Althouse: It's easy to distinguish polygamy.

२७ जून, २०१५

It's easy to distinguish polygamy.

John remembers that I showed how to do it 10 years ago.

१६९ टिप्पण्या:

rhhardin म्हणाले...: On the contrary, polygamy is a fine case in point.

It's recognized by the word to be a marriage. It's just an illegal one. But marriage it is.; २७/६/१५, २:३१ PM
Petunia म्हणाले...: No, it's not easy to distinguish polygamy. The "sense of fairness" economic argument DOES apply to plural marriage in the same way that it applies to two-person marriage. If people love each other enough to get married, then the economic benefits should apply to plural marriages just as they apply to two-person marriages. There's no relevant distinction.

It's only a matter of time before polygamous marriage arguments reach the Supreme Court, and no doubt SCOTUS will come up with some incorrect legal reasoning to approve of them, rather than leaving the matter of marriage, an unenumerated power, to the states.; २७/६/१५, २:३२ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: Weak sauce. If you can't differentiate between a person with an XX chromosome and a person with an XX chromosome, the number of people don't matter. The law deals handily with serial monogomy, and men and women with children from different partners.
It is coming, Althouse.; २७/६/१५, २:३४ PM
Nonapod म्हणाले...: When I think of polygamous marriages I often think of bands. I've heard many times that being in a successful rock band is sort of like being in a marriage. Your financial well being is tied up with these other people, there are certainly emotional and creative components tied up in it too. Although you're generally not sleeping with each other (unless your Fleetwood Mac). And when a member leaves or is fired there can often be ugly legal ramifications, lawsuits ext, like you'd have in a divorce (who get's the children, or this case songs).; २७/६/१५, २:४० PM
mccullough म्हणाले...: The law deals with child support for kids of divorced parents or parents that have kids from other sexual encounters and takes into account children of a current marriage in setting child support.

Social Security gives spousal benefits to any former spouse married to a recipient (or dececedent) married for 10 years. So your former spouse(s) of 10 years can receive benefits along with your current spouse.

If divorce were difficult and a substantial percentage of children not born out of wedlock, the view would have more appeal. But that's not our society and hasn't been for a long time.

Our society shit on marriage and child rearing a long time ago. Marriage is for the elite, and the elite don't believe in plural marriage (though they like divorce).

Th economic argument is nonsense.; २७/६/१५, २:४१ PM
Jaq म्हणाले...: A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple.

So the two members of the marriage split the benefits two ways and the three members of the marriage split them three ways. I came from a family of more than "eight is enough." That family took more than its share of benefits of marriage, whatever they might have been.

Look. If I thought there was a way to rule out polygamy by pure logic, I probably would feel better about this case. I think that two member marriages are part of the social contract of this country.

Nations with polygamy tend to be more violent, as high status men get more wives and low status men go without. Men without wive or the prospect of one, even if they are temporarily leasing them, are more violet. Look around the world.

I don't want to live in a country where there are many young men without any prospect of female companionship.

It also bothers me that marriage is something now to be considered strictly in tax and economic terms. Is the IRS now going to force gay couples to pay the married rate? The marriage penalty affects high income couples, you know, like many gay couples. Are they going to say "thanks but no thanks" to marriage based on these considerations, so only those gay men who benefit from lower tax rates will choose to marry? Absolutely!

But hey. It's all about love.; २७/६/१५, २:४१ PM
Smilin' Jack म्हणाले...: A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness.

Yeah--fuck #LoveWins, show me the money!; २७/६/१५, २:४२ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: I'm not so sure it's coming. The gay lobby has been utterly masterful in marshaling pop culture and the coastal elites to their side, rendering opposition to gay marriage anathema in a relatively short timespan.

I don't think the polygamy lobby has nearly the same clout.

I don't see what leg the country has to stand on to reject it anymore, but it's never been about the constitution or the law, and we all know it. We know it because any half informed person in the country could have told you exactly which 5 judges would form the majority, and which 4 would dissent. So until the polygamists build the social clout, we won't be hearing about them.

That said, once the gay lobby has steamrolled all wedding vendors so that the entire wedding industry is staffed by gay people (probably not that far to go) and straights need not apply, then the zombie horde will have to find SOME cause to rally behind (Andrew Sullivan is already pining for a purpose and sense of community in the absence of oppression).... perhaps polygamy will have to do.; २७/६/१५, २:४३ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: Imagine the deep shame a child of a polygamous marriage would experience knowing that he or she was considered part of a "lesser" family! How much better would it be to reach out when you are lonely and find two or more spouses instead of just the one!
Justice Kennedy is probably drafting the majority opinion now.; २७/६/१५, २:४४ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: " . . . once the gay lobby has steamrolled all wedding vendors so that the entire wedding industry is staffed by gay people (probably not that far to go) and straights need not apply . . ."
But we know that would offend Americans' sense of fairness, so it couldn't happen!; २७/६/१५, २:४६ PM
Gahrie म्हणाले...: A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple.

So does being a baby momma with eight kids by six fathers....but we allow that.; २७/६/१५, २:४६ PM
Michael म्हणाले...: Haters can always "distinguish." Always.; २७/६/१५, २:४७ PM
Bad Lieutenant म्हणाले...: If it is forbidden to scorn a faggot qua faggot, why resent a bigamist or a dog fucker or sister fucker? Why are those worse? Honestly curious.; २७/६/१५, २:४८ PM
chuck म्हणाले...: It takes a community to raise a child, and what is more communal than a polygamous family? One might argue that it demeans women, but women have spent most of history as chattel and trade goods and I suspect most will find the transition easy and natural.; २७/६/१५, २:४८ PM
Steve M. Galbraith म्हणाले...: There's just as much, if not more, economic need for a polygamous marriage as for a two person marriage. Polygamous marriages have more mouths to feed, more needs.

Slippery slopes, three, four five, indeed.

We can deny it but on what constitutional grounds? Doesn't equal protection also apply?; २७/६/१५, २:५१ PM
mccullough म्हणाले...: Polygamy isn't coming any time soon. A few cases will be filed and federal judges will be bullshitting their way through them trying to distinguish gay marriage. It would be funny if the dissenters voted to hear one of the cases it they won't because Roberts thinks it would be undignified.

The elites don't want polygamy and no New England state has recognized it yet.

It's all words. Don't look for consistency. It will only make you mad. Live your life how you want and be good to your friends and family. Evryone else is an outsider.; २७/६/१५, २:५३ PM
Michael K म्हणाले...: "A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness."

Bullshit.

Obama is importing polygamous families at a record rate.

I'm just waiting until NAMBLA gets their fund raising organized.; २७/६/१५, २:५३ PM
Kirk Parker म्हणाले...: Althouse,

It's cute you think that argument is in any way convincing.

(It gets a little less cute when one remembers you're a law prof, but still...); २७/६/१५, २:५४ PM
Lyle म्हणाले...: So #Love Wins really isn't that accurate?; २७/६/१५, २:५४ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: Remember when pro-SSM people said it would be wrong to embed DOMA in the constitution because it would short-circuit the political process?
There is not a lot of trust, there. I would bet that every single pro-SSM person would be against a "marriage is for only two people" amendment because, you know, it would short circuit the political process.; २७/६/१५, २:५४ PM
mccullough म्हणाले...: How is the current situation of almost half the kids born out of wedlock, many to dead beat dads with multiple kids with different women, different than polygamy?

If this country were honest about itself, it would put Shawn Kemp on the $10 bill; २७/६/१५, २:५५ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: Polygamy isn't coming. That's too old fashion and religious.

What is coming is polyamory. And it'll be brought to us by the left, just as homosex marriage has been.

You think gay men want monogamous marriages?; २७/६/१५, २:५६ PM
Steve M. Galbraith म्हणाले...: That equal protection clause is one slippery son of a gun.

It's fun going down on it but sometimes you can't get off it.

And other people want to use the slope too.; २७/६/१५, २:५६ PM
mccullough म्हणाले...: Put Michael Douglas on the $20.; २७/६/१५, २:५७ PM
Humperdink म्हणाले...: "If this country were honest about itself, it would put Shawn Kemp on the $10 bill."

"Put Michael Douglas on the $20."

Then cornerback (ha) Antonio Cromartie needs his place on the $100.

Cromartie has fathered at least 12 children with eight different women. (wiki)

Note the "at least".; २७/६/१५, ३:०५ PM
Roughcoat म्हणाले...: After the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage I can't see a reason why polygamy shouldn't be allowed. But I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the legal arguments against polygamy.

I do know this. If the Left doesn't want polygamy we won't have polygamy. If the Left wants polygamy we will have polygamy.

What the Left wants the Left gets.; २७/६/१५, ३:०८ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: At this point it's quite silly to talk about the law, as if it means anything.

