Mary Franson wonders whether marriage equality extends to polygamy

mary franson debate rect.jpg
If love is love, then what's wrong with Big Love?
One of the arguments used by marriage equality opponents is that gay marriage leads down a slippery slope to people marrying animals, adults marrying children, polygamy, and other unsavory arrangements.

SEE ALSO: Mary Franson co-authors civil unions bill months after saying being gay isn't "normal"

Well, according to Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, our state is already slip slidin' down that path.

Franson tweeted this last Friday: Not everyone, however, is convinced Franson really heard from a polygamy equality supporter:

sorensentweet.jpg

Alas, it doesn't appear Franson got around to sharing the email over the weekend.

-- Follow Aaron Rupar on Twitter at @atrupar. Got a tip? Drop him a line at arupar@citypages.com.



Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
26 comments
J.g. Vaccaro
J.g. Vaccaro

Jesus! Don't these Christians read their own holy book? If there ever was a "biblical value" it's polygamy.

Pinko Thinker
Pinko Thinker

@Justin this is what i've been sayin. but we've already broken the prime directive and it seems there's no way back now.

Justin LeClair
Justin LeClair

I see no issue in polygamy and weddings. You see, here's what we do: we pull our heads out of our asses, and realize that marriage is a religious, cultural, and personal decision, and therefor declare all marriages completely void in the eyes of law, because we shouldn't be making laws that break the constitution, that define our culture for us, or interfere with our personal lives. Take away all the tax breaks for married couples. Give tax breaks to people raising children. Invalidate all civil unions. The only legal ramifications that matter are power of attorney, inheritance, recognition of family, etc, etc, so make a system for everybody to say 'these people have these rights with and over me in the event I am not there to bear witness". Get the government out of defining marriage for us all together. It's not their job.

Michael Flowers
Michael Flowers

I, among many Minnesotans, would WELCOME legal polygamy.

Kathy Drews
Kathy Drews

cracking me up. Maroon is what I say too from cartoons. nice touch to add the link Kevin Lane!

Kevin Lane
Kevin Lane

I don't see the slippery slope here. Marriage is a coupling. Two people. The old law was allowing some couples to marry, while others could not. The new law ensures all couples are treated equally under the law. How does that lead to polygamy? We can have the polygamy discussion(apparently discussing things scares some folks), but it's not a logical result of this law. What a maroon.

Mitel
Mitel

Rep. Franson likes "one man one woman" marriages so much she's had two of them.

nbrooks4
nbrooks4

.....and history repeats itself.  They said the same things when inter-racial couples wanted to marry. 

Daniel Willert
Daniel Willert

If its consenting human adaults, children and animals can not consent. Is it going to hurt me somehow?

Paul Walker
Paul Walker

Why are GOP women in MN so damn nutty?

Edward Bertsch
Edward Bertsch

What would be so terrible? We have polygamy already in the underclass...

elephantiger
elephantiger

I would like to point out that while people marrying kids, animals or objects *is* a slippery slope fallacy, multiple-adult marriage should totally be a thing, and it not a slippery slope at all.  That is (hopefully) another kind of union that will be legally recognized.  I do not think it is related to same-sex marriage as mush as it to government sanctioned marriage to begin with.  Marriage:  the slippery slope to marriages. 


CaboCara
CaboCara

As a resident of So. UT for almost 20 years it was very obvious to me that the law turned a blind eye to the FLDS where girls (some as young as 12) were being married off to older men. It was always sad to me to see a young FLDS girl with a baby in her arms and wonder if it was her sibling or her child.

My husband worked at the local paper for 16 years as the local news editor (including the years of the Jeffs trials). With all the research he did during that time he found many instances of the "lack of law" in this area and the corruption going on. He wrote 'plygs' a fact-based journalistic novel of the FLDS.

They speak of the “slippery slope” … there should be none. What the people of the FLDS and the UAB practice as their “lifestyle” is SO far from it. People want to look at polygamy along with the LGBT and it is a totally different world. The LGBT just want to marry ONE person and have a life the way other monogamous couples live. The Polygamous world is based on religion. They hide behind it, they survive on the words of a prophet that has ended himself and several others in jail. What good can come of a “religion” that 12, 13, 14 yr old girls are “married” to the “highest bidder” (tithing and favors) within a “church”?

