King added that he "would prefer" to see Iowans simply defy the law

How do you defy a law that gives rights to people?

His ideas about children are especially creepy. It sounds like spirit possession.

I would gladly trade away Mr. King's version of "civilization," and the xenophobic hatred that it encompasses, for the all-inclusive civilization that's begun to come into its own in this country, any day of the week; any hour of the day; any minute of the hour; any second of the minute.

And no---my marriage is not at risk. My family and our home is not at risk. The societal structure of my community is not at risk---although there are several "ubermenschen" type households that might decide to rapture themselves, should their hateful hold over society suddenly go away....

> How do you defy a law that gives rights to people?

By continuing to deny those rights to people if you are in a position to do so (see pharmacists not dispensing birth control as an example).

Meanwhile, King is probably visiting strip clubs and massage parlors to save his "marriage". Oh noes the gays are taking over! What a jackass.

"being blessed with children and pouring those values into the children and then living vicariously through them as they go off and we are blessed with grandchildren."

That is weird on so many levels I don't know where to begin. The constant use of "pouring into" sounds like some creepy sexual repression...but we all know thse religious nuts have sexual hang-ups that probably fuel all of their insecurities.

"Our entire culture comes through a man and a woman joined in holy matrimony, being blessed with children and pouring those values into the children and then living vicariously through them as they go off and we are blessed with grandchildren." - Rep. Steve King

Actually, some days it seems like our entire culture is reflected in "holy matrimonies" like that of Britney Spears and Kevin Federline. I can't wait for their kids to start showing up in the news.

"I will tell you that I first came into this political arena with the belief innocent human life was the most important thing that I could be involved in."

Except that King will be working to keep the United States' infant mortality rate at 26th in the world -- behind Canada, all western Europe and even Cuba -- by fighting to kill anything that resembles health care reform.

Step 1: Gay Marriage

Step 2:

Step 3: END OF CIVILIZATION!

Yeah, all those gays getting abortions is really going to keep King up at night.

The latest variation on the gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage argument I've heard was on SRN (christian) news yesterday. It compared gay marriage to counterfeit money. That when you introduce counterfeit currency into the system, it devalues the real thing. Not really sure how they work that analogy out in their heads, but it seems to work for them.

but if gay people can get married, it will lead to the downfall of civilization.

Gosh, what an original argument.

I kind of see why he made those comments at a pro-life rally but the idea of a dipshit railing against a group of people who aren't going to get abortions, ever, is pretty funny.

King added that he "would prefer" to see Iowans simply defy the law and ignore the state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling, but, "I don't see the appetite out there to do that."

Hmmm. I guess that means Iowans don't really give enough a fuck about civilization to save it from teh ghey marriage. You'd think that with the entire world at stake King would be a bit more excited or leading the charge himself.

Jackass.

Massachussetts has one of the lowest divorce rates in the country and gay marriage has been legal there for several years.
They will fight it with everything they have, and they will lose, because once people see that it doesn't affect them in any way at all, they will move onto other issues.

It's just as well that Robert Anderson died before he could hear that. When he wrote "Tea and Sympathy" more than 50 years ago, he might have hoped that the homosexual terror that impelled a father to drag his son to the college widow to make a man of him might have been dispelled by now.

God help anyone in King's family who might not want to marry, or procreate, or have a liking for show tunes.

If y'all wanted to be EFFECTIVE (a big if), there is a simple way to get at this one, with King in particular: the guy claims to value marriage, by which he means a man and woman who commit to teach other for life, recognized and respected by the law.

So call him on it -- with legal immigrants. Emphasize the word "legal", because it sets up why this is about marriage.

Under current law, when a legal permanent resident gets his or her green card FIRST, and then marries a foreigner, like his or her high school sweetheart from back home, the MINIMUM wait in this category for legal immigration is more than five years.

There are roughly 1.5 million people in that line. It's by far the most significant backlog for legal immigration, because Congress likes to promise more than it delivers.

Focus on the fact this is about LEGAL immigration -- if we didn't want the guy here, building a better life as an apprentice American, we shouldn't (and wouldn't) have given him a green card. Once he has the green card, it is in our national interest to help him build a new life here -- complete with what HE (as an American) will make into a new American family.