Roughcoat is right. If the left wants Polygamy, or Polyamory, that's what they will get.

The law says exactly what they want it to say, no more, no less.; २७/६/१५, ३:१२ PM
pm317 म्हणाले...: The SMS as an economic arrangement is an argument even religious persons can buy (I think), except when they are sued for not baking the wedding cake. So there should be two definitions for marriage: religious and government-based practical utility. Given that framework, how do we stop a gay couple from ruining a bakery business for not baking their wedding cake? It should be common sense. It should be that "you get married and you get your economic arrangement but you may not get a cake and don't be a jerk trying to force a ruin of someone for not baking your fucking cake."; २७/६/१५, ३:१३ PM
mccullough म्हणाले...: Cromartie goes on Mt. Rushmore, along with the people on the payroll department of the teams he has played for who have to keep track of all the garnishment orders and various addresses to send the child support checks to.; २७/६/१५, ३:१३ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: I think the pattern is:
1) "We don't marriage! Just a legal framework to get around these sad anecdotes!"
2) "Sure, we have to have marriage equality, but don't worry, it won't change anything!"
3) "It's going to change things and you're goddam right you should be worried, bigot."; २७/६/१५, ३:१४ PM
Steve M. Galbraith म्हणाले...: For good or bad it is amazing how fast our culture has changed.

I think on the issue of gay men and women clearly for the better. But the dominance of the liberal/left is pretty stunning.

It's not a love train it's one of those Chinese monorails that go close to 300 miles per hour. Let's hope we don't crash.; २७/६/१५, ३:१६ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: You need to get used to rule by an aristocracy, SMGalbraith. The things you need to know about an aristocracy are that it will always be a minority, it will exercise iron control over its membership, and they judge you -- you don't judge them.; २७/६/१५, ३:१८ PM
tim maguire म्हणाले...: Yes, it is easy to distinguish polygamy from a social policy standpoint, just as it's easy to distinguish incest. The fact that some people on both sides won't bother to doesn't change that.; २७/६/१५, ३:१९ PM
Humperdink म्हणाले...: It was reported the NY Jets had to advance Cromartie $400K so he could make his payroll (support).; २७/६/१५, ३:२२ PM
sean म्हणाले...: If the consensus is that marriage is purely an economic arrangement, then it will become a lot less popular. I never would have married if not for the traditional and emotional overtones. It has cost a lot of money over the past 22 years, money ill spent by Prof. Althouse's logic.; २७/६/१५, ३:२२ PM
tim maguire म्हणाले...: Blogger SMGalbraith said...For good or bad it is amazing how fast our culture has changed.

I think on the issue of gay men and women clearly for the better. But the dominance of the liberal/left is pretty stunning.

The dominance of the left is especially stunning considering they are losing the battle for hearts and minds. They are winning because they focus on the biggest megaphones and the right is continually betrayed by its leaders.; २७/६/१५, ३:२३ PM
Jaq म्हणाले...: Imagine what the show "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers" will look like in just a few years!; २७/६/१५, ३:२३ PM
MayBee म्हणाले...: What about a man who has a wife and children and has fathered other children out of wedlock? The court would make him pay child support, which can be a fairly substantial burden. Even if he loses his job, he has to keep paying child support at the court-determined rate. If he could marry all the women, he would not have child support but instead could raise them all together as a family and his support would be something they determined together, just as other intact families do.

It seems that not being able to marry all the women does not protect him equally.; २७/६/१५, ३:२५ PM
hombre म्हणाले...: "A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness."

This "profundity" definitely belongs in a blog post that includes "the love train" and similar gibberish.

Presumably, homosexual couples, who cannot reproduce and whose union offers no significant governmental interest beyond that of a single person, will now have tax and other economic advantages over said single person. Is that a persuasive argument against gay marriage today? Obviously not.

Traditional morality aside - where Kennedy and his fellows have cast it - polygamous marriage clearly has much more to offer as benefits to the government than gay marriage. And, of course, Kennedy should be pleased that polygamous marriages will diminish the number of "lonely person(s)" who might "call out only to find no one there." (I am pleased at the prospect that sane legal scholars will find this bit of drivel fodder for scorn for many years to come.)

One can certainly see where Althouse, the love bug, might consider "our sense of fairness" to be a persuasive constitutional argument in the polygamy case. However, that argument is really not about fairness. It is, as always with the lefties, about covetousness.

Back to the drawing board, Althouse. Neither your arrogance nor John's filial adoration can turn this sow's ear into a silk purse.; २७/६/१५, ३:२५ PM
MayBee म्हणाले...: Althouse's logic spits in the face of the pro-gay marriage argument.

Even given equal - or close to equal- financial and legal partnerships, gay people wanted to be able to get married. It wasn't about just the economics. It was about being able to be married.; २७/६/१५, ३:२८ PM
Steve M. Galbraith म्हणाले...: The dominance of the left is especially stunning considering they are losing the battle for hearts and minds. They are winning because they focus on the biggest megaphones and the right is continually betrayed by its leaders.

The two most difficult words to answer are: "Why not?"

One side says tradition and stability and rule of law and unelected judges and...

The other side shows pictures of beautiful gay men and women and says "Love."

Who's going to win that one?; २७/६/१५, ३:३२ PM
hombre म्हणाले...: McCullough: "It's all words. Don't look for consistency. It will only make you mad. Live your life how you want and be good to your friends and family. Evryone else is an outsider."

It'd probably also be good to stock up on food, water, guns and ammo, if you can find it.; २७/६/१५, ३:३६ PM
Richard Dolan म्हणाले...: An economist would dissect your 'economic argument' through the lens of efficiency, not fairness (a consideration that doesn't have much meaning in economic analyses). It's quite easy to imagine that a plural marriage, be it polygamy or polyandry, would be a far more efficient economic unit than the standard two-person model. And surely a state policy justifying a ban on plural marriages based on 'economic fairness' would lack any legitimacy if it turns out that plural marriages are more efficient users of gov't resources and more efficient producers of social wealth than the two-person model.

There are many reasons to believe that plural marriages would be the more efficient economic unit. Economies of scale, the opportunity to benefit from comparative advantage among the unit members' skills, and similar considerations all point in that direction.

I have no doubt that we are about to see all of these arguments play out in courtrooms across the country. So your fairness argument is likely to be put to the test. I wouldn't bet the ranch on the result if I were you.; २७/६/१५, ३:३७ PM
Steve M. Galbraith म्हणाले...: Even given equal - or close to equal- financial and legal partnerships, gay people wanted to be able to get married. It wasn't about just the economics. It was about being able to be married.

Well, having that marriage recognized by the state. By society. That license, that document that recognized the legitimacy of the marriage.

I think the symbolic nature of the matter cannot be understated.

States came up with civil unions and other benefits that closely mimicked the benefits given to heterosexual couples. But that wasn't enough.

If every state gave every benefit to a gay married (informally) couple that it gave to a heterosexual couple EXCEPT a license, that wouldn't have been enough.; २७/६/१५, ३:४० PM
Unknown म्हणाले...: The polygamy is far more of a marriage than same sex marriage. This is a historical fact. Polygamy should be legal. It is utterly anti religious and now unconstitutional to ban what has been a type of marriage for 2000 years. No doubt scotus will strain to keep it banned.; २७/६/१५, ३:४१ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: Blogger SMGalbraith said...
The dominance of the left is especially stunning considering they are losing the battle for hearts and minds. They are winning because they focus on the biggest megaphones and the right is continually betrayed by its leaders.

The two most difficult words to answer are: "Why not?"

One side says tradition and stability and rule of law and unelected judges and...

The other side shows pictures of beautiful gay men and women and says "Love."

Who's going to win that one?

Which is also why plural marriage is next.

Althouse is asked, "Why not?" and her response is to whine, "It's not fair!"

And that is also going to be the response of why plural marriage? Because it's not fair!; २७/६/१५, ३:४२ PM
Steve M. Galbraith म्हणाले...: Which is also why plural marriage is next.

Not sure about that analogy.

Usually the polygamous marriages consist of a creepy looking older guy with two or three teenage looking women. Ugh.

Legally, constitutionally I don't see any limiting principles now. Althouse tried to come up with one and it's pretty weak.

But in terms of public opinion, it's not comparable.; २७/६/१५, ३:४९ PM
Eleanor म्हणाले...: I know a lot of women who could find happiness in the world of sister wives. Sharing child care and housekeeping with another woman would help both of them pursue careers, and a man in her bed a couple of nights a week would be fine. On the other hand, I don't know too many, in fact I don't know any, women who would like an extra husband. I don't doubt the lawsuits are coming. It will be interesting to see who's for and who's against. ;-); २७/६/१५, ३:४९ PM
Eric the Fruit Bat म्हणाले...: Agreed. Easy to distinguish. Might makes right.

