I responded to the article with a letter to the editor. I was very much surprised a week later to be called with a request to publish my rebuttal.

Below are both my editorial rebuttal and the original article by Mr. Fulton as was published by City Weekly.

by Doug Van Duker – 7 April 2006

Laws against a polyamorous lifestyle seem to become at issue within the general community of Utah only when the topic of recognition of polygyny by FLDS groups is discussed. Having sex with multiple partners or even illegitimate children doesn’t seem to raise much concern outside of the religious sector of our society.

In 2001, the Rev. Jesse Jackson admitted to having fathered children by his mistress of many years, Karin Stanford [subsequently former President Bill Clinton’s selection of the Rev. Jackson as his "spiritual advisor, " during the Monica affair. Under the circumstances, the President’s selection seemed...sardonic]. No one has suggested censure of the good Reverend based upon his infidelity, and certainly no one has suggested that his relationship constituted bigamy. Is there a significant difference or moral hierarchy in non-traditional sexual relationships? If an individual has a long term sexual relationship with a partner, unbeknownst to the individual’s spouse, why is that less morally offensive than if the spouse is aware of it? Why does it become still more reprehensible if the spouse approves?

Other than the religious community, has anyone in the last 20 years objected to someone else’s lifestyle because the person is "sexually active;" gay, straight or bi-sexual (I think that’s PC speak for what used to be called "promiscuous")?

Gay-marriage is founded in the Court's interpretation of a constitutional right to privacy. In recent years, the courts have consistently held that an individual's personal sexual preferences are a privacy issue. The ruling on Lawrence v. Texas was predicated upon this foundation.

The argument for the recognition of gay relationships, gay-unions, and gay marriage is that the state should have no say as to who an individual may select as a "partner" to love...or just enjoy a little recreational sex with. It is logically ridiculous to then assert that somehow this argument holds an inherent exception against long-term heterosexual relationships or with multiple heterosexual partners.

The nation's courts have ceded the argument that what one does sexually, and with whom one does it, is strictly a matter of privacy and not the business or either the government or the community. The few exceptions appear to be statutory rape (and only sometimes), incest, bigamy, and of course...polygamy. If who one chooses as a sexual partner is not a state or societal interest, then how many partners one has should be of no greater interest, irrespect of the relationships being heterosexual or gay.

The ONLY real difference we, as a society, are making between polygamous sexual relationships and gay relationships is that one involves the knowing assent of more than two people. If sex and relationships are taken totally outside the discussion of morality, what secular basis does anyone retain to object to them...as long as all parties are adults and consent? Or, perhaps the major objection and grievance with polygamy is based upon the fact that these people are "religious," and that is offensive to the gay-advocate community’s sense of "morality?"

How ironic.

*******************

One Love by Ben Fulton – Editorial • April 6, 2006

Don't fall for the conservative canard that if gay marriage comes, polygamy must follow.

The fact that Democrats had a heyday over the Dubai ports deal recently proves one point above all: Like conservatives, Democrats have unfortunately mastered the art of the diversionary tactic.

The Dubai ports deal was a fearful ruse of little consequence to the war on terror. Unfortunately, it may have far-reaching consequences to our role in international trade.

Conservatives are masters of the diversionary tactic. With the national debt and government spending soaring out of control, they instead waste our time over silly issues like the Pledge of Allegiance and the Flag Desecration Amendment. Our policies regarding abortion and birth control in developing nations keep millions on the verge of death, yet they manage to focus everyone's attention on one bed-ridden woman's feeding tube. In what was surely the conservative movement's crowning achievement, they cast a decorated Vietnam War veteran and presidential candidate as a traitor deserving of national contempt, all the while defending the honor of someone who's never seen battle.

Now, with the national conscience seemingly saturated in all things polygamy with the HBO series Big Love, conservative shock troops are about to launch another diversionary tactic in perhaps their most important battle ever. That is, of course, the battle against gay marriage, and with election time fast approaching, we won't have to look far for more anti-gay rhetoric.

You've no doubt heard their argument somewhere before, perhaps in a recent column by conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer. Open the door for gay marriage, the argument says, and legalized polygamy will surely follow. Or, as Krauthammer wrote in his column "Pandora and Polygamy," if the gender requirement of a marriage partner is "nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love," as gay-marriage advocates argue, then the restriction on the number of spouses "is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice."

Sounds reasonable, right? Sure does. In fact, loads of self-confessed liberals fall for it just as hard, even waving the 2003 Supreme Court decision Lawrence v. Texas, a ruling that said much about private sexual conduct but little about marriage. Only after you consider more serious questions about human nature and the role of marriage in society do the cracks show.

Living in Utah makes it easy to remember several key points about the practice of polygamy, and the first point worth remembering is that it's religiously motivated. Married atheists abound, but I've yet to meet a polygamous relationship that doesn't point to Section 132 of Doctrine & Covenants, the Old Testament, or spout the usual hokum about how hitching your train to more than one female boxcar is "required for exaltation and eternal salvation in the hereafter." Hard not to snicker whenever you hear that line, isn't it? That's because reason takes a holiday when it vacations in religious resorts. Remember, too, that while the First Amendment gives us freedom to observe virtually any religion imaginable, it nonetheless limits certain practices. Killing Christian converts may pass as religious freedom in Afghanistan but not here. Human sacrifices? Animal sacrifices? Denying medical care to your children in the name of religious faith? No, no and no.

Prohibiting polygamy is but a small price to pay for maintaining balance in civilized society. Think about it. Whether polyandry (many husbands, one wife) or polygamy, more than one spouse per person will eventually lead to a shortage of spouses for others and eventually more unmarried people. This has already played out in southern Utah and northern Arizona, where men young and old have been kicked out of polygamous communities. "Sorry pal, we're short a few women." Those in favor of legalizing polygamy argue that government has "no compelling interest" to prohibit the practice. Really? Not if people value the stabilizing force of monogamy, the only arrangement most people can afford in contrast to the huge financial responsibility of several spouses. Liberals in favor of legalizing polygamy probably won't care about an increasing number of unmarried people. Conservatives certainly will. That's why, contrary to the conservative scare tactic, legalizing marriage for millions of gay people will not lead to legal recognition for the 40,000 to 50,000 people who practice plural marriage. A scare tactic is just that, a scare tactic.

Which leads to my next point. Why does society boast millions of gay people but only a few hundred thousand practicing polygamists? Because sexual orientation is not a choice, while polygamy is. It takes lots of religious indoctrination, not to mention women with low self-esteem or an allergy to sexual jealousy, to get modern-day polygamy off the ground. Not so with gay men and lesbian women, who've been with us throughout the ages. Conservatives will probably forever insist that homosexuality is "a lifestyle choice," not a character trait. Most people in the real world know differently, so let conservatives talk all they want. All we need keep in mind is the crucial distinction between homosexuality and polygamy, the distinction between who people are sexually and what they might choose for themselves sexually.

All sorts of sexual arrangements are possible in the privacy of one's home and behind closed doors, including polyamory (polygamy without the religious baggage) but presumably all the sexual fun. There are open marriages, rare as they are. What's not possible now under law is the privilege and legal advantages of recognized monogamous relationships between gay people.

Conservatives want it that way, of course, because the continued prohibition against gay marriage lets conservatives cast gay people as philandering sinners incapable of commitment. If gay people could marry, they'd lose much of that card. There's little need for that now, though, as long as they can keep everyone frightened of legalized polygamy. Don't fall for it.