Chi tra coloro che si battono per il matrimoni gay è disposto a battersi per poligamia e incesto?
Saperlo farebbe luce sulle motivazioni della lotta, in particolare aiuterebbe a capire se si tratta di una lotta di libertà o una semplice corsa al privilegio.
Ralph Richard Banks: "What now of the two remaining criminal prohibitions of intimate relationships: incest and polygamy? Even as same sex and interracial relationships are accepted, Americans are now imprisoned for incest or polygamy.
The cases against polygamy and incest are not nearly as strong as most people imagine. Yet they will not become legal anytime soon. To see why, it helps to understand the evolution of moral assessments of interracial and same-sex marriage.
"Courts and legislatures began to invalidate laws against interracial marriage after Hitler gave racism a bad name...
"The categorical prohibitions of incest and polygamy persist in part because people who commit either act are commonly reduced to that act (which is viewed as morally reprehensible) and, in turn, are not viewed as worthy of respect as people. More than a century ago, when the Supreme Court upheld the prohibition of polygamy the court reasoned that it was inimical to American values and identity, in part, the court stated, because polygamy was “almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and African people.” Historically, both polygamy and incest have been more widely practiced, and accepted, than the Supreme Court, and most Americans, seem to believe.
Over time, our moral assessments of these practices will shift, just as they have with interracial marriage and same sex marriage. We will begin to take seriously questions that now seem beyond the pale: Should a state be permitted to imprison two cousins because they have sex or attempt to marry? Should a man and two wives be permitted to live together as a family when they assert that their religious convictions lead them to do so?"
John Corvino: "Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Yes, New York’s decision to grant same-sex couples the freedom to marry was a big deal. So was Washington’s before it and New Hampshire’s and Vermont’s and Iowa’s and Connecticut’s and Massachusetts’s. And let’s not forget Maine and California, which had marriage equality and then lost it (for now)....
"Meanwhile, opponents continue to predict a slippery slope to polygamy, polyamory and other “untested, experimental” family forms.
"The grain of truth in their prediction is this: recent progress reminds us that marriage is an evolving institution and that not everyone fits in the neat boxes that existing tradition offers.
"But let’s not confuse issues. Whether it’s a good idea to allow people to marry one partner of the same sex is a separate question from whether it’s a good idea to allow anyone to marry multiple partners — or their siblings, pets, iPhones or whatever else doomsayers toss in. It’s worth remembering that polygamy is quite “traditional,” even biblical. It is no more logically connected to one side of this debate than the other.
"The truth is that New York granted same-sex couples marriage rights not because of a radical idea, but because of an old-fashioned one: when two individuals commit to a lifetime of mutual love and care, it’s good to support them — or at least get out of their way."
