See Luminosity

Same-Sex Marriage, Part 4: Changing Marriage to Its Demise

Same-Sex Marriage, Part 4: Changing Marriage to Its Demise

Why not gay marriage? It’s a question this series attempts to answer.

Read the rest of the series here:

 

Part 1: What is Marriage? summarized the fact that the gay marriage debate is not about who should be allowed to marry, but about what marriage as an institution is. Part 2 demonstrated the benefits of marriage for individuals and for society. Part 3 addressed the connection of marriage to nature, and gave an overview of the 5 major reasons why biology in marriage matters – to the gay marriage debate, and to society as a whole.

This article seeks to investigate the first of those reasons:

1. Changing the gender-based aspect of the definition of marriage leads to a philosophical and legal basis for changing any other (or all) parts of the definition. As marital norms are eroded, and as the state no longer retains its interest in promoting it, marriage loses its meaning and relevance as an institution – ultimately leading to the demise of marriage all together.

The Consequences of Eliminating Gender Complementarity

Same-sex marriage serves to sever the institution from its ties to nature, or procreation. It exchanges the biological foundation of marriage to one based on human choice rather than human nature by altering the second part of the definition of marriage – that marriage is between persons of the opposite sex. Once the definition of marriage is changed, the problem arises why other changes to the definition cannot be made. If the second part of what marriage is can legally be altered, then there is no legal basis by which other aspects of the definition cannot be altered. This leads to significant erosion of marital norms – the characteristics that make marriage what it is. As one marriage advocate puts it, “Insofar as society weakens the rational foundation for marriage norms, fewer people would live them out, and fewer people would reap the benefits of the marriage institution”.[1]

When gender complementarity is eliminated from marriage, the institution loses its inherent connection to procreation. Not only does this affect the characteristics or norms of marriage, but it also significantly impacts the government’s investment in and involvement with marriage. The state is involved in marriage because of its potential to create children – because it has a stake in protecting the future of society. Once marriage is based on the romantic interests of adults, rather than on the grounding of nature and family, the government no longer retains a vested interest in promoting it.

The erosion of marital norms, along with the loss of interest by the state in being involved with marriage, will ultimately serve to destroy marriage as an institution.

Erosion of Marital Norms

Marital norms are those characteristics which make the institution what it is – the qualities that are inherent to the purpose of the institution and how the institution functions. Some of the most significant marital norms are gender complementarity, monogamy, exclusivity and permanence. Same-sex marriage would effectively alter the first norm – gender complementarity, or sexual differentiation. By doing so, it would provide the basis for altering any and all of the other norms as well.

Ryan T. Anderson, co-author of the book, What Is Marriage: Man and Woman: A Defense, writes, in his article “Can the President Have a Marriage Agenda Without Talking About What Marriage Is”: “Redefining marriage would abandon the norm of male-female sexual complementarity as an essential characteristic of marriage. Making that optional would also make other essential characteristics—such as monogamy, exclusivity, and permanence—optional.”

If marriage no longer must be between persons of opposite genders, then there is no philosophical basis for why it should be between only two persons (the norm of monogamy). Polygamy, of course, becomes fair game, legally. If the norm of gender complementarity can be altered, why not the norm of permanence? There would be no justification for marriage to be “til death do us part”. If there is no connection to the raising of children and development of a family, and it is simply based on the desires of the adults, then there would be no basis for why marriage could not be open and flexible to a variety of partners, eliminating the norm of exclusivity. Marital norms lose their relevance once the ties of marriage to nature and sexual complementarity are severed. And once the norms of marriage are altered, marriage no longer is anything, anymore. It becomes simply some type of bond between some manner of individuals according to whatever those individuals determine.

