Catholic Univ. Law Professor Defends Polygamous And Incestuous Marriages

by College Fix Staff on July 18, 2013

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, paving the way for the legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide, one professor felt emboldened enough to admit the truth:

“Opponents of same-sex marriage have long argued that allowing such unions will lead to marriages among more than two people and between adults who are related. They’re right.”

So says Kent Greenfield, a Boston College Law School professor at the Catholic university who supports same-sex marriage, in a recent column for The American Prospect.

In it, he essentially acknowledges the successful legal arguments in favor of same-sex marriage could and likely should apply to polygamous and incestuous marriages, and arguments against those two types of unions fall short:

If marriage is about the ability to define one’s own family, what’s the argument against allowing brothers and sisters (or first cousins) to wed? If liberty protects, as Kennedy wrote ten years ago in Lawrence v. Texas, the case striking down Texas’s anti-sodomy law, the “right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,” why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well? If it’s wrong to exclude groups because of prejudice, are we sure the uneasiness most of us feel about those who love more than one, or love one of their own, shouldn’t count as prejudice? …

We can continue to search for differences that make sense as a matter of constitutional principle. Or we can fess up. We can admit our arguments in favor of marriage equality inexorably lead us to a broader battle in favor of allowing people to define their marriages, and their families, by their own lights.

And so it begins.

Read more.

CLICK HERE to Like The College Fix on Facebook / TWITTER: @CollegeFix

Help The College Fix thrive. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation!
Share this article:
  • The Omega Man

    From a man’s point of view, I can say that I found casual sex with someone I didn’t love or care for to be distasteful. The experience is what I would imagine barnyard animals would experience. Note that these hook-ups occur after the consumption of copious amounts of alcohol, otherwise most normal people would just not engage in it.

    Making love with someone you deeply love, care about and have sacrificed for is on a far higher plane and cannot even begin to compare with the animalistic rutting that passes for college sex these days.

    • sybarite123

      Thank you for your ‘informed’ comment! A retired catholic priest in Canada.

    • Ken the Playful Walrus

      Let’s not kid ourselves. Most people do enjoy casual sex, even if they enjoy marital lovemaking even more. You can recognize that fast food is cheap, bad for you, etc. and still enjoy it when your gourmet meal is not going to be ready for a while.

  • robertludlum

    It is sad when the taxpayer bankrolls higher education institutions that encourage their daughters to behave this way. San Diego State, where Emily attends, use to have “Take a shower with a friend week” to, supposedly, encourage water conservation. Coed dorms with coed bathrooms are becoming the norm at public universities subsidized by the taxpayer. However, better not hold discussions that emphasize moral values at those institutions. Oh no, that is a violation of the separation of church and state (which does not exist in the Constitution). Scum bags all. They hide behind their lack of self-discipline to attack those with self-respect.

  • Allan

    Moron. Why don’ t you talk to a genetisist?

    • Debbie

      Or perhaps one might suggest you learn how to spell. Casting aspersions on someone’s intelligence with a misspelling does tend to dilute one’s argument.

    • Debbie

      Additionally, you have not said anything of substance nor stated an opinion that anyone can discern. Name-calling is the unproductive tendency of those who have nothing substantive to contribute.

  • gail mahoney

    Now we are learning how some people would really like to live..What kind of life does he really live.I wonder if the Pope believes in live and let live to.

  • Pat

    Two years out of college and I still can’t believe I survived that asylum. Never been more depressed than to see supposedly smart people doing so many stupid things and then getting made fun of for avoiding it all (and listening to more stimulating music).

  • Lovejoy

    Why marry at all at this point?

  • Lovejoy

    So I read the whole article and the question keeps coming up, “what about the children?” There was a time when there was not a strict legal definition of what a child was. It was not uncommon for a 25 year old male to marry a 15 year old female. I know things change but at what point does the government get involved? Marriage is a religious institution and not a government one. #stillsearching

  • Joe America

    Marriage (and family) is a government institution. Operationally marriage vows or any other religious fantasies have zero bearing on marriage. This is very different from the past. Laws (often pushed by man hating feminist) and moral hazards they present concerning marriage and family have made the institution of marriage ineffective. The war on boys is ongoing. There are many disincentives to marriage for men and zero benefits. I see no sign of any church addressing this. Therefore marriage rates will continue there decline.