Polygamy that is taught through religion is NOT a choice. They live it or they are forever damned. They live it or they will not see their children in the afterlife. They live it or they will be cast out with nothing… no home, no food, no family, no children, no friends… NOTHING…

Tell me where this is a choice!  Tell me how this should be legal! Explain how this is so slippery… those that speak of this slope have NO idea what true polygamy practiced by the FLDS and the AUB and other groups are doing to these women and children… there is no slope… there is a mountain and our politicians are terrified to climb it! 

_Joe_
_Joe_

When will these fucking idiots clue in?  It wasn't about "mandating a specific view of marriage.

Very simply put, we had a state sanctioned contract between two legal consenting adults that was discriminating on the basis of gender.  So we fixed it.  Now we don't.  End of the fucking story.

 If polygamists want state marriage licenses, that's fine.  They can talk to their legislators and get the process started, however it's going to be a MUCH harder process than the recent marriage equality bill.  In MN,  NOBODY can have more than one marriage license at a time, so there is no disparity in rights there.  Also, it would start a very long conversation about governmental benefits such as tax breaks, estate inheritance etc...


Not saying it can't be done.  Just that it is a completely different animal.


Uh-oh.  I said animal.  Sigh..... Here come the canine marriage arguments...

swmnguy
swmnguy topcommenter

She's just making it up.  If there were such a thing as a "polygamy equality supporter," Rep. Franson would be the last person contacted.  However, this has been the go-to slippery-slope strawman used by marriage equality opponents; that and people marrying animals.  Rep. Franson seems dumb enough, and seems to only talk to other people dumb enough, to think this was a smart and clever thing to make up and announce via Twitter.  Rep. Franson's entire tenure in the MN. House seems to be an exercise in trolling.

Although, come to think of it, if there's anyone who would fall for a prank, it would be Rep. Franson, so maybe somebody really did send her such an e-mail.

eanderson1974
eanderson1974

Something tells me that someone was yanking Mary's chain, assuming that she received an email about polygamy. That or she is just making up shit. Newsflash Mary: you lost on the issue of marriage equality. Get over it.

groundedinnerchild
groundedinnerchild

@Paul Gerold 
Moron, Bugs Bunny-style.
Oh, the second word, for anyone wondering, was a deliberately humorous mis-pronunciation of "ignoramus." (That's "ig-nor-AYE-mus for those of you not familiar with dictionaries or Google.)


swmnguy
swmnguy topcommenter

@Paul Gerold Bugs Bunny reference.

_Joe_
_Joe_

@elephantiger It definitely deserves discussion if someone were to bring it to the table.  I think there would have to be a lot of discussion around spousal rights, tax implications, end of life care, etc...  Some things that spring to mind:

1. What would stop people from entering a marriage "club" for tax or insurance benefit purposes? People already do it, but right now it's limited to 2 adults.  What happens at 100?

2. What happens when a member of a married 'triad' (for lack of a better term) falls ill, and the remaining two spouses disagree on how to proceed with care?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against it at all.  I just think that our current laws aren't prepared to deal with questions like this, and that they need to be answered before anything could move forward.

_Joe_
_Joe_

@CaboCara I agree, but what you're talking about is child abuse.  Child abuse is not limited to polygamists, and not all polygamists are child abusers.  Generalizing that polygamy is the source of this abuse is logically incorrect.

swmnguy
swmnguy topcommenter

@_Joe_ @elephantiger   Good points, all.  I think the "slippery slope" here is the entire notion of Civil Marriage as a government tool to promote things generally associated with "marriage," and generally considered beneficial to society.  Things like stability, ownership of property, tax rolls, legal and personal liability, etc.  That's why Civil Marriage confers so many legal and financial benefits.

I've long said I think Civil Marriage is an outdated notion and was a lazy approach anyway.  I used to have neighbors who were two widowed sisters, who lived together with their kids (each had two kids).  They worked all the time and their kids were great kids.  As far as I was concerned, they fulfilled all the societal goals of a married-couple-headed household, and they should have had all the legal and financial benefits.

I'd be very much in favor of scrapping Civil Marriage and replacing it with "Registered Households" or something like that.  The idea of a stable household with people staying in it for years, voluntarily taking on legal and personal responsibility to and for one another and the the community at large is what Civil Marriage was supposed to promote in the first place.  But a "Registered Household" would get out of all the implied things about "Marriage," focusing only on things that are legitimately the interest of the community and the State, and appropriately ignoring those things that are nobody else's business.

People could continue to get married in churches if that's what they want to do.

I say this as a 46 year-old, straight, white, middle-class, married father of 2 kids, who got married without benefit of clergy at the Hennepin County Government Center.

Now Trending

Minnesota Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...