The Conundrum of Norm Erosion

The challenge to determining, once the traditional definition of marriage is altered, what the new definition of marriage would and could be, becomes an exercise in logical absurdity. Even if a sexual component to the new version of marriage remains, when the second part of the marriage definition (the one based in biology) is changed, there is no longer a basis by which the other parts couldn’t be changed. Why couldn’t two mature 14-year-olds who love each other get married? Why couldn’t two first cousins, (or siblings, for that matter) who are in love, get married? Why couldn’t more than two people who love each other, and are sexually involved, be considered a marriage? Actually, this exact argument – the philosophical and legal problem presented by gay marriage’s change to the definition of marriage – has already been used in court in attempts to legalize polygamy.[2] Even liberal United States Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor brought up the point, in March 2013’s Supreme Court oral arguments for Hollingsworth v. Perry, that if marriage were a fundamental right, “…what State restrictions could ever exist… with respect to the number of people… that could get married?”

But the problems don’t even stop there. Once the biological or natural foundation for marriage, with its ties to procreation, is eliminated, and marriage becomes simply an emotional bond between people, there is no particular compelling reason why the union must even be characterized by a sexual relationship. Why couldn’t a marriage, if based on the bond between persons, be a relationship characterized by non-sexual interests, such as a love of cooking, or a commitment to shared social causes? What about two guys who are best friends, and who spend most of their time together and want to build a life around the shared interest of, say, something like hunting? Why not the relationship between two non-romantically-involved college roommates who are best friends and have decided that they want to live together for the rest of their lives? Why not two religious women who have dedicated their lives to running a group home for needy children together? How about an adult who has committed to be the full-time caretaker of a widowed, elderly neighbor for the length of that neighbor’s life?

These are questions that, for gay-marriage proponents, create a significant philosophical problem. If the relationship in question is simply a strong emotional bond, or a romantic or sexual partnership that is not connected to the possibility of conceiving children together, there is no intrinsic reason why it would need to be called a marriage. People are certainly able to (and currently do) enjoy each other’s company, find sexual fulfillment, or live together with intense emotional ties without being married. Benefits and rights for relationships that do not produce children (including same-sex relationships, relationships between business partners and others) can be and have been secured through other means, in other areas of law. The rational basis for marriage is lost when gender complementarity is eliminated.

Gender complementarity, as opposed to emotional bonding, offers a legitimate answer for why marriage should exist. It is only the unique comprehensive union of male and female, with its grounding in nature through sexual difference which has the potential to result in the creation of children, that provides a meaningful basis to the institution of marriage. Marriage as an institution only makes sense, philosophically, legally, and societally if it is based in sexual complementarity; without this grounding norm, marriage becomes a subjective construct not grounded in any reality other than personal preference. And once this norm is eliminated, once this part of the definition of marriage is altered, all other norms, all other parts of the definition are up for grabs. Of course, when enough norms are altered, marriage will no longer be anything, anymore.

Evidence of Norm Erosion

It is already happening. Evidence that the erosion of marital norms is an inevitable consequence of removing gender complementarity from the institution is evident in both the rhetoric of gay marriage advocates, the reality of gay relationships, and in the policies of countries that have already recognized same-sex relationships.

In Rhetoric: For example, a distinguished group of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender activists, scholars, and professionals has released a statement at BeyondMarriage.org in which they are actively seeking “legal recognition for a wide range of relationships, households and families – regardless of kinship or conjugal status”, most specifically “committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.” Just to be clear, that is polyamory – an agreed-upon intimate relationship among three or more persons. And far from being a fringe group, those signing the statement include Gloria Steinem, Yale law professor Kenji Yoshino, Princeton religion professor Cornel West as well as other prominent members of society. A Newsweek article entitled “Only You. And You. And You” noted, in 2009, that there were estimated to be more than half a million polyamorous families in the U. S. The piece explained that Polyamorists believe “that it’s only a matter of time before the monogamous world sees there’s more than one way to live and love.”[3]

Many prominent gay marriage advocates have affirmed (and enthusiastically supported) the fact that recognizing gay marriage would serve to change the institution to being more “flexible” (i.e. not sexually monogamous), more “open” (not exclusive), and more focused on emotional commitment rather than raising children (not oriented to family life). Leading gay sex-columnist Dan Savage believes that monogamy makes unrealistic demands on a relationship, telling New York Times columnist Mark Oppenheimer, “The mistake that straight people made was imposing the monogamous expectation on men. Men were never expected to be monogamous.” Andrew Sullivan, gay activist and editor of The Dish (at The Daily Beast), explicates, in his book Virtually Normal, “…There is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman….[4] The gay community makes no equivocation about the fact that gay marriage will significantly alter marital norms.

