Josh Duggar Says Only One Other Country Has Redefined Marriage (Uh, It’s 19)
Maybe the Duggars think every family should have two thousand kids.
Duggar was in Washington D.C. for the anti-gay March For Marriage last Saturday when he told CNSNews.com (video below), “This is fundamental because only one other country in the entire world has ever redefined marriage and that was Brazil when they stepped in through the court system to do that.”
However, according to the Pew Research Center, there are actually 19 countries that have legalized (redefined) marriage. Brazil did legalize marriage in 2013, but The Netherlands was the first country to do so back in 2000.
Duggar repeatedly said that the states should be allowed to decide marriage via voting, not the courts, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on marriage 14 times, according to the American Foundation For Equal Rights.
Duggar, who often speaks out against gay marriage (video below), also claimed that there was an agenda to silence folks like himself:
Well, you know, I think that right now in America there is an agenda to silence people of faith, those who hold a dissenting opinion. That’s not what America was founded on. America was founded on respect, tolerance, and really not discriminating against people based on their religious convictions.
Budda May 1st, 2015 at 7:21 am
There is not an agenda to silence people of faith Josh. There are, however, people who speak out against people who use their “faith” as a reason to discriminate against others.
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 7:33 am
Where did he get the idea that someone’s trying to shut him up? Has he ever had trouble finding a soapbox to air his views?
Budda May 1st, 2015 at 7:54 am
I believe he considers a challenge to his bigotry an attempt to silence him.
Roctuna May 1st, 2015 at 8:14 am
Just another christian with a persecution complex. Isn’t it amazing that those with a national stage and the modern media at their disposal complain the loudest about how they’re being stifled?
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 8:32 am
Just like the annual War on Christmas ©. If there were really a War on Christmas ©, we wouldn’t be assaulted with Christmas carols starting on the Fourth of July.
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 7:30 am
What point is he trying to make anyway? The fact that only one country had done it, even if it were true, means we shouldn’t? That’s a noble goal, isn’t it? We should have been the first country to do it, but the American people, through their bought-and-paid-for-by-big-money, do-nothing congress, have lost the ability to lead the world when it comes to doing the right thing. And it doesn’t matter whether it’s done by constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court, as long as it gets done.
Suzanne McFly May 1st, 2015 at 7:45 am
He should shut up now. With all those kids in that family, he is bound to have a couple that may not conform to his expectations, and I hope he sings a different tune at that point.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 8:14 am
Polygamy: coming soon to a town near you.
Green Party leader says she is keen to consider recognition for polyamorous relationships
OldLefty May 1st, 2015 at 8:36 am
It certainly is Biblical and predates what Americans call “traditional marriage”.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 9:46 am
Which makes one wonder why subsequent generations found it necessary to outlaw the practice.
OldLefty May 1st, 2015 at 9:53 am
They can outlaw it if they can prove that it is a burden on the state.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 10:18 am
Well, technically, they wouldn’t need to outlaw it since it is already illegal in the US. But I know what you meant. If someone brings a “trio” case to the Supreme Court, they could refuse to grant the right if doing so would be burdensome to the state. I get that.
But as someone who was once a database developer, I can tell you that same-sex marriage is not without its implementation costs. A lot of company and government databases are being and/or will be reprogrammed to deal with same-sex marriages. This is probably a modest, one-time cost. But when you think of the number of database systems that are affected, there is a real cost.
Software and database developers are trained to look for underlying patterns and build solutions that address the more general case, instead of hacking piecemeal solutions for each special case. Any forward-thinking database designer would be asking herself “As long as I’m making these changes, should I be thinking ahead and planning for marriages involving more than two people?”.
Dealing with three or more people in a relationship would definitely be more difficult, for a database developer, than dealing with same-sex marriages where the number of people is fixed at two. I can see some justification for the “burden to the state” argument. (I am thinking of “state” as “we the people”.)
But here again, we are looking at a reasonable, one-time cost to update things like databases and policy manuals. Would there really be any significant day-to-day costs to business or government if polygamous marriages were permitted? If so, what would they be?
I am trying to imagine what arguments a Supreme Court justice might use to argue against polygamy if same-sex marriage were already permitted and regarded as a constitutional right. It seems to me that the “burden to the state” is a matter of degree.
Certainly divorce and child custody cases would become more complicated. But aren’t these things already complicated by factors such as parental incarceration, drug abuse, neglect, clinical depression, and a host of other factors? These cases are already so messy that it might be hard to argue that polygamy would make it any worse. If three lesbians have lived together for twenty years and are deeply in love with one another, and they wanted to get married, what would you say to them?
OldLefty May 1st, 2015 at 10:23 am
To tell you the truth, I could care less, except that rarely does it seem that EVERYONE is on board.
I think that where it becomes a big problem is when the contracts are dissolved; custody, wills etc,
fahvel May 1st, 2015 at 10:35 am
control dim wit, just plain control!!!!!
