Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Even traditionalists can't argue with polygamy since it has been a valid form of marriage for millenia.
|
I suppose as a matter of American jurisprudence, at least, we could note that this is not true. There is no polygamist tradition in the United States, as even Utah gave that up before entering. As such, a traditionalist or original interpretation approach to the Constitution will not support a right to practice polygamy. This would be similar to Scalia's dissent on the question of whether states can outlaw homosexualy sodomy: the framers did not have that in mind when they wrote the Constitution. While that is a legal question rather than a philosophical one, it is worth noting for the Americans that we have a pretty clear tradition of monogamous marriage.
If we want to go back millenia, we can find support for polygamous and homosexual marriages, but we are not going to find that in the history of the United States of America. Whether or not "tradition" is a good argument, (some) traditionalists are not being hypocritical. Just making sure we do not exceed our grasp with our arguments.
