In my posts I’ll keep reiterating that the Brain Genital Law or BGL holds that all sexual acts are normal, amoral acts of nature. It also holds that all societies have regulated such acts in one way or another including heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Historically, homosexual marriage is a very rare union rejected by virtually all societies while polygamy has been and still is widely accepted throughout the world. Yet in the United States the Supreme Court in 1876 ruled polygamy to be unconstitutional and, in 2013, homosexual marriage constitutional. The clear legal bases of both decisions, like other Court’s decisions, are difficult to find in our Constitution.
So, what’s the story? I really don’t know. One can reasonably assume that the first decision was based on the Christian Protestant values of the time but also on the universal but difficult to pinpoint factor behind the historical worldwide rejection of such marriage. Current values, however, primarily due to the impact of modern technology, have already led to a sweeping deregulation of the BGL rendering many forms of sexual expression, which were wholeheartedly discouraged before, not only increasingly acceptable but enthusiastically embraced.
There is little doubt that the Supreme Court justices are influenced by these social changes. In 1876 there were very few known supporters of polygamy. If the case had involved homosexual marriage, the Court would have also ruled it unconstitutional, one reason being that there were also very few supporters of homosexuality. In the year 2013, however, media coverage of homosexual marriage was 5 to 1 in favor of it, and the Court went along with our changing social values.
Let’s make the assumption that the composition of our Supreme Court won’t change when the polygamy “right” to marriage case inevitably comes before it. If the justices who supported the recent homosexual marriage decision are still seated and remain consistent, they should overturn the 1876 decision. On the other hand, in addition to the social-political factors, there is also the psychological one which affects judgment calls. Three of the justices who ruled in favor of homosexual marriage are women. In their hearts they are probably strongly against men having more than one wife and may find some type of creative legal argument to rule against it*.
There is little doubt that the Supreme Court is, in place of tradition and legislation, becoming the arbiter of controversial, rapidly deregulated sexual behavior in America and will soon decide, for example, who has rights to their sperm, their eggs and to the fertilized IVF embryo in an unimaginable variety of cases. The justices will be challenged on where to draw the lines on increasing deregulated sexual behavior that is being embraced by our culture. No easy task for the justices for their decisions will be far more controversial than dealing with the Second Amendment!
During the next decade we will experience a rollercoaster of tumultuous sexcapades characterized by pervasive social disruption, rampant insecurity and unhappiness. Sex is indeed like fire: It can warm up your home or burn it down. Instead of a national policy to build solar panels to deliver heat, we should, instead, immediately begin to manufacture large quantities of fire extinguishers.
*One wonders how they would rule if the case involved polyandry, the right of women to have more than one husband.