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Same-sex marriage was prohibited in most human civilizations throughout most of recorded history because the all of those millions of straight people wanted – CONTROL???? Gee. And all this time I thought it had something to do with homophobia. I never realized it was because they were CONTROL FREAKS!
Opposition to same-sex marriage is higher among blacks than among whites, higher among poor than wealthy, and higher among the poorly educated than among the well educated. So I guess the greatest opposition is from poor, uneducated, black control freaks!
Dwendt44 May 1st, 2015 at 5:40 pm
Which explains why Republicans are opposed to it.
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 8:39 am
The Green Party received 1% of the vote in the 2010 general election.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 9:45 am
Yes, but a small percentage of people can have a large influence.
Washington Post, July 14, 2014: “Health survey gives government its first large-scale data on gay, bisexual population”
“The National Health Interview Survey, which is the government’s premier tool for annually assessing Americans’ health and behaviors, found that 1.6 percent of adults self-identify as gay or lesbian, and 0.7 percent consider themselves bisexual.”
(I’m unable to post links today for some reason.)
tracey marie May 1st, 2015 at 3:02 pm
Are you are saying that only gay people are for marriage equality?
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 4:41 pm
Heavens no! I was born at night, but I wasn’t born LAST night!
It’s really quite the opposite. The majority of people today support same-sex marriage. Gallup puts the number at 55% overall, and 80% among young people. So that’s clear evidence that the majority is willing to adjust the laws to accommodate a very small minority of the population. If people have come to accept same-sex marriage, I suspect that the same arguments could persuade them to accept polygamous marriages. That was the point I was trying to make.
tracey marie May 1st, 2015 at 4:47 pm
But you started with “small percentages” making change. But thanks for the clarification even though I don’t agree
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 4:52 pm
Tracey Marie, if you ever agree with ANYTHING I say, I seriously think I will have a heart attack.
Anomaly 100 May 1st, 2015 at 8:53 am
And wonder what Mitt Romney feels about that.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 9:51 am
I wonder what you feel about that (i.e. polygamy). Personally, I have reservations, but I am trying to be open-minded about same-sex marriage, and I truly think that we will be having serious conversations about polygamy in the not-too-distant future. So why wait? Why not discuss it now? If we’re opening the door to redefining marriage, shouldn’t we be looking ahead and thinking about the ramifications of what we do today?
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 9:57 am
Just as with same sex marriage, if someone wants to get involved in a polygamous marriage (I never would, it just doesn’t make sense) how does it affect anyone else? They will have to deal with any problems that result from that kind of relationship.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 10:35 am
There’s nothing preventing people from cohabiting in any desired fashion. And I think that most of us aren’t really too concerned about atypical arrangements as long as there’s no abuse. The question that concerns me is whether the state should officially endorse things like polygamy. I strongly suspect that the Supreme Court will be considering that issue in my lifetime. And when they do, they will be reviewing prior decisions and asking what justification was used to support those decisions. So I think that if same-sex marriage is approved, it is still important to pay attention to the moral arguments. If we say that “When two people love one another, they should be allowed to marry.”, then someone is going to bring a case where the justices will be asking “What’s special about the number two?”.
fahvel May 1st, 2015 at 10:33 am
wtf are you babbling about? what folks do should be left to them and you should keep your mind and mouth far from anyone not doing harm to another. Your pretentious mode of writing embarrasses some educated folks.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 10:40 am
So you have no concerns about the potential for harm in a polygamous marriage?
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 11:48 am
There’s potential for harm in a monogamous marriage. There’s potential for harm when two people shack up. And the state doesn’t “endorse” marriage, all they do is not prevent people from doing it if they want to, and provide a legal document for tax and other purposes. They don’t endorse any kind of marriage, or lack of one.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Your point about not endorsing makes sense. The state issues fishing licenses and gun permits, but it doesn’t necessarily endorse these activities. In the case of fishing, the state is stocking the streams with fish, so it needs to charge a fee and limit each person’s take. In the case of concealed carry permits, the state is requiring some kind of justification.
There was a time when anyone could fish in any stream while carrying a concealed weapon without any type of permit from the state. But even back in those days, the state was already issuing marriage licenses.
How did this all get started, and what was the original purpose? People made a big deal about “bastard” children in the old days. Maybe the state’s primary concern was in making it possible to hold people (especially fathers) responsible for the welfare of their children, including inheritance matters, since life expectancy was so much higher and contagious diseases devastated so many families.
If the institution of marriage did not exist today, would there be the will to create it? Why not just phase out the institution entirely? People no longer view marriage as a prerequisite to having children. People who cannot have children still get married. What is the purpose? Why did Gloria Steinem get married after all these years? What did that give her that she didn’t have before?
Larry Schmitt May 1st, 2015 at 1:04 pm
Taxes. That’s the biggest impact.
Dwendt44 May 1st, 2015 at 11:38 am
Well, polygamy is supported by the bible, so the bible thumpers shouldn’t have any objection like they do now.
