Wednesday, Brian S. Brown of National Organization for Marriage is shouting: “Polygamy is coming! Polygamy is coming!” Of course, according to Mr. Brown, this is an unintended consequence of marriage equality.
Let us recall that NOM lost the battle for which it was formed. NOM was invested in marriage discrimination to the tune of $60 million by the time oral arguments were heard in Obergefell v. Hodges. $60 million pissed away. Brian S. Brown was paid handsomely and he was also looting the organization.
One of the more moronic arguments that Brown and his ilk made was that marriage equality would lead to polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy because there is no tangible link between the undesired event and the undesirable consequence.
It might have been attorney, Mary L. Bonauto, who told the Court that polygamy had to stand on its own. That was true then and that is true now. The decisions that we make are based on a comparison of benefits to detriments. Personally, I have no idea what is on either side of the polygamy balance scale.
Brown’s objective is simple: “I told you so and I was right so now send us money.”
Indeed, in today’s email he writes:
When the US Supreme Court illegitimately redefined marriage in their infamous 5-4 decision in the Obergefell case, we warned that among the consequences that would soon come is the inability to limit marriage to two people. That day is closer than ever to reality.
To make his case, Brian Brown always depends upon an incurious constituency that treats confirmation bias as a virtue:
In the city of Somerville, MA the City Council has unanimously passed an ordinance officially providing legal recognition of “polyamorous” relationships. The Mayor has signed the proposal into law. The purpose of this new law is to, “[move] towards a legal understanding of family that’s as comprehensive as it needs to be to serve all families.”
Yeah, well, I have written about this before. The intent was to provide for hospital visitation and dependent health insurance coverage for people who are in polyamorous relationship.
There are no inpatient facilities in Somerville. Moreover, dependent insurance coverage will be determined, in most cases, by one’s employer and the carrier. In other words, the ordinance has no effect. Obviously it cannot provide marriage rights to polyamorous groups. Only the state can do that and it is not going to.
The drivel continues:
Longtime supporters of NOM will recall that it was in Massachusetts where the same-sex ‘marriage’ battle came to a head when a court took the unprecedented step of redefining marriage in that state. Now they are leading the way on polygamy as well. Their desire to give legal recognition “to serve all families” is consistent with the stated – and highly flawed – reasoning articulated by the Supreme Court justices who imposed same-sex ‘marriage’ on the nation.
Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage in 2004. It would be another four years before NOM was formed by Maggie Gallagher and Robert P. George. The Commonwealth is not “leading the way” on something that Brown disapproves of and polygamy is not on the menu.
The reasoning in Somerville is not at all consistent with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in either Windsor or Obergefell. No marriage rights are at issue.
Finally, the Supreme Court did not “impose” marriage equality on anyone. The only people who have ever been affected are the gay couples thus wed — just as we said all along.
Brown goes on at some length without improving either his logic or truthfulness. I choose to stop here but anytime Brian S. Brown cares to relitigate marriage equality, I am happy to oblige. His are the losing arguments.