(Note: The following is an excerpt from the Sunday edition of Chuck Muth's News & Views E-Letter. Sign-up for his newsletter at
Chuck Muth

BOONE-DOGGLE

Have you noticed that a large number of folks who object to the notion of “gay marriage” can’t seem to articulate an actual argument against gay marriage without bringing polygamous marriage into the discussion? Latest case in point: crooner Pat Boone, who penned an op/ed for the Washington Times yesterday lambasting “politicians and judges (who) are trying to redefine the meaning of marriage” to include same-sex couples. “What’s next,” asks the singer, “a man and three women - a woman and four men?”

See. Such folks don’t argue against same-sex marriage so much as they argue against what might come AFTER same-sex marriage. And it’s almost always something even “worse” than same-sex marriage, such as polygamous marriage, that they claim we really need to concern ourselves about.

But here’s where the anti-gay marriage religious folks lose me. “Since the dawn of mankind,” Boone maintained, “the sacred bond of marriage has been correctly defined as a union between one woman and one man.”

Um, but I thought I read somewhere (oh yeah, in the Bible) that polygamous marriages were OK in the “olden days.” And if so, Boone’s statement is...well, just plain wrong. Marriages were NOT defined as “one woman and one man.”

And if polygamous marriages were OK in the Old Testament days, and polygamous marriages are supposedly worse than same-sex marriages today...but the reasoning against same-sex marriage is religious objections based on Old Testament teachings, then how can we object to something worse than same-sex marriages which was OK in the Bible and yet use that same Bible to come up with an argument to object to something that’s not as bad as something that was once OK?

Oy, vey! It makes your head spin trying to follow this “logic.” Mr. Boone, with all due respect, might want to consider following Laura Ingraham’s advice and, “Shut Up and Sing.”