We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Thursday, June 27. 2013
When people ask whether there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, I can't understand where they are coming from. The people do not have enumerated rights. It's the federal government which has enumerated powers. It's about freedom from the federal state.
I am not aware that the power to regulate marriage is among the federal powers. The case for polygamy:
How about two wives working on Wall St., one wife home with the kids, and the dude fishing and hunting all day? Well, I guess that would not be very manly in today's world and might not attract committed women.
Tracked: Jun 28, 05:57
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
You've got to be foxtrotting kidding me.
Sympathy for polygamy *here*?
I thought more highly of your intelligence, your education and your morals.
I am not endorsing or recommending it. Just taking a Libertarian position. It hardly matters anymore. With gay marriage, and with marriage being tragically obsolete in almost 50% of American "families," what does it all matter anyway?
The state extending legal shortcuts and benefits to homosexuals is in and of itself nothing major.
That most of society has devalued marriage (How many times has Rush Limbaugh gotten divorced? Newt G? Reagan did it once. No fault divorce was pushed by the left but the right did not fight it hard enough to make me believe that their opposition was more than a fig leaf.
Far too many Conservatives have utterly failed the marriage test.
But that doesn't mean we should shove the entirety of western civ right into the gutter.
Polygamy, everywhere it's tolerated, brings violence, degradation of women and child brides.
It should not even be *tolerated*, much less accepted.
"But that doesn't mean we should shove the entirety of western civ right into the gutter. "
But that's already been done, thank you.
No limits. No matter what.
An anarchic, hedonistic, world.
It is a done deal.
The heathens win. Though I once thought myself one... how little did I know what true heathens were.
Legally, there is no difference between same-sex "marriage" and polygamy. Once you depart from the definition of marriage, then any attempt to limit who can get married becomes discrimination. And the arguments for "marriage equality" for polygamy are identical. And frankly, there is more historical and cultural evidence supporting legalization. All it will take is the first lawsuit by a polygamous group (ideally Muslims who are already "married" in their own culture), demanding equal treatment to other "married" people, and the wall will fall.
In other words, if it is unconstitutional to require marriage to be between "one MAN and one WOMAN," it is just as unconstitutional to require that it be between "ONE man and ONE woman."
Just depends on how powerful and sympathetic the lobby is. Homosexuals have created powerful allies in the major mass cultural and political institutions.
I doubt polygamists will ever have that kind of influence.
The left and MSM has never really been too concerned about discrimination except what they define as discrimination against their preferred groups.
I fall in with the Alkon school of thought on this issue:
For every one man with three wives, you will have three men with no chance of getting any wife. Women have a civilizing effect on men (whether we admit it or not). having large numbers of forcibly single men around would be bad for society. We would get in trouble, go on jihads, do crimes and stuff. Men will work harder and be better citizens if the women are spread around somewhat evenly.
It's not just that women have a civilizing effect on men.
Any time the available male to available female ratio gets too out of whack in either direction you see violence, risk taking and social breakdown. This is (part of) what is screwing the african-american community so hard. With a significant portion of their "eligible" young men in jail the women compete among who's left for mates, and the competition is so intense that they accept more than a bit of bed jumping. Which leads to fatherless children, poverty cycles and more young men in jail.
That's a Utilitarian argument for social engineering. It carries no water for me. I am freedom-oriented.
Freedom for whom? The 9 year old girl "promised" and then married at 14 or 16?
Note that no where am I arguing that people shouldn't do what they want with their wibbly bits. You wanna be a swinger? Fine. You want to "share" a house with a random assortment of other adults, whatever.
You want the state to approve, to provide tax benefits , to codify your arrangements in law, and to set up inheritance rules?
And I am the social engineer?
Once in a while one yall yanks come up with splendid idea; evenly spread around ladies...sounds like a touchy new song.
If one had two wives it would be interesting to see how divorce court would deal with one wife being divorced and not the other.
Child custody, asset division, support........ looks like it opens a whole new world in litigation.
Interesting assumption in thinking that it would be men sending one wife to work and the other would be left at home to tend the children. I think it would be most beneficial to send two husbands off to work. Yes that would work nicely.
Nice nic, and good question. I could go for it, but you better be good. Now trounce that back at me. Easy enough, right? I'm thinking some deep shit thought required here, and I'm way too shallow to attempt it.
Oh now, you be careful diving in to the shallows. Should have seen that coming with your “x ray” vision.
I've felt the whisper of both logs and rounds passing by my ear. Not just metaphor.
Shallow a depth I like, for its quick divide, of those who can go deeper, or not, as the remainder might be serious, or not still.
By the way, my nic has nothing to do with vision. Just presence.