Get working on it, all you wannabe polygamists.

NOW!!!!!11!!!!!!; २७/६/१५, ३:५१ PM
Roughcoat म्हणाले...: "The dominance of the left is especially stunning considering they are losing the battle for hearts and minds."

Not with respect to culture. They have been winning kulturkampf since the 60s. The culture has moved and continues to move to the left. Most people, I think, are scarcely cognizant of the culture's Leftward movement and character. It's all they know. Like being in Plato's Cave.

Allan Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind" brilliantly explored this issue. Still a very timely book.; २७/६/१५, ३:५१ PM
Jaq म्हणाले...: Here is a circle I would love to see sqared:

The frustrating fuzziness of the majority opinion

and

I think the majority opinion, discussed 2 posts down, is a worthy and competent application of the case law).

Both quotes by Althouse.

Somebody capable of writing both those things about the same opinion isn't really interested in logic.

This case was decided on the same legal principle as Dred Scott, Roe v Wade, and Bush v Gore: "Because I said so."

How does he know what part of the meaning of marriage is the "core"? Why are judges able to do that and not make decisions about other things that require judgment?

Because its "unsaid things" all the way down.

I am done commenting on this case, and the SCOTUS in general. This case was like finding the last digit of pi. It is clear now that it was never about the meaning of things or logic. It is about Machtgelüst. Which Nietzsche, fittingly enough, if not ironically, develops in a book called The Gay Science (1882); २७/६/१५, ३:५४ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: It used to be a staple plot in sitcoms: husband and wife would find out that, although they had been living as a husband and wife for years, due to some technicality, they weren't "really" married. Hilarity would ensue! The couple would usually get themselves legal by the end of the show, but the plot would revolve around them finding out that no matter what some piece of paper said, they were married.
Here's an example: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0559859/
When Obergefell found out his legal NY marriage wasn't recognized in Ohio after his partner's death, he sued the state of Ohio because unless he was listed as spouse on the death certificate, he wouldn't feel that his marriage was real.
Yeah, I can think of another reason you wouldn't think your marriage was real, Mr. Obergefell.; २७/६/१५, ३:५६ PM
Jaq म्हणाले...: On the other hand, I don't know too many, in fact I don't know any, women who would like an extra husband.

If it didn't work with Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon, it won't work. I have been acquainted personally with one polyamorous triad. It didn't last very long, but it was centered on a woman in the traditional central male role, and a man and a woman in the traditional wife roles. Oddly, it was the man who broke it off quickly. You would think it sounded great! But the central woman was very pretty, and the lesbian lover, well, she was sort of butch.; २७/६/१५, ३:५८ PM
Roughcoat म्हणाले...: I am done commenting on this case, and the SCOTUS in general. This case was like finding the last digit of pi. It is clear now that it was never about the meaning of things or logic. It is about Machtgelüst.

Yes, excellent. I'm with you.

Increasingly, the Benedict Option is looking to be the only option.; २७/६/१५, ४:०० PM
Jason म्हणाले...: It was easy to distinguish same sex marriage from traditional marriage, too. And yet here we are.; २७/६/१५, ४:०२ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: I saw a documentary about some polygamous Mormons (ejected from the church, of course). It wasn't how I thought it would be. The wives all had separate houses on this giant farm. The husband worked in the fields all day and spent each night at one of the wives' houses. It was a strict rotation. He wasn't allowed to play favorites. He didn't have a home of his own, but the wives did. I wasn't envious.; २७/६/१५, ४:०२ PM
Gahrie म्हणाले...: It was easy to distinguish same sex marriage from traditional marriage, too. And yet here we are.

That's because #lovewins.

unless you're a polygamist. Then fuck you. Because.; २७/६/१५, ४:०३ PM
Gahrie म्हणाले...: Both quotes by Althouse.

Somebody capable of writing both those things about the same opinion isn't really interested in logic.

Logic is a tool of the patriarchy, used by White men to oppress women and minorities.

The only thing that matters is how does it make women feel?

Repeal the 19th.; २७/६/१५, ४:०६ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: How could the government figure how to divide up the property and set up the child support? They've never had to do this before! The government would grind to halt!; २७/६/१५, ४:०७ PM
PB म्हणाले...: It depends on what you mean by "distinguish". Do you mean identify? Yes. Do you mean except? Perhaps, but then you'd have to make the argument on when a family size impacts the economic argument "unfairly".

A childless married couple receives some economic benefits and a couple with 1, 2, 3 ... n children receive more. Are we to suggest an argument that distinguishes polygamy and polyamory and makes them an exception to the right to marry? If so, the same argument exists that some number of children distinguishes and somehow society should erect a limitation to the number of children allowed to be created. What number in a family becomes economically "unfair"?

It will be hard to deny overlapping marriages (polygamy) or marriages of multiple persons (polyamory) on rational, legal grounds as now established by the Supreme Court. The only opposition is ignorance bigotry and hate.; २७/६/१५, ४:०८ PM
Roughcoat म्हणाले...: If it didn't work with Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood in Paint Your Wagon, it won't work.

Well, it worked for Draupadi and the five Pandava brothers in the Mahabharata, but that's ancient Indo-European culture for you. We moderns know better, don't we.; २७/६/१५, ४:०८ PM
Big Mike म्हणाले...: A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple. That doesn't appeal to our sense of fairness.

It doesn't appeal to your sense of fairness, Professor. Someone else might think otherwise.

This case was like finding the last digit of pi.

I fully agree with you, tim in Vermont. Except that as a mathematician I know that there is no last digit in pi, which is an irrational number. So this business will drag on for some time to come.

The point of the case is to continue to pit American against American. When will it stop? Not soon, probably not ever.; २७/६/१५, ४:१३ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: Gahrie wrote:
"Repeal the 19th."
Oh, we don't bother with amendments anymore Gahrie. Whatever the federal government wants to do is already right there in the constitution. No one knows what the secret, hidden constitution means until Kennedy speaks. After Scalia and Thomas pass away we'll get rid of the written one altogether, it just confuses people by making them think that we have a democracy with limits on government.; २७/६/१५, ४:१३ PM
MayBee म्हणाले...: SMGalbraith said... Usually the polygamous marriages consist of a creepy looking older guy with two or three teenage looking women. Ugh.

Legally, constitutionally I don't see any limiting principles now. Althouse tried to come up with one and it's pretty weak.

But in terms of public opinion, it's not comparable.

Yeah, I agree with that.
Although there was a time when all the gay people who were visible were the guys who went to bath houses and started gay pride parades. The people on the leading edge of a movement are people who aren't afraid to present themselves to society, despite society's disapproval. So of course we don't see the handsome, successful guy as the person leading the way on polygamy. We see the creepy dude who dares to go *there*.; २७/६/१५, ४:१४ PM
Phil 314 म्हणाले...: (this is a duplicate of a comment from a previous, likely "dead thread")

The Love Wins hashtag has really got me thinking.

Is marriage really about love? There are countless divorced couples who firmly believed they were in love and yet their marriage failed (assuming marriage continuity is a mark of success). There are many couples that are "in love" but have decided not to get married.

Is this really about love? What beyond love motivates couples to marry? What beyond love allows couples to stay married?; २७/६/१५, ४:१५ PM
Christopher म्हणाले...: The argument about economic benefits is just grasping for a reason to differentiate something you like from something you don't.; २७/६/१५, ४:१५ PM
CWJ म्हणाले...: Yep fairness. One variant of my least favorite word. Arguments in service of one's own interest or interpretation. Always easy to see how those are the "fair" position. As mentioned above, if people were serious, the economic effects could be balanced out just as we have balanced out married vs. Single. But Althouse and John are not being serious. Their objective is noting a distinction and pretending it's immutable.; २७/६/१५, ४:१६ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: Big Mike wrote:
"Except that as a mathematician I know that there is no last digit in pi, which is an irrational number."
But every next digit defines a smallerh part of the wole. This tells me that there is no end to the freedoms the federal government can take away from the people.
Death can't make you safe. The inquisition used to find people guilty of heresy posthumously, dig them up after years in the ground, dress them in a penitent's costume, parade the corpse around town on the back of a donkey, and then burn it at the stake. We seem close to doing that with the remains of Confederate generals.; २७/६/१५, ४:२० PM
Gahrie म्हणाले...: So of course we don't see the handsome, successful guy as the person leading the way on polygamy. We see the creepy dude who dares to go *there*.

Everyone is ignoring the obvious. The case that is going to legalize polygamy is going to be filed by some Muslim.

You can discriminate against Mormons..they're mostly White.