    Randomly pick any mega church and ask, how many request for gay marriage did you have in the last year? I can answer that, zero. The real issue is straight marriage which is generally ignored.

    • John Stevens

      No, family and marriage are not government constructs. Marriage is based in the most basic of biological truths: that a child has one mother, one father. To protect that child, the mother, AND the father is the purpose of marriage.

      Randomly pick any Catholic Church and ask “What is your marriage preparation requirement?” The Church is doing a great deal to try to help create strong and lasting marriages that benefit everybody.

  • Daniel DeFonce

    “The feminist movement hates male, chauvinist pigs so much that they want to be exactly like them.” How ironic, but true.

  • NoBigGovDuh

    How about we accept that some women do want to work and others like sex, others do not. However public policy mandates they work in this day in age. You can thank the moronic welfare reform for that.

  • http://jtgillick.com/ jtgillick

    sex is bad

    bad bad bad bad bad

    so bad

    bad to the bone

    really bad

    bad

    (PS: don’t forget that … it’s BAD)

  • Seriously?!

    This article is horseshit.

  • Seriously?!

    because my previous comment didn’t really disclose why this is in fact horseshit, lemme do it now….it’s not about being like men, it’s about being able to make whatever choices you want about your body and not be condemned for it. This whole article is sex shaming babble.

    Who cares how many unattached sex partners anyone has? If you’re not going to be with them and if you are, well then it is your right to politely state, “You have had more sex partners than I feel comfortable with. Not that it says anything you about personally, but I prefer people who have about has many as I do.”

    It’s about having the same right to do what guys do, not because we want to emulate them, but because we deserve the same rights. The moment you all realize the feminist movements is not about emulating men (though you would think that because everything woman do must surely revolve around men), but about getting the same rights across the board for everyone, the sooner we can move on from dribbling argyments about sex.

    BECAUSE SEX IS REALLY THE LAST THING ON ANYONE WHO IS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT MIND. You all want to make it about sex you can paint us as man hating sex machines. Get over yourselves.

    • It’sThe21stCentury,People

      Thank you so much for leaving an intelligent comment. Feminism is NOT about women emulating men, it’s about equality (not just between men and women) and achieving the right to make your own choices.

      “[Women] rank professional success over having a family. It’s sad, because women have bought the line that their fulfillment comes from work. It’s simply not true: for the majority of women, their happiness will come when they have a husband and children to care for. But because women so badly want to emulate men, they imagine they will find fulfillment in the same places. Unfortunately, most women do not, and they end up feeling empty.” —-Seriously?! How can you possibly believe that such an outrageous claim is true? Fulfillment is found in different places for everyone- it’s not like all men find fulfillment in work and all women find fulfillment in child rearing. Give me a break!

      “The feminist movement hates male, chauvinist pigs so much that they want to be exactly like them.”
      —–Have you READ any feminist literature? I would recommend “Feminism: A Beginner’s Guide” by Sally Scholz to anyone and everyone confused about the feminist movement.

  • Ken the Playful Walrus

    Once someone is willing to overlook an objective standards like “sex is for marriage” I fail to see what the big deal is about hookups. Why is it considered better if women are getting emotionally, socially, and often financially entangled with a man they, statistically, aren’t like to marry, rather than having sex without all of the extra baggage? This is the society we have created. Please don’t tell me about STDs, pregnancy, and what women went. In my wayward youth, every woman I fornicated with was the initiator and they seemed to enjoy themselves. No pregnancies and no STDs resulted. Yet it was still morally wrong to do. THAT is the key. It was immoral. It is immoral even if it was in the context of a relationship (as most instances were). I have a sneaking suspicion that part of the concern here is that men are “getting away” with not paying money (everything from alimony to a dinner date) for sex. That really seems to bother some people.

  • MarkJ

    Rule of Thumb: There is no idea so evil, idiotic, or harmful that an academic won’t buy into it.
    Question: How many Ph.D.’s supported Hitler and National Socialism?
    Answer: A lot more than you’d think.