The problem isn't homosexual, polygamous, bestial, or any other gender-specific marriage, it's compelling people who think some marriages are wrong to fund such marriages, refrain from denouncing them, and to visibly and publicly accept them.
Since polygamy, as practiced in this country, seems to be a cover for pedophilia, I don't have any enthusiasm for it. That said, I suppose, that exploitation is not inevitable.
On the other hand, given that many children are no longer raised by their biological parents in intact nuclear families, whatever legitimate interest the state had in marriage has gone by the boards. I think "legal marriage" belongs under contract law with strict adherence to the requirements that the parties are free and capable of consent. Marriage as a sacrament belongs to the faith groups.
The argument against polygamy is simple: no man in their right mind would want to come home late from the pub to a whole harem of angry women.
Oh come on people! Hillary had it right. "What difference does it make now".
preamble an Bill of rights enumerate many of peoples natural rights.
Yall may been smokin' liberalertarin's hams and pot too long, again Junkie.
I agree with the author and with Justice Scalia -- up to a point.
The key to understanding the State's lack of authority in this issue is to consider how Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick. Effectively, Lawrence creates a "right" of sexual conduct that cannot be interfered with by the State. The problem is that if you throw away moral hygiene laws, then anything goes. Scalia, in his dissent stated: "State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication,
bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices."
The argument continues to be made that Lawrence does not, in fact, put us on a slippery slope, because homosexuality is different. In what way is it different? Well, it just is.
Consider bigamy or adultery. What is the prevailing State interest in restricting this behavior. In simple terms, what is the legal basis for a legal restriction on this behavior?
Even better, consider prostitution. You can certainly point to health ordinances, but almost all states refuse to allow prostitution in any form. If consenting adults have the constitutional right to engage in sexual behavior, what is the legal basis for prohibiting a person who enjoys sex and finds he idea of selling sex exciting?
In reality, the solution to the slippery slope argument comes from the Liberal Magic Hat theory of law: it is what it is because we say so. It is constitutional because we have the votes. Liberals will never allow bigamy or prostitution because they don't like it.
The Liberal Magic Hat theory is where Lawrence comes from. Liberals on the SCOTUS and their fans love to point to foreign laws as the basis for their rulings -- including Lawrence. But liberals cherry-pick what foreign laws they like. In most developed countries, prostitution is legal, but liberals aren't going to consider those laws in any ruling.
Why are you all presuming the polygamy will be one man, more than one woman? In case you haven't noticed, the women are taking over. Polygamy in the future is just as likely to be one woman, more than one man.
It is largely a moot point though. Marriage is dead. Once we've trashed the definition of marriage as one man, one woman it will become whatever. Why not polygamy? Why not several of each sex? Why not siblings, parents and children? Sexual relations no longer require marriage to be socially acceptable. We' divorced marriage from child raising.
The only remaining attribute of marriage is economic - property and the ownership and distribution of such. And application of benefits which have, traditionally, been medical through an employer. Obamacare will end that soon enough. Soon the only benefit will be the passage of property upon the death of a party to a marriage contract. Toos out the marriage bit and just go with the contract part.
Marriage is dead. I am glad I got my daughters raised before it died.
Why are you all presuming the polygamy will be one man, more than one woman?
Historically, polygamy seems fairly common, polyandry fairly rare. Don't know why, just assuming it will continue.
China is going to be an interesting test of my theory. They've had a mandatory one child per person law for a while now, and parents have opted heavily for boy children. There's going to be a serious bride shortage. We'll see if they try polyandry in response.
I'm of the opinion that it eventually will be one man and multiple women. Why? Simply because western women are slowly and inexorably moving to remove and exclude men from the reproductive process in its entirety.
I know this because the Mrs. has some very good friends who are female "partners" and have been for a long time - with two kids all implants - one man between the two of them.
They also joke about who needs men, but there is an undercurrent of truth to it.
Left unsaid, gay marriage is only one step on the slippery slope to acceptance of polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia and/or any other sexual proclivity - it's already happening in other parts of the world, notably in Brazil and France, so it will become accepted.
You heard it here first. :>)
Will pre-nups be as popular among gay couples as hetero ones? Maybe we can sell marriage as a contractual event? Oh, I forgot - the real purpose of the gay marriage decision as opposed to civil unions, aside providing income to wedding planners and divorce lawyers, is to coerce everyone into accepting any outrage to religious beliefs and to use the power of the state to do it. We'll see how eagerly the Islamists are in accepting this. Is it my imagination,or are the various parties in the left's big tent on an increasingly rapid collision course??
A general comment regarding the notion that gov't has no business in the marriage business.
Marriage has always, in every society, been a concern of "the powers that be." Give some long thought as to why this concern is a constant across the globe throughout history.