Do you really think the Left is going to tell some Somali immigrant he can't have four wives?; २७/६/१५, ४:२३ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: I hate divorce. There is not much good that comes from it, especially in an age when cohabiting is legal and carries no social stigma. If we're going to have gay marriage, I'd like all marriages to be like they were in the bad old days. If you really want a divorce, make a legal finding of fault lay a heavy burden on the offender. If a couple can't live together and doesn't want the trouble of a divorce, let them live apart, but neither of them can marry again without the trouble of that divorce. Make it hurt for them as much as it will hurt their kids (if they have any).; २७/६/१५, ४:२८ PM
Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: I continue to believe that there is, in fact, a last digit in pi.; २७/६/१५, ४:२९ PM
Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: Plural marriage is not the goal. Destruction of marriage is the goal.; २७/६/१५, ४:३७ PM
buwaya म्हणाले...: I am now pro-polygamy, in law anyway.
It does coexist rather well with monogamy elsewhere.
It is legal in the Philippines for instance, explicitly for Muslims, and is fairly common among Muslims there, even in Manila. A few years ago I was buying pearls in Manila (Muslim traders dominate the pearl market) and it seems most such shops are run by the traders wives. They all seem to have had at least two wives.
If one must have Muslims, then its only fair to let them live as they wish.
I also support it politically as a conservative counter to this present farce, to please the Mormons in the coalition, and to gather some influential Muslim allies.; २७/६/१५, ४:५१ PM
Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: The problem with polygamy is that it tends to lead to child abuse, consanguinity, and wifeless males.; २७/६/१५, ५:०० PM
Dude1394 म्हणाले...: Oh I don't think polygamy is next. I think it is brothers marrying brothers, sisters marrying sisters, fathers marrying sons/daughters and mothers marrying sons/daughters.

I see absolutely nothing in the law today that says this shouldn't be allowed.; २७/६/१५, ५:०३ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: With selective-child, marriage really is an open union. Also, with the sexual revolution, there is no justification to use a naive criteria of "love" to discriminate against any marriage. The "equal" advocacy is simply a bigoted effort to selectively and arbitrarily exclude certain parties from marriage. The "rainbow" is lackluster because it was colored with a pro-choice doctrine. They need to lower the "rainbow" flag because it is a historical symbol of pro-choice doctrine (e.g. selective exclusion, selective-child) under progressive liberalism.; २७/६/१५, ५:०८ PM
caplight45 म्हणाले...: Like Kagan couldn't find a constitutional right to SSM in 2009. Pretty weak tea, Prof. Somebody is going to have to do better.; २७/६/१५, ५:०८ PM
Gahrie म्हणाले...: The problem with polygamy is that it tends to lead to child abuse, consanguinity, and wifeless males.

#lovewins

bigot.; २७/६/१५, ५:०९ PM
Dude1394 म्हणाले...: "Blogger Bob Ellison said...

The problem with polygamy is that it tends to lead to child abuse, consanguinity, and wifeless males.

6/27/15, 5:00 PM"

What a evil, bigot you are. Your IP address should be looked up, your employer notified what a hateful bigot you are and alerted that you are probably about to commit a hate crime.; २७/६/१५, ५:१४ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: Bob Ellison:

The Chinese addressed the misalignment caused by their "one-child" policy through colonization of Africa, America, etc.

As for child abuse, that is not inherent to polygamy. Just as pedophilia is not inherent to transsexual (e.g. homosexual) libertinism. And the biological risks associated with consanguinity can be mitigated through the pro-choice "selective-child" policy or "planning". Elective abortion was a sacrificial rite restored under progressive liberalism.; २७/६/१५, ५:१४ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: One problem with Kennedy's opinion is that it is so poorly reasoned it's difficult to see how the state could deny marriage rights to anyone. "The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change." This is what a cum laude Harvard Law grad gets you, folks!
Say, didn't Obama graduate from HL cum laude?; २७/६/१५, ५:१९ PM
sinz52 म्हणाले...: Polygamy is different because many feminists--who are a powerful part of the left-wing coalition that gave us SSM--would regard a family of one husband and a bunch of wives as sexist. It's an inherently unequal set of gender roles.

Even if polyandry were legal too, even feminists who think there's no difference between male and female would admit that polygamy would be far more popular than polyandry.

And if feminists don't support polygamy, the Left won't support polygamy.; २७/६/१५, ६:०३ PM
Gahrie म्हणाले...: The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change

What amazes me, is he thinks the changes to marriage have been good things.

Does anybody else think that the changes to marriage have made marriage stronger, or improved society?; २७/६/१५, ६:०३ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: You may be able to distinguish it, but I doubt it's going to matter. Monogamy is something I'm sure many women would want to keep as others have pointed out, but since I expect the political class would much rather dump this restriction over their lifestyle, I do expect polygamy within 10-15 years. From a convenience standpoint, it is also much easier to keep marrying as often as you want without the messiness of a divorce every time you feel like changing partners.; २७/६/१५, ६:१४ PM
David Begley म्हणाले...: Islam.
First Amendment.
Case closed.; २७/६/१५, ६:२१ PM
Mike म्हणाले...: Ann,

Not sure if I've ever commented here but wanted to say how much I appreciate and enjoy your blogging on Supreme Court decisions.; २७/६/१५, ६:२४ PM
Mike म्हणाले...: "One problem with Kennedy's opinion is that it is so poorly reasoned it's difficult to see how the state could deny marriage rights to anyone."

I agree, but I thought that was the point. Once the government starts treating some people differently it should be a slippery slope.; २७/६/१५, ६:२७ PM
Humperdink म्हणाले...: And thanks for having a thick skin.; २७/६/१५, ६:२८ PM
Unknown म्हणाले...: From the linked article “Well, I'm sorry, deBoer, but you're missing something. Oh, I admit your argument has a certain appeal on the surface: how can we say a policy that excluded people from the institution of marriage based on their gender or sexual orientation was unconstitutional discrimination, without saying the same thing of a policy that excludes people based on their number? “

But nobody was actually excluded from marriage under the traditional definition, every man had the same right to marry a woman, and every woman had the same right to marry a man. Homosexuality may have been a reason to not participate in marriage as defined, but nobody was excluded from it. Except, of course when miscegenation laws were in effect.; २७/६/१५, ६:२९ PM
Fritz म्हणाले...: The human race has a lot more history with polygamy than with gay marriage.; २७/६/१५, ६:३५ PM
Rob म्हणाले...: I can think of plenty of ways the Court can distinguish polygamy, and that's what I expect them to do. What I can't think of is any principled way they can distinguish it. The practical issues of multiple spouses are easily dealt with. The better question is why people in monogamous relationships find polygamy so threatening, and why they are so determined to impose their lifestyle choices on everybody else.; २७/६/१५, ६:४० PM
iowan2 म्हणाले...: Read O'Connor in Lawrence. Today's SCOTUS has no problem tossing precedent when they want what they want, (to be popular at cocktail parties). So even if a case made it to SCOTUS next year, this batch would ignore their own legal logic and deny polygamy.

Children marrying parents to avoid inheritance will be the death knell of inheritance tax. Lets face it, our govt rests on the notion that the law is fair and equally applied. With what has gone on with Obama care, immigration, the stripping of states rights, Hillary's flaunting of federal FOI laws, people no longer see the need to voluntarily following laws. Without that voluntary obedience, it all collapses. That is what is bringing down the union.; २७/६/१५, ६:४० PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: If that argument were true then it would also be unfair if a family with 9 kids had more kids on the health plan than the family with 2.
What if a polygamous trio only has 2 kids, but a gay family adopts 6 kids?; २७/६/१५, ६:४६ PM
iowan2 म्हणाले...: ps

The left can stop squealing about America granting homosexual marriage. Unelected judges did that. America refused at almost every turn. America might have come along in time, but then the Judges would loose getting their names in history books. Why do things through the legislative process when judges are so eager to impose their will on an entire nation?; २७/६/१५, ६:४७ PM
Big Mike म्हणाले...: @Bob Ellison, what you believe and what reality is are two different things. The proof that pi is irrational is summarized here in Wikipedia. If it did have a last digit then it could be described as a rational number with proper choices of numerator and denominator.

But the point of the agitation towards SSM is to set people at each other's throats. And that will continue to infinity as well.; २७/६/१५, ६:५२ PM
Gina म्हणाले...: And if the Islamic population in the US demands their right to polygamy? What then?; २७/६/१५, ६:५२ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: Kennedy wrote:“the reasons marriage is fundamental under the Constitution apply with equal force to same-sex couples.”

“The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy… A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals,”

Applies to polygamy.

“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education,” and current marriage laws “harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couple.” Plus, the justice added, the right to marry is not “less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children.”
applies to polygamy.

“Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.”

Applies to polyamy

“this Court’s cases and the Nation’s traditions make clear that marriage is a keystone of the Nation’s social order… it is demeaning to lock same-sex couples out of a central institution of the Nation’s society, for they too may aspire to the transcendent purposes of marriage.”