A typical case is a guy who graduates from Iowa State, say, and is sponsored for his green card by a high tech employer cuz he creates jobs growing ameobae into microchips or something, and then marries his grad student girlfriend, who is still on a student visa. It's fairly common for her to have a child while she's still in grad school, and thus she is married to a legal immigrant and the mother of a US citizen -- but if, after graduating or otherwise leaving school (what with the whole traditional wife and mother thing going on), she MUST leave the country for that minimum five year wait (and if her husband went with her, he forfeits his American immigration status) -- or be outlawed. And if she is outlawed, even when a legal visa becomes available to her, should she leave the US to get it (the only way), she can be exiled for a decade.

This is quite simply, not a matter of opinion, the most quantifiably egregious anti-marriage, anti-family provision of US law. Note that it's not about re-defining marriage in any way: most of these folks are Christians, many are Catholics, and these are all absolutely bona fide, legal marriages, many of 'em certified by the authorities in states like Iowa.

And Mr. King supports every single piece of the US laws that break 'em up.

So it is simply impossible, as a matter of fact, for him to honestly pose as a defender of traditional marriage. And every single person in his district should know this -- which is far more likely to change either his views (or their representation in Congress) than fighting about it the way he wants to pose these issues. He WANTS to be portrayed as the defender of tradition fighting against re-defining marriage to include gay people.

But when he has had the chance to defend ACTUAL traditional marriage, by treating the marriages of LEGAL immigrants as valuable (because, after all, that's what marriages are), he has categorically refused.

My point is: it's not enough to scoff at a Mr. King because he defends "marriage", which he opposes extending to same sex couples. It's more effective to demonstrate to his constituents (e.g., all those good people who graduate from Iowa State) that, in fact, when he has unmistakeably plain opportunities to defend ACTUAL marriages -- he attacks them, instead.

Force the guy to defend turf where he's NOT safe, and you will undermine him even where he thinks he is.

That's how to win, folks. I've seen this -- make it clear, make it local (go Hawkeyes!), and make it stark: "You say you support marriage, Congressman, but.... You say you support LEGAL immigration, and Americanization, Congressman, but.. Gee, you even say you support Iowa State, Congressman, but.... .."

if gay marriage is legal, EVERYBODY'S gonna want to be gay married. It'll be the new black - both in terms of fashion AND the rise of interracial marriages post-civil rights. I know I, for one, often look at my wife and wish she had a penis, or at least I a vagingo...

Oh, I'm sorry, was I just sounding like a complete idiot?

Awhile back, I was dating a nice woman who was quite religious and her father was the minister at the local church. I was a bit desperate, I admit, because I am not religious at all, if perhaps a bit spiritual. Anyway, I went to her church with her several times. At the end of one sermon there was a group prayer, and one of the things her father said was "help us fight the gay agenda." I later asked her what that was all about, what exactly did her father mean by 'gay agenda?' She couldn't answer me. I asked why she would hope and pray against something she couldn't explain, and she was doe-eyed.

This woman could not explain what the 'gay agenda' meant, but she was nonetheless perfectly happy to pray against it and thus likely has inculcated the view in her mind that gays and their 'agenda' are necessarily bad. Perhaps others do the same. I just don't think that she really knew why anyone is against gays, but just that they should be. Needless to say, that particular relationship didn't last too long.

King added that he "would prefer" to see Iowans simply defy the law and ignore the state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling, but, "I don't see the appetite out there to do that." Go figure.

This is incoherent.

King's statement can only mean that he hopes gay Iowans will defy the law by refusing to get married.

But why would they do that? To soothe King's furrowed brow? I don't imagine they have that much sympathy for him.

The gay agenda means that gays want the right to marry so that they can show up regular man/woman couples by having happy, functional families and homes that are neat as a pin and flawlessly designed. Step 2 happens when the first year statistics on divorce appear in the news and show that gay couples are less likely to divorce.

Damn those gays, they're always showing off! There's just no way for heteros to stand up to such competition.

For the life of me, I will never be able to understand why people like Steve King cannot grasp the fact that "civil marriage" and "holy matrimony" are NOT the same thing. Whether the state grants a couple the former simply has no bearing on whether any particular church or other religious organization grants the latter to the same couple. Isn't there any way to make King acknowledge that we do not live in a Christian theocracy?

But of course gay marriage in Iowa will ruin Civilization. Civilization requires agriculture.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE QUEERS ARE DOING TO THE SOIL?

Look at the soil around any major US city with an underground homosexual population. Take Des Moines, Iowa for example. You can't grow anything in it. It's the queers, and they're in it with the aliens. The queers are building landing strips for gay Martians.

