In their collective fervor to legislate their version of Judeo-Christian morality, state lawmakers have once again renewed efforts to define marriage in Wisconsin as between one man and one woman.

While one of the underlying themes of the 2004 presidential election, the marriage debate has lost prominence as President Bush no longer needs it as a divisive and convenient political tool. And if last year's election is any indicator, expect talking heads to sling more mud than the peace-freaks did at Woodstock.

The most common talking point among those opposed to homosexual marriage is that if we allow gays to marry there's nothing to stop us from allowing polygamy. The heart of this reasoning rests upon the assumption that polygamy is such an unacceptable practice the comparison will make individuals cringe at the thought of gay marriage. But should the government ban polygamy?

Before I continue, a few caveats are in order.

First, this slippery slope reasoning is absurd and I see no link between allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing multiple people to marry each other. If we apply this rationale to all walks of American life, one could make the argument that the government must legalize heroin if alcohol is legal, or that there is nothing preventing a communist dictatorship if the FDIC government insures banks via the FDIC.

Also, this truly is not a chauvinistic position; while polygamy is traditionally believed to be between one man and several women, it could just as easily be between one woman and several men. If Darryn Beckstrom, the editorial board chairman, were to propose to the entire board — Charles Parsons, Mikey Robinson, Mac VerStandig and me — she should have the right to do so.

While many (including myself) certainly view polygamy as ethically dubious, it is not the duty of the government to legislate morality. Morality is a highly relativistic idea; and if lawmakers choose to apply their morals to the nation, they are inevitably going to offend another's version of morality.

Much of the criticism of polygamy comes from Christians proclaiming polygamy is in some way, shape or form against God's will. However, Exodus 21:10 states, "If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish," apparently showing that the Bible has no problems with a man taking more than one wife.

Of course, there are probably many verses in the Bible condemning polygamy and that are directly at odds with Exodus 21:10; the Bible tends to contradict itself. However, what this verse does show is that the Bible clearly is not dead-set against polygamy in every instance, so one cannot justifiably claim polygamy is undoubtedly spitting in the face of Christianity.

There certainly is a difference between allowing a judge or justice of the peace to marry multiple individuals and forcing a priest, rabbi or cleric to recognize or perform the marriage. If the state does indeed recognize polygamy, no religious institution should be forced to perform the marriages.

And yes, many can rightfully claim murder, rape and theft are all immoral. However, these actions have obvious direct and terrible consequences on the victim, but if more than two individuals willingly enter into a marriage none of the parties involved could truly be labeled the victim. Many say prostitution is a victimless crime, yet left unsanctioned it can lead to the "john" beating or killing the prostitute or one of the parties acquiring AIDS.

So whose life is negatively altered if one woman decides to marry more than one man? If those involved in a polygamist relationship love and respect each other, the answer is no one. Sure, individuals will undoubtedly be offended by the notion that one man can have more than one wife, but certain Americans are also offended by and have moral problems with the consumption of alcohol. Does that mean the government should capitulate to a present day version of the Anti-Saloon League and reinstitute prohibition? I'd certainly hope not.

Prohibition, by the way, is a perfect example of a number of Americans forcing their moral values on the rest of the public. I'm not a historian, so you'll have to tell me how prohibition turned out.

But in all seriousness, moral crusaders against polygamy truly should question whether they want the government to have the power to restrict individual freedom. This column was not meant to advocate polygamy as a practice, but rather explain why the government should not restrict it in a legal sense; what one man considers moral another considers filthy.

Robert S. Hunger ([email protected]) is the editorial page content editor and is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.