In Gay Relationships: This reality is reflected in gay relationships as well (The Family Research Council provides a summary of research on this topic). Most research shows that there is much greater acceptance of sexual non-exclusivity amongst gay couples than heterosexual couples.[5] For example, the recent Gay Couples Study, initiated and funded by gay psychologist Lanz Lowen and his partner, followed 86 male couples that had been together for at least 8 years. It found that, for gay male couples, “sanctioned outside sex is a sustainable and satisfying possibility.” [6] In fact, all of the couples who participated in the Gay Couples Study “had agreement for some type of non-monogamy.”[7] Most research indicates that two-thirds of long-term male couples are non-monogamous, with their partners’ knowledge and consent[8], a fact that was acknowledged by the Gay Couples Study.[9]

In contrast, 75-85% of heterosexual married couples report being monogamous.[10] A variety of studies have demonstrated that the average gay male has hundreds of partners in his lifetime, and that, even amongst those homosexual persons who have the option of civil unions or marriages (in the U.S. and other countries), very few actually choose to engage in lifelong, committed unions.[11] The marital standards of exclusivity, permanence, and monogamy break down in the reality of same-sex relationships.

In Policy: The fact that acceptance of gay relationships is tied to the demise of marital standards such as monogamy, exclusivity, and orientation to family life, can also be seen in countries that have already accepted same-sex unions. In August 2012, Brazil, which legalized same-sex unions in 2011, granted its first civil union to three persons – a man and two women. The Netherlands, which was the first country in the world to give marriage rights to homosexuals (in 2001), granted its first civil union to a polygamous couple back in 2005; these countries illustrate a shift in the norm of exclusivity. The norm of permanence is actively on the decline in Mexico; Mexico City,  which legalized same-sex marriage in 2009, has considered issuing temporary marriage licenses, so that couples could decide on the length of their commitment. Mexico City assemblyman Leonel Luna explains, “The proposal is, when the two-year period is up, if the relationship is not stable or harmonious, the contract simply ends.”

Canada made headlines in 2011 when polygamists argued that Canadian laws legalizing gay marriage, which required the court to redefine marriage from being between “one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others” to “the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others” discriminated against their multi-partner unions in the same way that the previous definition discriminated against same-sex unions. The judge ruled against polygamy, arguing that the practice negatively impacts society, and that “the law seeks to advance the institution of monogamous marriage, a fundamental value in western society from the earliest of times.”[12] Yet, the judge’s reasoning is weak, for a variety of reasons, as many have acknowledged.[13] One of its most fundamental flaws is that there is no justifiable basis for the court to acknowledge monogamy as a critical marital norm throughout history, yet ignore, through the legalization of same-sex marriage, the importance of the norm of gender complementarity – especially when gender complementarity has been significantly less contested throughout human history than monogamy. The case may still be appealed to Canada’s Supreme Court,[14] and is an example of how removing sexual complementarity from marriage provides a basis for making legitimate legal arguments to eliminate other marital norms, such as monogamy.

Fundamentally, when the definition of marriage is altered to eliminate its foundational element of sexual complementarity, marriage no longer makes any sense. Marriage becomes nothing more than networks of some number of adults who have chosen to live together for some agreed-upon amount of time, for some agreed-upon reason. Marriage, as an institution, no longer has any objective basis or purpose for existing.

No Reason for State Promotion

When the basis for marriage is changed to simply the interests of the adults involved (interests that would naturally shift from person to person and couple to couple) it loses its meaning and its significance. But the erosion of marital norms is not the only consequence. In fact, when the marriage is based on adult interests rather than the interest of protecting children, the state no longer retains a vested interest in promoting it.

The state does not promote marriage, currently, because it cares about the romantic interests of adults. Love, in fact, is not a requirement at all, from the standpoint of the government, to be eligible for a marriage license. The state is not involved in marriage, currently, with incentives such as tax benefits, because it cares about providing two people who care very much for each other an easier life. The romantic or emotional ties between individuals are not of particular concern to the state, because they do not directly impact the state. Adults are free to form romantic relationships with other adults as they so choose, without government involvement, regulation, or encouragement. It is only marriage between a man and a woman with which the state has, throughout history, concerned itself.