Or at least I think this is where Rep. King is going with this.

"Isn't there any way to make King acknowledge that we do not live in a Christian theocracy?"

Doubt it.

BTW, the cover story in the April 13 edition of 'Newsweek' is "The Decline and Fall of Christian America".

I can't help but to think how much better off gay children/young people are going to be. The fact that they will be able to see that their futures are not going to be continually ridiculed and found undesirable will make their lives and their parents' lives so much better.

Rep. King is a scared person - scared of the unknown, scared of his peers, scared of his constituents. He needs to learn how to lead. With courage, with dignity, and with respect.

King added that he "would prefer" to see Iowans simply defy the law and ignore the state Supreme Court's unanimous ruling, but, "I don't see the appetite out there to do that."

Au contraire: I'm sure that the vast majority of Iowans will rally to King's side and not get married to someone of the same gender. They'll ignore the law on gay marriage in the same sense that most of them will ignore the law on mandatory rest periods for long-distance drivers: because it's none of their business.

Steve King: "But I also recognize that if we don't save marriage, we can't remain pro-life."

There are at least two things I don't understand about this sentence. The first is obviously how being against same-sex marriage is the same as "saving marriage."

The second is how this relates to abortion.

Do gays abort more kids or something? I would guess they abort far FEWER kids, since if they happen to get pregnant (or get someone pregnant) it is quite intentional and done through a fertility clinic.

If State legislatures vote to allow gay marriage it's fine with me. Vermont just did this.

What I cannot accept is individual (unelected) judges ruling by fiat...in many cases clearly overruling the legislatures and the voters as well. IMO democracy only works when we spend years in the trenches changing public opinion to the point where legislatures pass laws that are supported by the majority of voters.

But, like the children we are, we must have what we want and have it today. Thus the Left's love of Judicial Activism which I view as a serious threat to democracy. And don't tell me the judges' hearts are the right place; if I had a nickel for every half-assed decision made under the rubric of "good intentions", I'd be a rich man.

While I could care less who marries what, given the fact that most homosexual unions are recognized fully and the benefits conferred are equal to that of a marriage, why then do then is having the "right", which it is not, so important?

JohnR, while that sentiment is better than the real wingnuttia reactions, it is equally uninformed on our history and governmental structure.

We - very democratically, I might add - adopted a constitutional republic. At the core of that is that we are a nation of laws; one of the key points of emphasis of the founders is that having a solid legal structure protects individuals against the "tyranny of the majority" and against the evils of factionalism.

Among those rights is equal protection of the law; Iowa's provision happens to be particularly strong.

So when judges (who, in Iowa, do face the voters every 10 years and who are, of course, appointed and confirmed by elected officials - not undemocratic at all) find a legislative act to violate the equal protection rights of a class of citizens, there is nothing at all contrary to our history, or democratic tradition, etc about it. Indeed, it is the system functioning exactly as it was meant to.

I have every faith in betting that you have not even read the Iowa opinion, in which case you are absolutely without qualification to refer to the Iowa justices as "activist" (a dead giveaway you aren't nearly as moderate as you seem to want to pretend). That decision follows the law very narrowly.

I understand civil rights are often controversial, but as a matter of legal mechanics, this case is no different than a zoning law that treats two different property owners in a dissimilar fashion. Good judges should not use different analysis or a different willingness to decide a case based on popular outcry. No one would be discussing the zoning case; there really is no more reason to be up in arms over the gay marriage case. Legally, governmentally, the equal protection principles are the same.

But I also recognize that if we don't save marriage, we can't remain pro-life.

It sounds to me like he's afraid if we let gays get married, the next thing we know they'll be wanting abortions.

In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, "Kids are great, Apu. You can teach them to hate what you hate and, with the Internet and all, they practically raise themselves."

Funny, I don't recall baring children to be a requirement in straight marriage. This would mean that my sister only has a sham marriage, since she and her husband are childless by choice. Also, by King's logic, I will expect to see a law forbidding marriage of people outside of their child baring years. My 58 year old widowed mother is engaged to a man in his 70's. I don't think they will be having any children together.

A further problem that the opponents of gay marriage have is time. In a few years, many gay Iowans will have married and will be living ordinary lives. It will become ordinary, and most people will not even remember what the big deal was. I think that is why the gay marriage opponents are so hysterical.

I think the anxiety is at least as much about the lifestyle choices of straight women as it is about queers going bougie.