Applies to polygamy.
Great, so 4 perfectly reasonable reasons to legalize polygamy. Plus, LOVE. Can't forget that. And BIGOT, if you don't. Cant forget that either.

He also opined.
“Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations,” he writes, adding that it “demeans gays and lesbians for the State to lock them out of a central institution of the Nation’s society.”

Woudn't it demean ANYONE locked out of a central instutions of the nations society? And he's right, Changed understandinngs of marriage ARE characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.
So then, polygamy here we come.

This is the dawning of the age of aquarius
the age of aquari-usssss.; २७/६/१५, ६:५३ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: If that argument were true then it would be unfair if married couples got more job benefits than single people. A gay family with two adopted kids pulls a lot more in benefits that a single due. Right?; २७/६/१५, ६:५९ PM
Bob Ellison म्हणाले...: Big Mike, thank you for the reference. I was joking, badly.; २७/६/१५, ७:०० PM
Mark O म्हणाले...: Ann’s arguments are more than 10 years old. In fact they echo the only polygamy case from the Supreme Court, Reynolds v. US. It was decided in 1878. In the case, however, there was little mention of laws restricting bigamy, of which polygamy was a form. It was an argument over First Amendment religious freedoms and their conflict with “settled” laws. Now, 140 years on, things are, as we say, different. To be sure, however, the ideas of patriarchy and the suffering of innocents were front and center.

Here is a quick view of 19th Century morality:

"I think it not improper, in the discharge of your duties in this case, that you should consider what are to be the consequences to the innocent victims of this delusion. As this contest goes on, they multiply, and there are pure-minded women and there are innocent children -- innocent in a sense even beyond the degree of the innocence of childhood itself. These are to be the sufferers; and as jurors fail to do their duty, and as these cases come up in the Territory of Utah, just so do these victims multiply and spread themselves over the land."

On our way to polygamy, in Loving v. Virginia, only 50 years ago or so, the Court said, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Back then, in olden times, “marriage” was between a man and a woman. That definition has vanished.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Court opened wide the door to “diversity” in marriage.

“The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choic¬es defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Courts must exercise reasoned judgment in identifying in¬terests of the person so fundamental that the State must accord them its respect.”

None of Ann’s distinguishing features is a compelling interest of the government that can withstand the fundamental right to a polygamous marriage "defining personal identity and beliefs."; २७/६/१५, ७:०३ PM
Gina म्हणाले...: So are we now going to restructure our society to accommodate polygamous marriages? I'm sure that would be welcomed by the community that also wants us to adhere to Sharia law.; २७/६/१५, ७:०६ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: Nonapod wrote:
And when a member leaves or is fired there can often be ugly legal ramifications, lawsuits ext, like you'd have in a divorce (who get's the children, or this case songs).
ANd sometimes the band can go on as a trio like REM and put out suck albums.; २७/६/१५, ७:०८ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: The problem with Althouse's arguemtns against polygamy is that, even if they are valid, it doesn't override that she is a bigot for holding them.

Lets assume everything she said is true, I have a simple rebuttal - BIGOT!; २७/६/१५, ७:१२ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: That is ALMOST LITERALLY the argument for gay marriage in its entirety. If you don't agree you are a bigot.
I don't see why the same argument doesn't apply for polygamy, harems, incestual marriage etc.

You have a right to marry, the world changes, you are on the wrong side of history, don't judge lest ye be judged, how does it hurt you, the kids are harmed etc marriage is natural right, we need to respect people autnonomy.

Who is Ann to stand in the way of polygamy?; २७/६/१५, ७:१५ PM
mtrobertsattorney म्हणाले...: Here is what we have to look forward to from the fallout from Kennedy's opinion and our new definition of marriage.

First, the mainstream media will cover a series cases where sympathetic gay couples were denied a church wedding by a rude priest or minister. After the general public has become sufficiently aware of these situations,the progressive movement will manufacture a dramatic case involving the perfect gay couple with perfect facts who, after being denied a Catholic wedding, sue the Catholic Church in federal court. (As a general matter progressive leftists seem have a particular animus towards the Catholic Church.) And while this case moves through the federal system on its way to the Supreme Court, a well-orchestrated movement for legalization of plural marriage begins to capture the attention of the media.

Then, after the left starts to make demands that those churches that refuse to conduct gay weddings lose their tax exempt status, the silent majority begins to stir and become politically active, no longer silent. Fueled by the incoherence of Kennedy's 5-4 opinion and deep concerns over the future of federalism, a mass movement soon forms demanding Congress propose the Scott Walker Amendment to be voted on by the various state legislatures.

And at this point, all hell will break loose.; २७/६/१५, ७:१९ PM
CarlF म्हणाले...: The constitutional test for marriage is now loneliness. You can still be lonely with one spouse, particularly if you travel. Sorry, Ann, your stance does not pass constitutional muster.; २७/६/१५, ७:२० PM
damikesc म्हणाले...: You're analysis was wrong 10 years ago and it is wrong today. There is not a single word in the majority decision that limits it to two people.

When clods argued that "It is all about feelings", then you opened the barn door.

Polygamy has FAR more historical legitimacy than gay marriage does.

You didn't foresee possible problems with your stance --- problems that people who didn't like this idiotic idea CORRECTLY nailed years ago.

I'm not so sure it's coming. The gay lobby has been utterly masterful in marshaling pop culture and the coastal elites to their side, rendering opposition to gay marriage anathema in a relatively short timespan.

I don't think the polygamy lobby has nearly the same clout.

You aren't pating attention. "Sister Wives" is an extremely supportive view of polygamy. "Big Love" was a polygamy program as well. It's not like gay marriage shows were common ten years ago.

You need to get used to rule by an aristocracy, SMGalbraith. The things you need to know about an aristocracy are that it will always be a minority, it will exercise iron control over its membership, and they judge you -- you don't judge them.

Until the population tires of it and starts tying people up in gas stations.

Usually the polygamous marriages consist of a creepy looking older guy with two or three teenage looking women. Ugh.

There are or have been several polygamy based shows on recently. None have that. All of them are "loving" families who are worried about their large families. I cannot believe people who supported gay marriage can be such bigots when it comes to this.

Bigots, I tell you.

The problem with polygamy is that it tends to lead to child abuse, consanguinity, and wifeless males.

You think it's logic...but all I see is bigotry.; २७/६/१५, ७:२९ PM
Jaq म्हणाले...: The term "bigot" means exactly what upper class "coasties" say it means. For instance, if you despise "trailer trash" in a red state, you are not a bigot. So just because something somebody says would in fact be bigotry if said about somebody elite opinion either cares about or needs politically, but it was said about some lower caste red stater, for example, it's still not bigotry.

It's turtles all the way down.; २७/६/१५, ७:२९ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: sinz52: Polygamy is different because many feminists--who are a powerful part of the left-wing coalition that gave us SSM--would regard a family of one husband and a bunch of wives as sexist. It's an inherently unequal set of gender roles.

Lol. There are already feminists out there defending polygamy. Muslims, people, Muslims. "Unequal gender roles" are the invention of the oppressive West. Only the West mistreats women. (So Mormon polygamy was indeed oppressive of women.) If you think you see "unequal gender roles" in non-Western countries, it's either because sexism was imposed there by Western colonialism, or (more commonly) because you're a eurocentric ignoramus who just doesn't understand their culture.

I've been listening to this crap from feminists from way back when. Monogamous marriage is a fundamental feature of Western civilization, shaped by and shaping its cultures for millenia. We all know what that means: burn.it.down.

Not all feminists support polygamy, of course. Some, like Althouse, are naïve Girondists, who always believe that they can stop the revolution just where they want it to stop. Because.; २७/६/१५, ७:३१ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: mtrobertsattorney wrote:
"First, the mainstream media will cover a series cases where sympathetic gay couples were denied a church wedding by a rude priest or minister."
In the Idaho for-profit wedding chapel case, TPM covered the story without mentioning that the owner-operators were ordained ministers.; २७/६/१५, ७:३१ PM
Gina म्हणाले...: None of the Islamic cultures that promote polygamous marriages have central governments that provide basic shelter, food, education, health care, consumer goods, recreational activities for no cost for all of their inhabitants.

But if the US is required to recognize polygamous marriage, it will be required to provide all of the above.; २७/६/१५, ७:३४ PM
sinz52 म्हणाले...: Gahrie: "What amazes me, is he thinks the changes to marriage have been good things."

One of the biggest changes to marriage in the last 300 years has been the sharp reduction in child brides.

In 18th century America, parents married off their daughters as soon as possible. Some got married at age 13. There are cases of girls getting married even sooner. Ditto in England.

This coincided with a sharp rise in the legal age of consent (for sex). It's incredible by today's standards, but in the 1790s right after the ratification of the Constitution, the average age of consent was 12, and in Delaware, it was 7. That's right, SEVEN.