The government recognizes marriage through policy, and encourages it with incentives, because governing authorities have a stock in promoting the environment that is going to be most beneficial for the development of children. Why? Because children make society, and the health of the family is directly linked to the health of society. The nuclear family, with a mother and father who are linked biologically to their children, offers the greatest stability for society, as Part 2 addressed. The healthier the family is and the better it does its job, the less the government is required to do and pay.

The state, through the development of policy, also is a part of creating a culture of marriage within society. Government laws, regulations, and incentives all contribute to society’s beliefs and actions related to the institution of marriage, and those beliefs and actions in turn impact how marriage functions as an institution within the culture. A healthy marriage culture encourages healthy marriages. Society needs mothers and fathers to commit to each other and to their mutual children, for their doing so provides the healthiest environment for the nurturing of new human beings, who will become future citizens. Traditional marriage is the best way for that to happen. The state has a vested interest, therefore, in promoting marriage through policy and incentives in order to establish a strong marriage culture and pave the way for a healthy society.

Shifting the focus from the needs of children to the desires of adults reduces the state’s investment in promoting marriage. When marriage is no longer inherently connected to creating families, but is simply a variety of formations for adult bonding, the government no longer retains a significant reason to be involved with it. Without policy supporting marriage, an already struggling marriage culture would become significantly weakened, which would diminish the relevance of the institution.

The Bottom Line

The bottom line? Only the traditional definition of marriage encompasses the body-mind-soul union which can create a new phenomenon of community. It is for precisely this reason that the state recognizes traditional marriage; there is no other union like it. And it is in the state’s interest, as we will see in future articles, to ensure the stability of the family. Whether or not heterosexual marriages result in the begetting of children, the biological basis for traditional marriage makes it a unique relationship, a special kind of union that no other relationship can have. And when the definition of marriage is altered in one way, there becomes no philosophical or legal reason for why it cannot be altered in other (and, even all) ways. If the “opposite sex” norm of marriage can be changed, then so can the norm of permanence. And the norm of marriage being only between two persons (monogamy). And the norm that the partners are to have a sexual relationship only with each other (exclusivity). And the norm that those two persons must be over the age of consent. And the norm that it should be between non-close blood relatives.

With enough changes, marriage, in and of itself, ceases to have any real meaning or validity.

Marriage Cannot Be Redefined and Continue to Exist

Contrary to the cries of “discrimination” by gay rights advocates, gay marriage is not about giving equal access to a status (marriage) according to what the definition of that status is. Gay marriage, through changing the second, sexual complementarity part of the definition of marriage, completely redefines what the institution is at its core. By doing so, it removes the biological, natural basis for marriage – a foundation grounded in promoting the interests of children and the biological family – and replaces it with a foundation based simply on the choice or interests of the adult partners. Marriage cannot be redefined to include members of the same sex without providing a philosophical and legal basis for every other part of it to be redefined and its norms completely changed. As the norms that characterize marriage erode, and as the state loses its investment in promoting marriage, the institution will lose its relevance to society – it will functionally and ultimately cease to exist.

Acknowledgment from Gay Community: A number of prominent members of the gay community acknowledge the drastic change same-sex marriage would have on the institution of marriage: Michaelangelo Signorile, a gay rights advocate and Editor-at-large for the Huffington Post, writes that same-sex marriage would “redefine the institution of marriage completely” and “radically alter an archaic institution.”[15] Gay activist Victoria Brownworth concedes, “Allowing same-sex couples to marry will weaken the institution of marriage…and that will make marriage a far better concept than it previously has been.”[16] A quote by writer Ari Karpel in The Advocate, a gay magazine, echoes the consequences to the institution: “Anti-equality right-wingers have long insisted that allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of ‘traditional marriage’. What if – for once – the sanctimonious crazies are right? Could the gay male tradition of open relationships actually alter marriage as we know it? And would that be such a bad thing?”[17] And radical feminist Ellen Willis acknowledges that gay marriage would “introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart”.[18]

Lesbian journalist and activist Masha Gessen, at a panel discussion in 2012 for the Sydney Writers Festival, left no doubt about the intended consequences of same-sex marriage: “It’s a no-brainer that (homosexuals) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. . . . Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there—because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie. The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist.”

