Bob Vander Plaats | Polygamy

BigGayDeal.com

Iowa Conservative Bob Vander Plaats Says Polygamy Ruling Will Lead To Child-Parent Marriages

During a Tuesday radio interview, anti-gay bigot Bob Vander Plaats (pictured) — founder of the oddly capitalized "pro-family" organization The FAMiLY LEADER — said that the recent court ruling decriminalizing polygamy in Utah is the result of recent marriage equality court victories and will ultimately lead to "parents marrying their adult children for tax purposes."

VanderPlaats joins other anti-gay conservatives — like Rick Santorum, Bill O'Reilly, the so-called the National Organization for Marriage, Focus on the Family and the hate group the Family Research Council — in repeating the long-held claim that marriage equality will lead to legalized polygamy. But Plaats goes a step further by connecting same-sex marriage to eventual child-adult marriage (though he stops short of saying that such a relationship would involve sex).

Keep in mind, this is a man who considers homosexuality a public health risk like smoking, laughs at "faggot jokes" and asked all the 2012 GOP presidential candidates to sign a pledge declaring that black families were stronger under slavery.

However, Zack Ford from Think Progress explained why Vander Plaats' and his cronies' slippery slope thinking is bunk (in short because the polygamy defendants didn't want legal recognition of their polygamous marriage to begin with and because the previous court ruling that helped their case centered entirely around bedroom privacy of consenting adults, not children):

In a sense, it’s true that a victory for gay rights led to this decision, but not because it was a victory for gay rights. The basic outcome of [Lawrence v. Texas, which overturned the country’s so-called “sodomy laws” criminalizing same-sex relations] is that the government cannot intrude on what happens in adults’ bedrooms so long as it’s consensual; it just so happens that the same principle can apply to the multiple marriages some Mormons have or that plenty of people from other faiths have practiced since the Old Testament.

But this victory for polygamy is not likely to even impact the LGBT community. Brown and his wives seemingly identify as heterosexual; the term “sister wives” specifically connotes that the wives do not have sexual relationships with each other. It is not people with same-sex orientations who are vying for polygamy.

More importantly, this case reinforces the distinction between legal marriage and religious marriage that is often lost in debates. The LGBT equality movement is not particularly interested in forcing any religious organization to bless same-sex marriages, but is focused on achieving equal protection under the law for same-sex families. Conversely, polygamists are not currently fighting for legal recognition, but for the right to freely practice their religious beliefs without facing criminal prosecution.

You can hear Vander Plaats' radio interview clip AFTER THE JUMP...

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Logic flees the room when this man enters.

    Posted by: Randy | Dec 19, 2013 6:08:14 PM


  2. "Child and Parent" marriage! The solution is clear! Outlaw children AND parents!

    Posted by: Sargon Bighorn | Dec 19, 2013 6:20:30 PM


  3. Is polygamy part of the marriage equality movement now?

    Posted by: will | Dec 19, 2013 6:27:05 PM


  4. In Vander Plaat's case, I suspect that it's a combination of projection, optimism, and hope.

    Posted by: Mama's Boy | Dec 19, 2013 6:27:29 PM


  5. He needs the following, STAT:

    Better concealer

    A better hairpiece in a more realistic color

    Eyebrows

    A suit that doesn't look bought from a feed store

    Someone to tell him that yellow shirt makes him look even more sallow and washed out

    IN OTHER WORDS HE NEEDS SOMEONE WITH STYLE AND TASTE TO HELP HIM.

    Posted by: YSOSERIOUS | Dec 19, 2013 6:40:44 PM


  6. All gay rights groups should come out against polygamy and make statements to this effect. If the general public thinks that the legalization of polygamy is next they could see gay marriage and polygamy as being on a continuum of "anti-traditional" family types. This is just what social conservatives want them to think (I know because when I was anti-gay this is just the kind of thing I used to hope for.) In fact, at this point it's probably the only way they could stop gay marriage from becoming legal everywhere in the U.S.

    Polygamy could be opposed by social liberals on the grounds that it would foster inequality - with wealthier men obtaining more of the women and men of ordinary means being left unable to compete. It could also be opposed on feminist grounds - as polygamy would be far more widespread than polyandry, with women being treated like cattle.

    But for whatever reason, the gay community faces a possible setback if polygamy becomes Americas next "social issue." It doesn't matter that most people who are sympathetic to polygamy are not gay. Life isn't fair.

    If any of you here are libertarian enough to support polygamy, please let this issue go until gay marriage is in effect nationwide and safe from political backlash. The public can only handle so much social change in a brief period of time.

    Posted by: Mary | Dec 19, 2013 6:43:02 PM


  7. I don't get why he's so upset over the polygamy ruling.

    According to the inerrant and never-changing word of their go, Solomon had 900 wives and concubines... Why is this a problem all of a sudden? And how dare Vander Toupe rebel against his very own god so publicly.

    You mark my words, nothing good can come of this...

    Posted by: MikeInSanJose | Dec 19, 2013 6:50:16 PM


  8. Ridiculous logic, since there actually is a public health interest where parent-child relations (incest) are concerned related to genetic birth defects. Meanwhile, responsible parenting - actually planning and choosing to have children - is often at play when married same-sex couples decide to procreate.

    Posted by: Lexis | Dec 19, 2013 7:14:09 PM


  9. yea, yea...cause we all know a CHILD can give legal Consent..? Right...Vanderscum???