(Of course, back then, a girl was expected to be able to shoot a gun and bag a squirrel, skin the squirrel, churn butter, launder clothes by hand, and all the other chores of being a stay-at-home mom.)

Anybody here want to advocate for going back to "traditional marriage" during the time of the Founding Fathers, so we can marry 13-year-old girls again?; २७/६/१५, ७:३७ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: cyrus83:

From a convenience standpoint, avoid marriage, poly or otherwise; adopt libertinism; enjoy benefits under equal protection, due process, privacy, etc. Abort/plan any unwanted or inconvenient (or mutated) "clump of cells", "humans", "babies", offspring, Posterity, or whatchamacallits.

Pro-choice is a doctrine of selective exclusion (e.g. selective-child, class diversity, trans marriage). In principle, its reconciliation ends with a paradox that traps its advocates and activists. In practice, it is granted amnesty through self-interests, purchased, and dictated consensus.; २७/६/१५, ७:४२ PM
sinz52 म्हणाले...: Angelyne:

Feminists didn't back SSM to help out gay men.

They backed SSM to enable lesbians (who have been active in the feminist movement) to get married. So SSM benefits feminists.

Polygamy does not. The husband of 4 wives gets 4 times the sex, 4 times the tax benefits of any one wife. He also gets 4 health care proxies and so on.

Polyandry might benefit women--except that the same feminists who said that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle aren't suddenly going to demand more than one bicycle.

The bottom line for this issue and ALL such slippery-slope arguments is: We'll deal with it if and when the time comes.; २७/६/१५, ७:४४ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: Gina: None of the Islamic cultures that promote polygamous marriages have central governments that provide basic shelter, food, education, health care, consumer goods, recreational activities for no cost for all of their inhabitants.

But if the US is required to recognize polygamous marriage, it will be required to provide all of the above.

Other Western governments don't recognize polygamy, and yet polygamous families manage to get their snouts in the welfare trough regardless. I'm sure it already happens here. Illegal behaviors of all sorts are no obstacle to working the system. When somebody decides that it's "racist" (or whatever) to prohibit polygamy, the benefits will flow. They always do.; २७/६/१५, ७:४४ PM
Theranter म्हणाले...: Roughcoat: "Increasingly, the Benedict Option is looking to be the only option."
Yup.
Oremus Pro Invicem; २७/६/१५, ७:४६ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: iowan2 wrote:
"With what has gone on with Obama care, immigration, the stripping of states rights, Hillary's flaunting of federal FOI laws, people no longer see the need to voluntarily following laws. Without that voluntary obedience, it all collapses."

The trend I am seeing among the young and hip is to ignore traditional politics. The system is setup so that voting is meaningless, and the existing processes favor the existing system. Instead they go for social media campaigns.
So after jumping through all the hoops -- public hearing, EIS -- a new factory is going to break ground in your city. Suddenly the mayor's office is pounded with hashtag politics to #saveourtown. Political types are into social media so they panic, but since there is no way to counter hashtag politics, they cave. This is what happened with the TMT project on Mauna Kea.; २७/६/१५, ७:५० PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: sinz52: One of the biggest changes to marriage in the last 300 years has been the sharp reduction in child brides.

Some females married very young, and the age of consent may have been lower, but it's an "historical urban legend" that girls were regularly married off at such young ages. In both Britain and the U.S. the age at marriage for women was historically fairly late (relative to other places) - in the early 20s.

You can look it up.; २७/६/१५, ७:५२ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: sinz52:

Lifespans have changed, biology has not. We still have to complete a reconciliation of individual dignity, intrinsic value, and natural order.

But back to the issue of selective exclusion under the "equal" campaign. Trans marriage, including homosexual marriage, was normalized under a principle of pro-choice. The question before pro-choicers is how they intend to discriminate against other relationships, loving or otherwise. Will it be achieved through simple assertions and denial of rights a la "selective-child" policy?; २७/६/१५, ७:५६ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: I wonder how much Kennedy remembers about Loving v Virginia? The law was passed in 1924, and included a eugenics portion. People were really concerned about blood purity back then. Hard to reconcile that with Christianity, though I suppose some did. The law, through WW2 at least, was more about racial hygeine than anything else. The law was very cruel, but it had its comic-opera aspects. It had a so-called Pocahantas exception because so many prominent Virginians claimed to be descendants of Pocahantas 'way back. So there was an exception to the one-drop rule for people claiming up to 1/16th Indian blood.; २७/६/१५, ७:५९ PM
अनामित म्हणाले...: sinz52: Feminists didn't back SSM to help out gay men.

They backed SSM to enable lesbians...

No shit, Sherlock. Nothing I wrote contradicts that.

...So SSM benefits feminists.

Polygamy does not. The husband of 4 wives gets 4 times the sex, 4 times the tax benefits of any one wife. He also gets 4 health care proxies and so on.

Whether polygamy is detrimental to feminists, either theoretically or empirically, is irrelevant to my point. In case you haven't noticed, attention to reality or logic isn't a strong point of a lot of feminists. I am talking about the fact that there are feminists out there who support polygamy, and they do so because it is a practice alien to the West (the source of all evil patriarchal practices in the world), and common among non-Westerners (who are by defnition holy and good).

None of your other observations here, correct or not, here are apropos of my comment, either.; २७/६/१५, ८:०८ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: Terry:

Apparently, the TMT project has resumed. Why are people protesting construction of the telescope?

TMT resumes construction on Mauna Kea

Oh, environmentalists. They must really "love" the windmill and solar farms then.; २७/६/१५, ८:०९ PM
SGT Ted म्हणाले...: Althouse, your argument against polygamy is ridiculous and weak, when set against the argument for gay marriage, as well as current law regarding who receives public benefits.; २७/६/१५, ८:१३ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: n.n-
It's not over yet.
It is helpful to think of the TMT project as a struggle between the UH Manoa Hawaiian studies people (mostly Hawaiians) and the UH Manoa astrophysics people (mostly haoles from the US mainland and Europe). I never thought I'd miss Dan Inouye, but one thing old Dan was very good at was figuring out who needed what to get them onboard for a construction project that brought in money from out of the state.; २७/६/१५, ८:२४ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: Anglelyne-
In Larks Rise to Candleford (the book, not the terrible BBC series), Flora Thompson described how marriage worked in a poor English farming village in the 1880s. After puberty, most girls and boys were sent off "to service" in a nearby wealthy household. Most of what they earned they sent back to their parents. Matches were often made between the serving girls and boys, but nothing was arranged. Apparently it was easy to see who was going to get who. Marriage was delayed because, once married, the girl was expected to make house for her husband, so her family lost the value of her labor. I think most girls were married at twenty, but not many before age seventeen. This was true for the village Thompson grew up in, anyhow. Boys started working in the fields as young as age nine for a portion of a man's pay.; २७/६/१५, ८:३७ PM
Steve M. Galbraith म्हणाले...: ही टिप्पणी लेखकाना हलविली आहे.; २७/६/१५, ८:५१ PM
Beldar म्हणाले...: One doesn't have to resort to your argument, Prof. Althouse.

One only needs to be able to count to two, and to recognize that it's not three or more.; २७/६/१५, ८:५७ PM
Kirby Olson म्हणाले...: What about same-sex twins? Can they marry? In Bali, they often do. In the Czech Republic, there is a pair of twins who do porno films together (male) and never date anyone but each other. This is a rare thing, but will they be able to marry? No children will come of it, so you'd think that they could. It wouldn't hurt anyone to allow it, would it?; २७/६/१५, ९:११ PM
YoungHegelian म्हणाले...: Some, like Althouse, are naïve Girondists

Anglelyne, you magnificent bastard!

I'll bet it's been quite some time since the good Prof. has been called a "naive Girondist". What a great line!; २७/६/१५, ९:२१ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: beldar wrote:
One doesn't have to resort to your argument, Prof. Althouse.

One only needs to be able to count to two, and to recognize that it's not three or more.

why is it important that it be two if people want to get married as three?; २७/६/१५, ९:२६ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: The important thing is the degree of consanguinity that will be allowed between members of our ruling class. The old Hawaiians got around the problem by having high-born infants inspected by the kahuna after their birth. Any deformities or weaknesses and the kahuna would set them out in a tide pool for the sharks and the crabs. Does DC have tide pools?; २७/६/१५, ९:४८ PM
Skyler म्हणाले...: What happens if a State decides it no longer wants to recognize any marriages at all? That is, it has to "recognize" marriages, but what if their recognition is a nullity? That is, no benefits, no nothing. I think that's where we're going. The feds have already made fatherhood an economic condition, there's no need for states to be further involved. If you are married in such a nullity state, then there is no longer community property, no presumption of parentage, etc. You could marry in your church but that would be a private affair. If you want your spouse to have your property, you will have to form a separate contract.

And we'll see what happens to women then. No more alimony, no more anything.

In fact, I would never recommend anyone get married anymore, if they have a job. If they don't have a job, I suppose it's a good way to be a sponge.

So, if a group wants to contract an economic relationship or even joint conservatorship of children, so be it. I won't have to recognize it.; २७/६/१५, ९:५२ PM
SukieTawdry म्हणाले...: Justice Kennedy says there is a constitutional right to marriage but that it applies only to two-person unions. I wish he had explained further.; २७/६/१५, ९:५७ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: I agree Skyler. Buried deep within the bigotry of her anti-polygamy post there was an admission that as far as the state is concerned, marriage isn't about love. The problem is common property and children. A marriage contract, as far as the state is concerned, doesn't have to be more complicated than a roommate contract if you leave out the kids.
One problem is that the state outlasts any particular generation, and so has an interest in posterity, not just the existing people. Going back to the ancient Greeks, the state took an interest in marriage, and encouraged the production of children. It seems kind of silly, though, for the state to be concerned about the environment of the world posterity will inherit centuries from now when they officially have no opinion, pro or anti, on posterity itself.; २७/६/१५, १०:१५ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: SukieTawdry:

Tradition, based on the natural union of one man and one woman to produce a Posterity. Unfortunately, for Kennedy, his belief betrays his other positions that have had predictable outcomes, including gender equivalence, and specifically the sexual revolution, including debasement of human life (i.e. selective-child) for convenience; but, not the nature of uncorrupted humanity and human relationships. He is joined in this created paradox by the other "liberal" Justices.

They seem to believe that pro-choice doctrine will excuse their failure to establish policies that can be reconciled with established, incontrovertible principles, and are internally, externally, and mutually consistent. Perhaps they are right... or is it left.; २७/६/१५, १०:१९ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: ही टिप्पणी लेखकाना हलविली आहे.; २७/६/१५, १०:२७ PM
Original Mike म्हणाले...: "A polygamous marriage, however, puts a group of persons in a position to claim more economic benefits than the traditional heterosexual couple."

This is a poor argument. It's not the total benefit to the group that matters, it's the total benefit divided by the number of people in the group.; २७/६/१५, १०:२८ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: Terry:

The Republic does have an interest in Posterity:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It was established under a social contract with "We the People" and "Posterity". The federal government was mandated to serve both parties, notwithstanding its later defiance of The Constitution to normalize or promote selective killing of the latter.; २७/६/१५, १०:२९ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: "We the People"? That's old-talk, n.n.
Jindal caught some flak for saying we should get rid of the supreme court, but hey, why not? It doesn't form any boundaries. It doesn't tell you when and when not the Supreme Court can intervene in the political process and essentially write amendments to it. We the people certainly don't need to amend it anymore. Remember the ill-fated "equal rights amendment"? Hell, all they need now is the four liberal justices+Kennedy and its in there. If you decided supreme court cases with a twitter hashtag count it would at least have the appearance of democracy.; २७/६/१५, १०:४४ PM
Lewis Wetzel म्हणाले...: N.n wrote:
"Why are people protesting construction of the telescope?"
Hawaii is a small state, population ~1.2 million. Yet the state university system has a world class astrophysics program. It does this because the astrophysics dept. at UH manoa (on Oahu) gets a percentage of telescope time from each of telescopes erected Mauna Kea. The TMT will cost over a billion dollars to construct, and UH will get 10% of its sky time. Operational budget is estimated at about $30 million/year, though I think that's low. So UH astrophysics is "getting" $3 million/year, for free from TMT. All they had to do was approve the project. Three million/year is a big deal for a small state university, especially when it is "free". Three million would fund positions for, say, fifteen full time professors of Hawaiian Studies. That dept. probably has fewer than fifteen tenured professors now.; २७/६/१५, ११:१७ PM
Beldar म्हणाले...: @ jr565:

Marriage before this decision was about two people banding together as spouses. Marriage after this decision is about two people banding together as spouses.

Not three. Who injected three into the conversation, and why? Who less injected seven? We're talking about two.

I can count to two.; २७/६/१५, ११:३० PM
Unknown म्हणाले...: It is pretty easy to distinguish. My GF gets crazy when I flirt with her friend and tell her that we have an extra bedroom if she can't drive. I have coffee ready the next morning.; २७/६/१५, ११:३४ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: Beldar,
Marriage before this was a man and a woman, not two people. And not just any man and woman. You Still can't marry blood relatives (other than cousins) even if you are a man and a woman.
Since marriage no longer has to be a man and a woman why does it have to be two?; २८/६/१५, १२:१४ AM
jr565 म्हणाले...: And more than that, Beldar, with this ruling we are saying you don't need fathers and mothers. The family struture doesn't matter so long as there is love in the family. There is also a long history in this country of polygamists getting married, and then the state stomping on their existing marriages and saying if they persisted in polygamy Utah couldn't be a state.

Then there's the fact that Utah already undid some of the restrictions on polygamy. Cohabitation is now legal (it's kind of shocking that it was illegal). It was only enforced against polygamists really, but now its legal to live together. So we're half way there already.

Sister wives then can live with their "spouses" but have no legal protection. As Kennedy mentioned, the kids of gays suffered if their family wasn't normalized. Why would that be different here.

You've already redefined marriage to be about love. Cohabitation is legal. Now its just a matter of giving them benefits. Why not?

Don't tell me the law as is. It wasn't enough for gays to be told that marriage was a man and a woman. So it shouldn't be good enough to defend polygamy. Especially after Kennedy's flowery praise of revolutionary change powered by love.; २८/६/१५, १२:२५ AM
jr565 म्हणाले...: And Beldar, that also brings up the question of incestual marriage. Marriage before this decision was about two people banding together as spouses. Marriage after this decision is about two people banding together as spouses.Incestual couples are two people.
Other than your ick factor what to you have to deny incestual couples.; २८/६/१५, १२:२८ AM
jr565 म्हणाले...: In defense of Incestual marriage:

“The first premise of this Court’s relevant precedents is that the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy… A second principle in this Court’s jurisprudence is that the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two-person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals,”

Is the right to marry your sister or mother not a personal choice and is said choice not inherent in the concept of individual autonomy? And does an incestual marriage differ in any way in regards to two person unions importance to committed individuals?

"“A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education,” and current marriage laws “harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couple.” Plus, the justice added, the right to marry is not “less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children.”
applies to polygamy."

You can't possibly think that current laws don't harm incestual couples. And by extension their kids. How will the kid feel if his dad is in jail because of who he loves? And it would be meaningful therefore to incestual couples who couldn't have kids. If they couldn't have kids it would remove the one real impediment (other than ick factor) of incestual coupling. Namely the higher possibility of birth defects.; २८/६/१५, १२:३४ AM
jr565 म्हणाले...: Using Kennedy's logic explain how compelling state interest in banning incest is more important than allowing it, for the reasons presented by Kennedy as to the importance of marriage. would incest affect you in any meaningful way if you weren't in the relationship? Should the cops be involved and take kids away from loving parents. Who's to say they aren't.

Marriage is now about love. Family structures are irrelevant so long as they are happy. Incest and polygamy are non traditional family structures. Why limit them to two and why deny them if they aren't traditional?; २८/६/१५, १२:३८ AM
jr565 म्हणाले...: and more than that marriage was about a structure that allowed for biological parents to raise their kids. Thats not important anymore. Whether there are mothers and fathers is not important. So, seriously why would it need to be two people? Why is two the magic number and not three? Is the home loving home? Then that's it.

Sally Kohn tweeted: "I'd rather see govt get out of marriage business & give rights to families based on FUNCTION, not FORM. "

So that would, I think leave room for polygamy, and incest (and harems and bigamy) Since its not the form that matters. If its not the form, it doesn't need to be two.; २८/६/१५, १२:४२ AM
Gahrie म्हणाले...: Not three. Who injected three into the conversation, and why? Who less injected seven? We're talking about two.

What legal basis are using basing your opinion on?

There are active lawsuits on polygamy as we speak.

On what basis can we deny three or more people who love each other the dignity of marriage?; २८/६/१५, १२:५० AM
Aussie Pundit म्हणाले...: According to your logic, polygamists should be denied this fundamental human right because they would end up paying less tax, and that "seems unfair."

Pretty weak. You got anything better?; २८/६/१५, १:१६ AM
Aussie Pundit म्हणाले...: @beldar

Marriage before this decision was about two people banding together as spouses. Marriage after this decision is about two people banding together as spouses.

Not three. Who injected three into the conversation, and why?

No, marriage is/was about people banding together. Why relax the gender rules but not the number rules?
You may define marriage as between two people (of either gender and unrelated to each other), but marriage is an evolving concept, rememeber?; २८/६/१५, १:१९ AM
walter म्हणाले...: If "it's about love"..plenty of large families exhibit that...; २८/६/१५, १:२४ AM
Sebastian म्हणाले...: "But it's not all about love and who respects what. It's also about economics. And in that dimension, it's easy to distinguish polygamy"

It's easy, because Progs will make stuff up as needed. As long as public opinion still seems massively opposed, they'll refrain; when the winds shift in Prog circles, they'll make their move.

@Rob: "I can think of plenty of ways the Court can distinguish polygamy, and that's what I expect them to do. What I can't think of is any principled way they can distinguish it"

Exactly. But "principles" are for the little people. Suckers.

@MarkO: "“The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs." . . . None of Ann’s distinguishing features is a compelling interest of the government that can withstand the fundamental right to a polygamous marriage "defining personal identity and beliefs.""

Exactly. The Kennedy axiom is so broad, it will sweep anything before it -- if applied "logically," of course, though plenty of AA-type law profs will make a nice living assuring the rubes that practices still considered distasteful can be "distinguished."; २८/६/१५, १:४२ AM
rcommal म्हणाले...: Althouse:

On the topic of the post: It's not so easy, and 10 years ago is a long time ago. With all due respect, I say both of those things to both you and John.; २८/६/१५, २:२४ AM
rcommal म्हणाले...: topic of the post = title (at least in this instance)

yes?; २८/६/१५, २:२९ AM
rcommal म्हणाले...: Assuming (for the moment) that that's ^ the case, would you two consider discussing the topic, the idea, as such?; २८/६/१५, २:४० AM
Unknown म्हणाले...: Whether there are mothers and fathers is not important. So, seriously why would it need to be two people? Why is two the magic number and not three? Is the home loving home? Then that's it.; २८/६/१५, ६:३६ AM
CStanley म्हणाले...: So when we find and enumerate these new Constitutional rights, we can also put an economic price tag on them and decide whether or not the price is fair?

Good to know....; २८/६/१५, ७:१८ AM
Fritz म्हणाले...: I still think the only problem with polygamy will be how to structure it to allow it for hippies and Muslims and exclude those damn Mormons.; २८/६/१५, ७:३५ AM
PB म्हणाले...: Polygamy has a longer history and of being accepted than same sex marriage, and it meets all of Kennedy's justifications. It's a shoe-in.; २८/६/१५, ७:३७ AM
Jaq म्हणाले...: I would like to apologize for any insulting or derisive tone I have taken with Althouse.

I believe everything I said, so I won't delete them, OK, the joke about Sally Kellerman in "Back to School" was over the top.

From now on it is about ideas for me. I guess that being called a hater gets to me once in a while, even after hearing it so many times.

After the decision, on Friday night, my wife and I took a young gay man, who is a good friend of my daughter, and my daughter, out to dinner, "to celebrate." My daughter was far more excited about the issue than the young man, BTW. Yes I clinked my glass in a toast, so I guess that means I am moving on.

I do not oppose gay marriage, I oppose the idea that democracy must be limited by the sensibilities of the east coast elite, and that precepts of their particular moral system represent "fundamental principles" of our constitution.; २८/६/१५, ७:५३ AM
Beldar म्हणाले...: @ jr565, who wrote, in response to my comments above, that "Marriage before this [decision] was a man and a woman, not two people."

In American history, with the exception of the spasm of polyandry practiced by the Mormons before Utah became a state, it's accurate to say both that (1) by using the word "marriage," we were referring to something between two spouses, and (2) that those spouses were of different sexes, one being a man and the other a woman.

This decision re-interprets the U.S. Constitution to re-define the term so that description (2) no longer applies.

But logically, that doesn't necessarily have to affect description (1) -- much less abolish it too.

When the next case comes along, in which three people, or seven, or one person and a dolphin, are claiming they have a constitutional right to marry, and that state laws which would prevent that are therefore unconstitutional, all the SCOTUS has to say is: "Oh, no, the new constitutional right that five of us found in Obergefell v. Hodges was about two human spouses -- not more."

And that will be the end of it, in overwhelming likelihood. The same five Justices in the majority this week could say, "No, we can count to two." They can ignore those who say, "But hey, before, the two used to be man and woman." Since they're already unmoored from anything in the text or ratification/amendment history of the Constitution, they can make whatever boundaries they want for their reinterpretation. And there's no national constituency (yet; I grant that might change) for them to continue to reinterpret the newly-fabricated constitutional right to SSM in any particular way. If the lobby for polygamy becomes as powerful and numerous someday as the lobby for SSM has been for the last few years, the SCOTUS might suddenly agree that the Constitution now requires polygamy; but there's no such powerful or numerous lobby today, so I think there's no need for the Obergefell v. Hodges to resort to something like Prof. Althouse's economics-based distinction.

You ask (I'm paraphrasing & combining your arguments slightly): Why relax the only opposite-sex rule, but not the number rules or the anti-incest rules or the species rules? Because these five Justices aren't inclined to relax those other rules, and there's no reason to expect them to change that inclination, but they were indeed inclined to relax the opposite-sex rule. And now they've done so.

Unlike our hostess, I don't think what Mr. Justice Kennedy did here (or in Lawrence v. Texas) was intellectually honest or legitimate. I approve of this result as a policy matter, but I think it's very, very bad and dangerous constitutional law. But I don't think it's dangerous because it's going to lead to polygamy or bestiality or incest: None of those have the political constituency that has pushed this five-Justice majority into reinterpreting the Constitution this way. I fear that this precedent will, however, be used to bolster and legitimize the prospects of other re-imaginings and re-purposings of the Constitution. I think it's vastly more likely, for example, that Mr. Justice Kennedy might cite his own opinions in Obergefell and Lawrence to hold that the Constitution guarantees national health care than that it guarantees the right of three people to marry. And when Mr. Justice Kennedy writes his opinion in the future polygamy case, he won't have to distinguish Obergfell or Lawrence on some sort of economic-analysis ground the way Prof. Althouse has suggested. He can just say, "Obergfell was about marriage between two people, not three or more." Or in the future incest or bestiality case, he'll say, "Lawrence was about criminalizing sex acts between same-sex couples, not family members."; २८/६/१५, ८:०७ AM
walter म्हणाले...: Let Heather Have Two Mommies; २८/६/१५, १०:४४ AM
damikesc म्हणाले...: In American history, with the exception of the spasm of polyandry practiced by the Mormons before Utah became a state, it's accurate to say both that (1) by using the word "marriage," we were referring to something between two spouses, and (2) that those spouses were of different sexes, one being a man and the other a woman.

This decision re-interprets the U.S. Constitution to re-define the term so that description (2) no longer applies.

But logically, that doesn't necessarily have to affect description (1) -- much less abolish it too.

But legally WHY wouldn't it? Not a word of the majority opinion can fail to work for any other type of "marriage".

It was a horrible decision and, just like conservatives have said for decades, it will lead to this. And, as we have been for years, we'll be mocked for saying it and never apologized to for being, you know, correct.

And that will be the end of it,

Yes, because activists frequently take no for an answer.

They will get a lot of no's...until they get a yes at a state level court. Then they will demand other states recognize their marriage. Other states will say no, be backed up by courts for a while, until one says yes. Then it will go to SCOTUS and be approved eventually.

This isn't a new game being played here.

The common definition of marriage was a man and a woman. One side decided to overturn that.

Guess what? You don't get to decide when the redefinition stops. As we noted. For years now.; २८/६/१५, १:५९ PM
Kirk Parker म्हणाले...: SMG,

Better worry: the crash is coming. Think "Preference cascade". When it happens, it will be so fast that most people will be going "Huh? What just happened???"

(And when I say 'fast', I mean orders-of-magnitude faster than the Long March Of The Left Through The West's Institutions.); २८/६/१५, ३:५५ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: ही टिप्पणी लेखकाना हलविली आहे.; २८/६/१५, ४:०५ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: "In American history, with the exception of the spasm of polyandry practiced by the Mormons before Utah became a state"
You mean the time that the federal govt imposed its will on people just trying to get married in a way unprecedented before or since? Sounds like they had the right idea then, before the bigots who were all "man women is the way to be" types imposed their morality and made marriage just be two people.
Surely, that's a dark day in our history. And needs be remedied.
I suggest not only legalized polygamy, but also reparations. (Where's CrackmC? I'm with ya buddy! Reparations are cool!); २८/६/१५, ४:०७ PM
jr565 म्हणाले...: "Let Heather Have Two Mommies"

Let Heather Have Two Mommies...and a daddy.; २८/६/१५, ४:०८ PM
n.n म्हणाले...: jr565:

Heather already has an absentee sperm depositor (post-normal "daddy"). The other Heather has an absentee womb bank (post-normal "mommy").

"Heather has One Mommy, One Transsexual Step-Mommy, and an Absentee Sperm Depositor"; २८/६/१५, ९:२७ PM