Gay columnist Doug Mainwaring is just as clear about the consequences: “Same-sex marriage will not expand rights and freedoms in our nation. It will not redefine marriage. It will undefine it.”

Conclusion

As marriage ceases to have meaning or validity in our culture, the common good of society is significantly undermined. Stephen Heaney, in his article, “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws“, concurs: “Since we have fifty years of sad experience with chaos caused by tinkering with how marriage is practiced, it would seem absolutely foolish to pretend we can change what marriage is without waiting quite a long time to see how the changes work…”

Whether you are Christian or non-Christian, heterosexual or homosexual, everyone has a stock in the health and well-being of society. Because we do, we should all stand against gay marriage, or anything else that alters the traditional definition of marriage, and instead be working unanimously toward strengthening the institution that is the foundation for the creation and development of healthy individuals and society. Because, as Part 2 delineated, if marriage disintegrates, everyone will suffer – straight and gay.

____________________________________________________________________

Read the rest of the series here:

 

Sources:

Anderson, R. (2012, December 18). “Can the President have a Marriage Agenda Without Talking About What Marriage Is?” Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/12/7437/

Anderson, R. (2013, March 25). “The Consequences of Redefining Marriage: Eroding Marital Norms.” The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/redefining-marriage-eroding-marital-norms-and-other-impact

Bennett, J. (2009, July 28). “Only You. And You. And You.” Newsweek. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/07/28/only-you-and-you-and-you.html

Dailey, T. J. (2004, March 24). “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples”. Family Research Council. Retrieved from http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Franck, M. (2011, December 15). “Advocating Same-Sex Marriage: Consistency Is Another Victim”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/12/4451/

Girgis, S., Anderson, R. & George, R. (2013, February 11). “Marriage and Politics”. E-mail subscription from Ryan T. Anderson of Public Discourse. Can also be downloaded from https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/338682/marriage-and-politics?utm_source=Copy+of+RTA+Bradley+Paradox+of+Persons&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

Heaney, S. J. (2013, April 3). “Cats and Dogs and Marriage Laws”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2013/04/9716/?utm_source=RTA+Heaney+Cats+and+Dogs&utm_campaign=winstorg&utm_medium=email

Johnson, A. (2011, November 28). “We All Have a Stake in the Polygamy Case”. The Globe and Mail. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/we-all-have-a-stake-in-th  e-polygamy-case/article4252483/

Karpel, A. (2011, July 7). “Monogamish”. Advocate. Retrieved from http://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/features/2011/07/07/monogamish

Lee, P. (2012, January 30). “The Same-Sex Marriage Proposal is Unjust Discrimination”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/01/4597/

Lee, P., George, R. & Bradley, G. (2011, March 28). “Marriage and Procreation: The Intrinsic Connection”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638/

Lee, P., George, R. & Bradley, G. (2011, March 30). “Marriage and Procreation: Avoiding Bad Arguments”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637/

Macfarlane, E. (2011, November 23). “A Confused Judicial Treatise on Polygamy.” MacLean’s. Retrieved from http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/11/23/a-confused-judicial-treatise-on-polygamy/

Richardson, V. (2011, March 20). “Same-sex Marriages Give Polygamy A Legal Boost”. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/20/same-sex-marriages-give-polygamy-a-legal-boost/?page=all

Shernoff, M. (2006). “Negotiated Nonmonogamy and Male Couples”. Family Process, 45 (4). Retrieved from http://www.mendeley.com/catalog/negotiated-nonmonogamy-male-couples/#

Skillen, J. (2004, Second Quarter). “Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Is Not a Civil Right”. The Center for Public Justice. Retrieved from http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

Snell, R. J. (2012, November 27). “Reason and Compassion in the Marriage Debate”. Public Discourse. Retrieved from http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/11/7215/

Spears, B. & Lowen, L. (2010, February 10). “Beyond Monogamy: Lessons from Long-term Male Couples in Non-Monogamous Relationships”. Independent study funded and conducted by Spears & Lowen at thecouplesstudy.com. Retrieved from http://www.thecouplesstudy.com

Sullivan, Andrew (1996). Virtually Normal. New York: Vintage. p. 202.