Bunya May 1st, 2015 at 1:58 pm
Gay marriage doesn’t affect me personally, but I can see the problems polygamy can cause. Since a man/woman, in this day and age, can’t support 10-20 offspring created from all these marriages, the burden falls on the taxpayers to pick up the slack.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 2:24 pm
A girl I knew in high school grew up Catholic and married a Catholic man after they both earned their bachelor’s degrees. Together they have ten biological children. He works in a professional capacity at a university. She homeschooled the kids. They both have part-time jobs (music-related) at their church. One of their kids went to Julliard. Another is an attorney. I would assume that the kids got a lot of tuition assistance, but I sincerely doubt that they ever needed help to buy food, clothing, and other necessities. So if two parents can raise ten kids, why couldn’t three or four parents raise ten?
tracey marie May 1st, 2015 at 2:57 pm
you are just deflection and attempting to say gay marriage between 2 people is the same as marriage between many people.
UprightButNotStr8t May 17th, 2015 at 11:51 pm
After doing a quick review of sites in the US where polygamy is practiced, apparently, Mr. Snyder, only if you live in a town with a fundamentalist Mormon offshoot group. Curiously, Massachusetts has had same-sex marriage for over a decade now and still no gay marriage opponents have reported polygamy there. Maybe they’re just shy. Nor has it been reported in any of the other states where gay marriage has been legal since 2013. Also curiously, it’s in states fighting same-sex marriage tooth and claw (Utah, Texas, etc.) where you will find polygamist groups. Red herring stew, anyone?
Robert M. Snyder May 18th, 2015 at 12:25 am
When I was growing up, homosexuality was considered sick and disgusting. Things can change dramatically in a generation or two. Polygamy was a thing in the past. It could be a thing in the future.
CityZen May 1st, 2015 at 9:48 am
Hey, dumass Dugger.
It’s a real example of what is often cited by your bunch of idiots…. American exceptionalism.
Carla Akins May 1st, 2015 at 10:16 am
Love that homeschooling.
fahvel May 1st, 2015 at 10:31 am
people of faith, empty shells of what could be a substantial life form, should take their bs and wallow in it at hope and leave the silence outside their triple locked doors
Dwendt44 May 1st, 2015 at 11:41 am
Facts never were of much interest to the wacky right.
tracey marie May 1st, 2015 at 2:59 pm
He seriously said he is being discriminated against because of his religion not because of his bigotry. Those types do not even hear their own hypocrisy
Chinese Democracy May 1st, 2015 at 3:20 pm
What difference does it make to Josh Duggar what any other countries do? I’m sure he couldn’t find them on a map
bpollen May 1st, 2015 at 3:26 pm
Josh, do you have a plural marriage? That was cool in the bible. Did your wife’s family pay you a dowry? That was a traditional part of marriage. Did you and your wife’s parents decide that you two were going to be married? That was a traditional part of marriage. Can your wife inherit if you die? That wasn’t always a traditional part of marriage. Seems that marriage has been redefined numerous times, including in this country. Before the 70’s, women couldn’t legally refuse sex with their husbands. That has been “redefined.”
To summarize, not only can you not count, you are abysmally ignorant of history, even of your own religion.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 5:02 pm
“I was one of 11 children. My dad worked 2 jobs and my mother stayed home to raise the kids. Both never went to college, but good paying jobs for people without a college degree were plentiful back then”
Up until about 1980, US manufacturing output and US manufacturing jobs grew more or less in lock step. After 1980, output continued to rise, but the number of jobs began to fall, and it has fallen pretty steadily through both Republican and Democratic administrations.
What happened in 1980? Microprocessors. The IBM PC was introduced in 1980. Factories began to automate processes.
Throughout the Clinton years, Alan Greenspan continually touted the unprecedented gains in productivity. But productivity means that fewer workers are needed to produce the same goods.
Outsourcing happened. NAFTA happened. All of these things affected the economy. Reasonable people can debate the wisdom of trade agreements. President Obama is pushing to get a new trade agreement ratified as we speak.
But as someone who has been programming computers for a living since 1984, I have given a lot of thought to how Automation has affected jobs. In the old days, if you had a high school diploma and a willingness to work and learn, you could get a good-paying factory job and support a family on one income.
Today’s factories practically run themselves. I find that simultaneously thrilling (from a technical standpoint) and horrifying (from a social standpoint).
Dwendt44 May 1st, 2015 at 5:35 pm
Mechanization and automation killed a lot of jobs. Plus, the GOP has managed to grease the wheels for jobs going overseas to sweatshops and low wage countries.Reagan started toe ‘kill the unions’ movement that is still going strong in Republican circles.
Robert M. Snyder May 1st, 2015 at 11:00 pm
Too bad they failed to kill off the teachers’ unions. Nothing has done more to ruin education in America.
SueD May 1st, 2015 at 6:21 pm
The Duggars need to stick a quiver where the sun don’t shine!