinds of seeds do academic and media institutions generally nurture and cultivate and which ones do they leave to die through neglect? Some seeds are placed in fertile soil and given every chance to grow and bear fruit. Others are purposefully left unplanted.
This is not an organic, unguided process. Farmers cultivate seeds with an end in mind: they want the fruit thereof. I don’t think that academic organizations act any differently.
We are now in a very “informed” society. The move to polyamory will take far less time than it took to adopt abortion or SSM.
Maura Strassberg, an associate professor of law at Drake University Law School, has been studing polyamory (and polygamy) for some time.
Here’s the conclusion from her latest article on polyamory (“The Challenge of Post-modern Polygamy: Considering Polyamory”, 31 Cap. U.L. Rev. 439 (2003)):
“As the above summary makes clear, it is difficult to definitively conclude either that polyamorous marriage necessarily would or certainly would not be incompatible with the modern liberal state. However, this article has raised serious concerns about how polyamory could affect individual autonomy, the maintenance of distinctive public and private spheres, and individual reconciliation with social life and identification with the state. The possibility that polyamory might threaten these fundamental aspects of the modern liberal state suggests that polyamory may be more of a Pandora’s Box than many realize. It could well produce the revolutionary social and political change that some of its advocates claim. Thus, advocates for same-sex monogamous marriage, an institution that is compatible with modern liberal democracy, might justifiably choose not to endorse claims for a legal institution of polyamorous marriage. However, many of these concerns arise from polyamory’s insistence on ‘love without limits.” If the polyamorous were to accept limits, and focus their experimental energies on triads or quads, the reality of these forms might prove many of the concerns generated by the dynamics of larger groups inapplicable.”
The debate is not as limited as Kaimi has suggested.
Sal,
Yes, there are others. But the point remains that these are not influential or mainstream voices. Without meaning to downplay Ms. Strassberg’s accomplishments, she’s not at a top law school — in fact, she’s at an institution generally regarded as “fourth-tier” — and the article in question did not appear in a top law review.
There is nothing wrong with that, and her article may be a fine piece of scholarship. However, if the assertion is that polyamory is entering the mainstream of legal discourse, then I think one must show more than a handful of articles by relatively uninfluential scholars in relatively uninfluential journals.
To see if I was wrong in my intuition that polyamory is a subject that hasn’t gotten much attention or discussion in the legal literature, I just ran a westlaw search on the term “polyamory.” The total number of results in the legal literature — including articles on the subject, articles mentioning other articles on the subject, articles quoting Stanley Kurtz and his assertion that it’s a bad idea — the TOTAL number of hits was 23. (Most of these were parenthetical references to other pieces; it looked like fourt articles actually discussed the topic).
For comparison purposes, “animal rights” returns 1351 hits. “Reparations /3 slavery” returns 210 hits. “Flat tax” returns 1084 hits. Are any of those concepts part of the legal scholarship mainstream and likely to become law in the next few years? Every one of them has several times as many mentions in the legal literature as polyamory, and they are all considered fringe topics.
In addition, and importantly, there were no articles by top-10 faculty in top journals advocating polyandry. If you want to show that this is catching on as a legal trend, I’d like to see an article in Harvard or Columbia or Yale or Chicago, by Larry Tribe or Cass Sunstein or Richard Posner or Akhil Amar. That would constitute evidence that it’s an idea that is being taken seriously in legal scholarship.
Someone is obsessed with rankings.
Quality matters. A lot.
I think that statement is in the top 10 or 15 most true statements made on this page so far. Definitely first-tier, in any case.
I just noticed a scathing criticism of Kurtz’s article on the conservative-libertarian group blog Crescat Sententia.
See http://www.crescatsententia.org/archives/2005_03_28.html#005219 .
The critique finds particularly laughable Kurtz’s argument that the U of C is becoming a liberal bastion. (I find that argument laughable as well).
Kaimi, I will quote below Stanley Kurtz’s response to above, but I really don’t have a dog in that fight. I really don’t care much whether Chicago is conservative or liberal, although I do care that a recent poll reported in yesterday’s Washpost says 72 percent of college profs are liberals and only 15 are conservative. There is definitely a need for more real diversity on campus, but that is another subject for another time.
I think your arguments are this issue were the more relevant and actually quite convincing and effective in debunking Kurtz’s article: ie, that just because one person writes an article for a mediocre law review paper does not yet make it a reason to worry about polyamory as a legal issue. Kurtz’s article would have been much better if he had quoted Singer (“the most influential” philsopher) and given more details about the other academics mentioned and perhaps even linked some of the links I mentioned.
So, we are back to square one, which is that polyamory is in the early stages of being normalized by high-profile philosophers, and that these philosophers are using the same arguments that have been used to normalize SSM. I believe we will soon see these arguments made in the legal arena, especially if more activist judges are appointed by a Bush or a future Democratic president and if the federal marriage amendment is not passed. You most likely disagree. I guess there’s no way to tell the future, so we’ll just have to wait and find out what happens. Along the way, I will be doing my part to keep people aware of what I feel to be dangerous social trends.
Here’s Kurtz’s defense of himself from today’s “Corner”:
A couple of libertarian readers have missed the point of what my recent piece, “Rick Santorum Was Right†had to say about the University of Chicago. My point is that the university as a whole, the law school included, is getting less conservative–especially when it comes to social conservatism. Sure, libertarian conservatism is well represented at Chicago’s law school, and elsewhere at the university. But social conservatives are growing more scarce. Too many hear that U. Chicago is home to “conservatives,†and assume that this includes a healthy share of social conservatives. That is misleading. When it comes to social issues, Chicago’s law school and the university as a whole are now largely liberal. The Committee on Social Thought is less of a home to social conservatives than it used to be. Sunstein and Nussbaum at the law school are now leading influences on political theory in the university as a whole. The great days of Allan Bloom are gone. Chicago’s humanities and social sciences look more and more like any other left-leaning university. The faculty has succeeded in gutting the Western Civ. requirement. The school’s distinctive character is slipping away. Yet Chicago still relies on it’s reputation with conservatives for special support. That is misleading.
This matters because, at the moment, there are virtually no other places for conservatives to go. Social conservatism in particular has been excluded from the contemporary academy. Without Chicago, there is virtually no serious alternative. There is a crisis of conservative reproduction at America’s universities, social conservatism most of all. Conservatives need to know about that–and the decline of Chicago very much a part of the problem. The public remains conservative on a broad spectrum of issues, but it’s not clear where the next generation of conservative intellectuals will come from.
My focusing for the moment on social conservatism is not to say that Chicago is balanced on issues like the war or Middle East Studies. It isn’t–although outside of MES, Chicago is more balanced on military and foreign policy issues than some other major research universities (which isn’t saying much). The real advantage for a conservative student at Chicago is other conservative students–many of them attracted by the school’s traditional reputation. Sheer numbers help conservative students get respect. But the increasingly leftward tilt of the faculty is a real and growing phenomenon. It’s great to have smart libertarians at Chicago, but that does not address the central problem.
I think that one fundamental question we all need to ask ourselves is “Should what is immoral always be illegal?” Many things we find in the Words of Wisdom (i.e. hot drinks, tobacco, etc..) are personal moral choices that we (As LDS faithfuls) make, but are not by any stretch of the immagination something that should be legislated. I would not be breaking the law if I cheated on my wife, but I would never do it. That being said, even if Homosexual Marriage was legal in PA, I would never concider it either. Disclaimer: I do not personally support the legalization of Same-sex marriage, just adding my two cents.