    Posted by: disgusted American | Dec 19, 2013 7:16:38 PM


  10. That rug on his head is a public health risk.

    Posted by: Fox | Dec 19, 2013 8:12:21 PM


  11. The polygamy ruling wasn't actually a polygamy ruling--it's being falsely labeled as such for bogus political purposes, and, contrary to what Mary says, gay rights groups have no obligation to (and shouldn't) enter the discussion about polygamy at all, because the marriage of three or more people has no more relation--much less, in fact--to two-person same-sex marriages than to two-person heterosexual marriages. Polygamy's roots are entirely heterosexual. It's a different set of issues, and any court ruling that's actually about polygamy will need to take those different issues into consideration. That's all one needs to say about it.

    As for Vander Plaats, he's been making irrational, hysterical arguments for years and is best ignored. Let him rant. It won't mean squat.

    The irony is that when CUs were first on the table in VT the right wing whined ceaselessly how they discriminated against, say, two maiden aunts living together or an elderly mother cared for by her adult son etc. So special family "reciprocal benefits" were added to the law to appease the bigots. The number of people who ever took advantage of them: 0. That slippery slope leads to Bob's backyard, not ours.

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 19, 2013 8:22:00 PM


  12. Nope. More uneducated trash from the uneducated blood thirsty Nazi trash Bob Vander Piss - I mean Plaats.

    Posted by: Sean | Dec 19, 2013 8:39:53 PM


  13. Is it just me or are all these supposed homophobes just professing their "inner desires"?

    Posted by: Sam | Dec 19, 2013 9:32:23 PM


  14. Actually Mary is right. Gay rights organizations need to at least point out how different the sociological motives for (gay) marriage equality are from those of polygamy, which is always reactionary and anti-woman.

    Posted by: EchtKultig | Dec 19, 2013 9:48:40 PM


  15. @ YSOSERIOUS :

    You have just nailed it dude !

    Posted by: JackFknTwist | Dec 19, 2013 10:45:30 PM


  16. Outside of Iowa, Bob Vander Plaats is unimportant and unknown. In Iowa, he has lost whatever political standing he once had after being repeatedly rejected in Republican primaries for governor. His only real success was leading the attack that ousted 3 Iowa supreme court justices who had voted for same-sex marriage. That was years ago. Same-sex marriage is safe and secure in Iowa. Why does anybody care what this has-been hack has to say? Isn't there real news to write about?

    Posted by: Jim | Dec 19, 2013 11:06:30 PM


  17. Bobbi's wiglet is too tight...& not in the way the kids say it either.

    Posted by: Rocco | Dec 20, 2013 1:34:20 AM


  18. I think we're at the trial balloon stage of the rhetorical debate over the Utah decision. People will say anything right now to see what sticks.

    Posted by: anon | Dec 20, 2013 12:08:03 PM


  19. So Mary advises gays to throw somebody else under the bus: "Go get the polygamists, boys, and take the heat off yourselves."

    "And while your at it, don't get too uppity about it either. Nobody likes uppity gays."

    (You see how I've reduced four paragraphs to four sentences? I'll just call this Mary Simplified.)

    Posted by: james st. james | Dec 20, 2013 5:50:12 PM


  20. How are you "throwing anyone under the bus?" What does polygamy have to do with gay rights? Most gay people don't support polygamy. And even if they did, the two causes are separate. There is no reason why gays have to take on someone else's cause. And yes, causes are to some extent in completion with each other if only for the reason that the culture can only handle so much change at once.

    Polygamy is a threat to monogamous marriages - both straight AND gay. Apparently you seem to think that ANY change in marriage law is a good idea. Or an I reading you the wrong way? I'll apologize if I'm misjudging you here.

    Posted by: Mary | Dec 20, 2013 8:55:32 PM


  21. He's worried about the ruling because of a Biblical precedent - the story of Lot and how his daughters got him drunk, had sex with him without Lot knowing, and got pregnant. One of the kiddies was named Moab, which is now the name of a town in Utah.

    So there's a connection of sorts.

    That part of it puts a different spin on Lot supposedly offering his daughters to an angry mob in the Sodom and Gomorrah story - those two women must have been as feisty as angry drag queens and Lot probably figured the mob would meet its match!

    Posted by: Bill | Dec 20, 2013 9:25:20 PM


  22. ... something I should have added. The angry mob wanted the "angels" instead of Lot's daughters not because the whole town was gay, but because they know what those two [explicative deleted] were like.

    Hey - at least they can't sue me, due to the two of them being defunct for several thousand years!

    Posted by: Bill | Dec 20, 2013 10:27:05 PM


  23. I'm not gonna listen to his swill but just to be clear -

    A child/parent marriage could involve all adults.

    Again, I'm not gonna listen so I don't know if he's talking about parents marrying their minor children -or- he's worried that adult children and their parents will get married for tax purposes.

    Whatever, the guy's a kook and is way too concerned about other people's personal lives.

    Posted by: lookyloo | Dec 21, 2013 3:56:45 AM


  24. Isn't there already polygamy through out the US based on religious liberties? I mean is he really that daft he doesn't know what his religious allies are up too? Man is his wife going to be pissed she can't have another playmate to make up for this stiffs lacking in bed.

    Posted by: todd | Dec 21, 2013 9:37:58 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Michelangelo Signorile, Russell Moore Debate 'Duck Dynasty' Star's Remarks on CNN: VIDEO« «