Mark
Henkel,
a
“constitutional
conservative”
and
polygamy
advocate,
said
two
recent
gay
rights
victories
should
pave
the
way
to
decriminalizing
polygamy
laws.
He
claims
the
U.S.
Supreme
Court
decision
overturning
state
sodomy
laws
and
a
Massachusetts
case
that
some
say
will
legalize
gay
marriage
in
the
Bay
State
should
help
polygamists.
“The
government
does
not
have
the
authority
to
be
in
the
marriage
business
in
the
first
place,”
said
Henkel,
founder
of
TruthBearer.org,
a
Web
site
devoted
to
the
decriminalization
of
polygamy.
Some
social
conservatives
have
argued
that
both
decisions,
particularly
Lawrence
vs.
Texas,
which
found
state
sodomy
laws
unconstitutional,
will
send
the
nation
down
a
“slippery
slope”
toward
the
legalization
of
polygamy
and
“other
societal
ills.”
Sen.
Rick
Santorum
(R-Pa.)
stirred
up
the
debate
in
April,
ahead
of
the
Supreme
Court
ruling,
when
he
said
sex
between
two
men
was
not
constitutionally
protected
and
was
harmful
to
society.
“If
the
Supreme
Court
says
that
you
have
the
right
to
consensual
sex
within
your
home,
then
you
have
the
right
to
bigamy,
you
have
the
right
to
polygamy,
you
have
the
right
to
incest,
you
have
the
right
to
adultery.
You
have
the
right
to
anything,”
Santorum
said.
“Does
that
undermine
the
fabric
of
our
society?
I
would
argue
yes,
it
does.”
Utah
polygamists
Tom
Green
and
Rodney
Holm
are
currently
challenging
their
convictions
for
having
multiple
wives
based
in
part
on
the
Supreme
Court’s
sodomy
ruling.
Holm’s
attorney
is
arguing
that
there
must
be
some
other
rational
basis
to
ban
certain
behavior
other
than
sheer
moral
disapproval.
Legal
scholars
say
that
while
it
is
possible
the
bigamy
charges
against
both
men
could
be
dropped
as
a
result
of
Lawrence
vs.
Texas,
their
other
convictions
would
likely
remain.
Green
was
found
guilty
in
a
separate
case
of
child
rape
because
his
first
wife
was
13
when
they
first
married
and
began
having
sex.
Holm,
a
former
Utah
police
officer,
was
also
convicted
on
two
counts
of
unlawful
sex
with
a
minor.
“Yes,
I
think
[Lawrence
vs.
Texas]
would
give
a
lawyer
a
foothold
to
argue
such
a
case,”
said
Art
Spitzer,
a
lawyer
at
the
American
Civil
Liberties
Union.
“The
general
framework
of
that
case,
that
states
can’t
make
it
a
crime
to
engage
in
private
consensual
intimate
relationships,
is
a
strong
argument.”
Henkel
criticized
his
“fellow
conservatives”
for
spearheading
the
“slippery
slope
argument,”
noting
that
it
was
conservatives
who
“started
the
supposed
ball
rolling
by
involving
government
in
marriage
in
the
first
place.”
“Marriage
in
this
country
is
not
defined
as
the
union
of
one
man
and
one
woman,”
Henkel
said.
“Marriage
in
this
country
is
the
union
of
three:
one
man,
one
woman
and
the
government.
Any
valid
Christian
should
be
concerned
about
this
because
from
the
conservative
Christian
paradigm,
that’s
an
abomination
itself.”
Quoting
biblical
passages
supportive
of
polygamy,
noting
that
Moses
had
two
wives
and
that
no
one
in
the
Bible
was
“ever
married
by
government,”
Henkel
says
that
“Christian
polygamy,”
which
his
group
supports,
has
garnered
steam
after
the
recent
gay
legal
victories.
Christian
polygamy,
Henkel
says,
is
a
relatively
new
movement,
based
strictly
upon
the
Old
and
New
Testament.
He
describes
it
as
a
“benevolent”
form
of
polygamy,
in
which
a
husband
might
take
two
wives
to
help
support
them
financially.
Despite
Henkel
and
Spitzer’s
assertions
that
the
recent
gay
legal
victories
will
be
a
powerful
tool
in
court,
some
experts
say
that
both
decisions
are
unlikely
to
lead
to
the
overturning
of
polygamy
laws.
“That
[slippery
slope
argument]
is
just
an
incendiary
device
by
the
right
wing,”
said
Sarah
Barringer
Gordon,
a
professor
of
law
and
history
at
the
University
of
Pennsylvania.
“States
have
a
significant
interest
in
marriage
and
the
defense
of
marriage,
especially
in
Utah,
which
does
not
want
either
same-sex
or
polygamous
marriage.”
 |
| Tom
Green,
a
Mormon
polygamist
serving
a
sentence
for
bigamy
in
Utah,
has
argued
his
conviction
should
be
overturned
based
on
the
Lawrence
vs.
Texas
decision. |
Gordon
noted
that
there
is
not
enough
“broad,
political
support”
for
polygamy
and
that
many
of
the
legal
battles
over
polygamy
occurred
in
the
19th
century.
Gordon
said
that
conventional
Mormon
polygamy,
based
heavily
on
religious
command,
was
debated
in
the
middle
to
late
19th
century
and
abandoned
in
1890
when
“lawmakers
and
the
courts
made
it
clear
that
the
government,
rather
than
local
religious
groups,
would
set
the
terms
and
boundaries
of
marriage.”
Henkel
also
voiced
his
opposition
to
the
Federal
Marriage
Amendment
to
the
U.S.
Constitution
that
seeks
to
define
marriage
as
the
union
of
one
man
and
one
woman.
He
called
the
proposed
amendment,
which
has
been
introduced
in
both
the
U.S.
Senate
and
House
of
Representatives,
“nothing
short
of
new
liberalism”
and
“another
call
for
big
government.”
“After
the
Supreme
Court
overturned
states’
rights
in
Lawrence
vs.
Texas,
you
now
have
conservatives
saying
let’s
overturn
states’
rights
on
marriage
—
well
guys,
make
up
your
mind.”
Gordon
said
that
Henkel’s
argument
“has
a
very
respectable
pedigree.”
“It’s
basically
a
libertarian
argument
—
unless
there
is
harm
or
some
...