Thomson, M. & Chipeur, G. D. (2013, March 14). “Polygamy: The Curious Case of the Unrequited Reference.” Lexology. Retrieved from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=656b7772-16fa-4918-9bc0-5c85f136b221

Vogt, B. (2013, January 13). “Understanding Definition of Marriage”. Our Sunday Visitor. Retrieved from http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10340/Understanding-definition-of-marriage.aspx

Wetzstein, C. “Canadian Judge Upholds Ban on Polygamy”. The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/23/canadian-judge-upholds-ban-on-polygamy/?page=all

Willis, E. (2004, July 5). “Can Marriage Be Saved? A Forum”. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118670288.html

Zvan, S. (2011, November 27). “Canadian Judge Mucks Up Polygamy Ruling”. Free Thought Blogs. Retrieved from http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2011/11/27/canadian-judge-mucks-up-polygamy-ruling/



[1] Anderson, R. (2012, December 18). “Can the President have a Marriage Agenda Without Talking About What Marriage Is?” Public Discourse.

[2] Richardson, V. (2011, March 20). “Same-sex Marriages Give Polygamy A Legal Boost”. The Washington Times; Wetzstein, C. “Canadian Judge Upholds Ban on Polygamy”. The Washington Times.

[3] Bennett, J. (2009, July 28). “Only You. And You. And You.” Newsweek.

[4] Sullivan, Andrew. Virtually Normal (New York: Vintage , 1996). p. 202.

[5] Shernoff, M. (2006). “Negotiated Nonmonogamy and Male Couples”. Family Process, 45 (4).

[6] Spears, B. & Lowen, L. (2010, February 10). “Beyond Monogamy: Lessons from Long-term Male Couples in Non-Monogamous Relationships”, p. 72. Independent study funded and conducted by Spears & Lowen at thecouplesstudy.com.

[7] Spears, B. & Lowen, L. (2010, February 10). “Beyond Monogamy: Lessons from Long-term Male Couples in Non-Monogamous Relationships”, p. 3. Independent study funded and conducted by Spears & Lowen at thecouplesstudy.com

[8] Shernoff, M. (2006). “Negotiated Nonmonogamy and Male Couples”. Family Process, 45 (4).

[9] Spears, B. & Lowen, L. (2010, February 10). “Beyond Monogamy: Lessons from Long-term Male Couples in Non-Monogamous Relationships”, p. 74. Independent study funded and conducted by Spears & Lowen at thecouplesstudy.com.

[10] Dailey, T. J. (2004, March 24). “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples”. Family Research Council.

[11] Dailey, T. J. (2004, March 24). “Comparing the Lifestyles of Homosexual Couples to Married Couples”. Family Research Council.

[12] Johnson, A. (2011, November 28). “We All Have a Stake in the Polygamy Case”. The Globe and Mail.

[13] Johnson, A. (2011, November 28). “We All Have a Stake in the Polygamy Case”. The Globe and Mail; Macfarlane, E. (2011, November 23). “A Confused Judicial Treatise on Polygamy.” MacLean’s; Zvan, S. (2011, November 27). “Canadian Judge Mucks Up Polygamy Ruling”. Free Thought Blogs.

[14] Thomson, M. & Chipeur, G. D. (2013, March 14). “Polygamy: The Curious Case of the Unrequited Reference.” Lexology.

[15] Signorile, Michelangelo. “Bridal Wave”, Out, December/January 1994, p. 161.

[16] Anderson, R. (2013, March 25). “The Consequences of Redefining Marriage: Eroding Marital Norms.” The Heritage Foundation.

[17] Karpel, A. (2011, July 7). “Monogamish”. Advocate.

[18] Willis, E. (2004, July 5). “Can Marriage Be Saved? A Forum”. The Nation.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *