| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Ted Olson: Prohibiting Polygamy Not Like Prohibiting Same-Sex Marriage |
| 2013-03-28 |
[CNSNEWS] One of President Barack Obama's They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them... Supreme Court appointees was the one to ask a pointed question of Ted Olson, the attorney arguing in favor of overturning Proposition 8, the Caliphornia, an impregnable bastion of the Democratic Party, law that reserves marriage for the union between one man and one woman. "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked -- and -- and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?" Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked. "Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to -- that could get married -- the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age -- I can -- I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on -- on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?" she asked. "Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing," Olson said. "And if you -- if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. "If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status," Olson said. We seem to be placed in the unusual position as a culture of marriage dying on the vine for heterosexual couples, while attempting to flourish for same-sex couples. I've nothing against same sex couples, as long as the activity doesn't become mandatory, but marriage is a different thing entirely. About the only thing I can think of in its favor is the issue of health insurance coverage. There are lots of factors against it, the biggest being that children need both male and female role models as they grow. A father teaches a boy to be a man, and accustoms a girl to dealing with men. A mother does the opposite, teaching the boy to deal with women and the girl how to be one. It's my feeling (but wo the hell listens to me?) that the health insurance problem could be addressed as a matter of corporate policy, or even by legislation. It wouldn't even take 2700 pages. Marriage is being replaced by what used to be called "common law" marriages, to whit, moving in together and setting up housekeeping. Somehow the health insurance issue is dealt with without benefit of clergy, children are born and raised, mortgages taken out, property inherited, and all the rest. So we're left with something you might call "lack of marriage in name only." I read somewhere recently that the majority of American children are born out of wedlock. Meanwhile, perhaps as much to society's detriment as same sex marriage, since "common law" marriage isn't blessed by clergy or registered with the state, there aren't any bounds on its configuration. Want to be a polygamist? Shack up with two women instead of one, three if you can afford it, or even four. You don't even have to put them in burkas. Ladies, want to give polyandry a try? You can share a house with two or three gents, and with government kept out of the bedroom there's no limit on your activities. You could even combine the two, with multiple male partners, multiple females, even multiple sexual preferences if that floats your boat. It'd make determining the parentage of any children resulting from the activity a bit difficult, but DNA testing is safe, affordable, and not even very rare. That's if you care who the father or mother is. The advantage of all the approaches to 1:many relationships (a little DBA humor there) is that it makes things easier and more stable financially. Get tired of Tom and tell him to hit the road? That's okay. Dick and Harry are still working and bringing home the bacon. So are Darlene and Sheila, so the checkbook barely bobbles unless that bastard Tom cleaned it out when he left. And the whole thing leaves open even more variations. Incest? That one's a little more complicated socially, but with birth control the dangers of inbreeding are gone. Maybe you could even adopt a few kids and raise them fairly normally, something you couldn't do fifty years ago. Just don't mention that Mom and Dad have always had the same last name. Think of an ancient taboo and it can be violated at will this year. Except for your dog. They'll still put you in jail for sleeping with your German shepherd. Or with your chicken. |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #17 We all come here to learn things not found elsewhere, RandomJD. Aren't you glad today you made it here twice? I do wish I were a fly on the wall when you retail that particular bit of knowledge as if it were in passing -- if your response is any indication it will be absolutely delicious. (That I learnt a number of things in just this thread doesn't count -- I learn things in every thread. just about.) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2013-03-28 23:50 |
| #16 OMG, Fred. Dude. That is disgusting! In all the countless hours of late-night drunken lawyer debates in bars all over the world, I never heard that. And these were the kind of guys who made a deliberate effort to horrify the ladies. So wow, yeah, ok, congratulations, you solved the mystery. Now, please excuse me while I go scrub with brain bleach! |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2013-03-28 23:06 |
| #15 "If the egg can get out, I can get in!" I can't remember who said that. |
| Posted by: Fred 2013-03-28 20:01 |
| #14 All this crap is just a distraction for the masses so they don't notice what is really going on. Bread and circuses, doncha know. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2013-03-28 19:15 |
| #13 No one is quite sure about the, er, mechanics of that, nor which came first: the chicken or Sanchez? Tee hee! That's not funny, that's sick... no wait... it is funny. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-03-28 18:10 |
| #12 United States v. Sanchez, 11 C.M.A. 216, 29 C.M.R. 32 (1960) Ewww! |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2013-03-28 15:26 |
| #11 They'll still put you in jail for sleeping with your German shepherd. Or with your chicken. Only if you're active duty military. See United States v. Sanchez, 11 C.M.A. 216, 29 C.M.R. 32 (1960) (UCMJ Art. 134, indecent acts with a chicken). No one is quite sure about the, er, mechanics of that, nor which came first: the chicken or Sanchez? Tee hee! |
| Posted by: RandomJD 2013-03-28 13:05 |
| #10 I seriously believe the people who are pushing this are divorace lawyers. Think about all the 'landmark' gay marriages and how virtually everyone of them is now divoraced. Think of all the lawyers fees if gays, who generally don't have long lasting relationships even compared to the serially married on the hetero side, are now in the tank for divorace proceedings. |
| Posted by: Silentbrick - Schlumberger Squishy Mud Division 2013-03-28 12:36 |
| #9 "Sell me your women! How much for the little girl?" -- The Blues Brothers |
| Posted by: Muggsy Mussolini1226 2013-03-28 12:24 |
| #8 Civil Unions that grant all the same benefits would be an appropriate answer acceptable to most everyone I know. The Gay Marriage Industry™ demands that you call it marriage to force the acceptance. It's a "power and framing the argument" movement. Grant them a civil union? What are you? Racist bigotted homophobic and ignorant? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2013-03-28 11:32 |
| #7 Very Heinlein-like vision, Fred. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2013-03-28 11:30 |
| #6 Can we renegotiate that statehood agreement now? |
| Posted by: Brigham Young 2013-03-28 10:38 |
| #5 Time to get the state out of marriage IMHO. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2013-03-28 10:18 |
| #4 The same sex issue is all about health benefits, inheritance of property and social security benefits for the "widow" All of that can be covered without marriage. Here in Californicate, the gay advocates wanted to limit the domestice partnership thing to gay couples, however, the state supreme(?) court said no it had to be everyone. So in a way the accommodation of gay partnership has allowed thousands in Californicate to garner most of the benefits of marriage without the "stigma" of a marriage...kind of part of that antiestablishment cancer that still lingers on after all the hippies went off to teach at colleges. The title on a property can list both names and include "rights of survivorship" in the terms and conditions to protect the survivor from paying all kinds of taxes on the house and domestic partnership provisions cover the rest. The gays do not want equal protection under the law, they want to be a priviledged group. They should bring back the old Common Law definition of marriage and just leave it at that. If they did, the gays would get what they want and we would have more people getting married because the long term domestic partnership would be defined as marriage and if one left, the other could claim property rights. |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2013-03-28 10:17 |
| #3 Once the |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2013-03-28 09:58 |
| #2 They'll still put you in jail for sleeping with your German shepherd. Or with your chicken. You just called the next progressive issue, Fred. |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2013-03-28 04:36 |
| #1 They'll still put you in jail for sleeping with your German shepherd. Or with your chicken. Posted by Fred Dear Fred: I sleep with a German duck down Batiste. Should I be concerned ? :-( |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2013-03-28 01:58 |