Katherine Kersten and Polygamy

Yesterday, Katherine Kersten replayed the tired old argument that same-sex marriage will inevitably lead to polygamy.

I could go on and on about why she's wrong, but fortunately a ton of bloggers and letters to the editor already have:

Washington Syndrome: Arguing from Polygamy

Midtopia: Tired Arguments, Lousy Logic

Great Plains View: And Then Comes Animal Marriage

American Idle: First Katherine Came for the Gays..

Norwegianity: Clarence Thomas Does Utah

Minnesota Politics: Katherine Kersten's Korner

And the letters to the editor are after the jump...

KERSTEN TAKES AIM

Ludicrousness alert

In her March 16 column, Katherine Kersten has trotted out the "But Wait" argument against same-sex unions: But wait, if we let this happen then we'll have to allow polygamy and all other forms of union. Marriage between men and turtles won't be far behind! God save the turtles!!

The "But Wait" argument can go the other way, too: But wait, if we discriminate against gays and lesbians in terms of marriage perhaps we can eventually legislate them back into being criminals. I know there are some folks down in Kansas who would like to please God in this manner. But wait, we could stone them to death; that would save marriage for the good people.

MAX HAYNES, MAPLE GROVE

Bias at the core

Once again Katherine Kersten's argument doesn't hold water. First, her worry that polygamy will be easily debated and fought in court after the legalization of same-sex marriage is without merit, since any person who chooses to fight for polygamy is doing so on the grounds that marriage is discriminatory based on its two-person inclusion. Therefore, marital law of one man and one woman will also violate this inclusion, which proves same-sex marriage and polygamy are not the same debate.

Second, it's clear that Kersten is not truly concerned with marital law; rather, she believes that gay men and women do not deserve the inclusion of any rights guaranteed by birth -- marital or otherwise. Her comment that a movie was only produced as an agenda to "normalize" same-sex attraction proves she does not accept gay men and women as productive, intelligent, faithful, educated, taxpaying members of society.

KELLY KOHLBACHER, MINNEAPOLIS

It's all contractual

Katherine Kersten and others talk out of both sides of their mouths, claiming that "one man-one woman" is the way God intended marriage, but also insisting on using the government, contract-based definition to enforce that.

Kersten's warning against what may happen could actually solve the entire problem. If she and the religious zealots on her side of the debate would finally realize that marriage is simply a contract-based system of government-registered regulations, perhaps the debate would end. Kersten seems to miss the fact that the function of marriage, as with any contract, is to provide the ability to plan for unexpected occurrences and to bind two parties to certain rights and obligations (or, if we're being honest, to bind the female party as the man's property, as marriage laws were initially intended to do).

No supporter of same-sex marriage has ever argued that religious organizations should be forced to perform ceremonies against their wills, primarily because these ceremonies have no effect in the eyes of the law. If we could leave God and nature out of the argument when speaking of constitutional amendments and laws, and recognize that we're all speaking of government-regulated contracts between two consenting adults, perhaps the argument could be a little less muddled.

KATHY DAVIS, MINNEAPOLIS [Link]