I imagine (since I'm gay as a goose) that for some straight women, the opportunity to avail themselves of the legal benefits of marriage with another straight girlfriend (health care etc.) and take their boys on the side might be quite attractive.

The boys who want to contend in such a competition would have to be supportive, affirming, 50/50 around the house, responsible, etc. While many guys will do fine under the new rules, some boys would have to step up their game bigtime.

Look at the boys who are screaming about "traditional marriage." A dollar to a donut the tradition they're supporting is the social/political privilege patriarchy gives to straight guys.

So, I'm thinking the paens for traditional marriage have more to do with straight chicks aquiring the ability to expect more from straight guys then lesbians putting power tools on their wedding registries.

then being hypocritical assholes vicariously through them as they go off and we are blessed with grandchildren

I'd say that's a little more correct in his faith/case. Anybody seen the lions?

Pudentilla, I think you're overthinking this. It's schoolyard thinking, the same as always with the current right wing. They've formed an in-group of like people, and now the goal is not letting anyone else join, or take away from what they think is theirs (real or imagined).

There's many out-groups, and they use every excuse they come up with to beat on the out-groups to affirm their in-group (privileged) status. It's always about "I've got mine, screw you" with these guys.

"What I cannot accept is individual (unelected) judges ruling by fiat...in many cases clearly overruling the legislatures and the voters as well. IMO democracy only works when we spend years in the trenches changing public opinion to the point where legislatures pass laws that are supported by the majority of voters."

so do you condem the (unelected) judges on the Supreme Court woh over turned the gun restrictions passed by the Washington DC city counsel?
or are some rights more equal then others?

One of my favorite youtube videos. (for those at work, watch it later). He speaks the truth!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY

Why do these people never campaign to have divorce made illegal?

It's the biggest threat to marriage, after all.

Look at the list of conservative icons who have lost their marriages to the scourge that is divorce... Reagan, Gingrich, Limbaugh...

Kreniigh,

And we don't care what the Roman Catholic Church thinks about divorce. If people get divorced, they can get remarried. The Cardinals can stuff it, we don't require you to bribe the Church for a fake annullment to make it okay to marry again. Why can't we remember that when we have these other 'controversies' over 'conscience'?

Is King upset that Bachmann has been getting more press than he has?

Haven't you homosexuals anything better to do than waste public money on this nonsense? If homosexuality was "normal" it would die out within a generation and if it was "the norm" so would the human race!
"Gay rights" is an irrelevance and a distraction.

"Why do these people never campaign to have divorce made illegal?"

Exactly my point. Think we need Defense of Marriage Act Two: A Federal law that makes it illegal for middle aged straight men to divorce the mothers of their children and marry younger women. (Or, to be fair about it, make it illegal for older women to dump the fathers of their kids for a young hunk.)

I suspect that far more marriages are ruined by straight infidelity than by my living my life with a partner of the same sex.

Hmmm...the world is still turning by my last check...You would think that Pro-Life people would love us homos. They don't want people to have abortions and we want kids. BLAMO. Problem solved. Of course that means we raise them as flag-burning, tofu eating Wiccans or something...

King is right but as per usual with most conservatives he doesn't understand why he's right or sounds foolish trying to explain why he's right.

It's not that men and women will suddenly stop getting married. The questions is, if there is no societal standard of marriage, i.e. a man and woman, guarded by law, then all forms of "marriage" are now perfectably accpetable. What the courts are saying basically, is that there can be no legal definitions as to who can marry whom because any such restriction is inherently discriminatory and violates a whole host of Civil Rights laws and prevents me from getting at my spouse's pension plan when we finally get divorced.

Fine then. Now that we've gotten the homoseuxal marriage debate pretty much out the way, the debate on bigamy and polygamy shall now commence. Why shouldn't I be able to marry as many women as I want? After all, the law once said a man and another man could not marry, and that was struck down as unconstitutional. What standard of law praytell prevents me from having mutltiple wives other than some standard of Christian morality that's been deemed flexible and changable in our Post-Christian era. You've seen "Big Love" on HBO haven't you? How is that any different in breaking down barriers compared to say, "Will and Grace?" or "Brokeback Mountain?"

Oh by the way, I have a friend of mine who wants to marry his 13-year old niece. They love each other of course, and the aunt doesn't mind. In fact she once said growing up in the Louisiana bayous they used do this all the time until state stepped in said no, you can't do that. But why not? Once upon a time women couldn't marry other women and men couldn't have multiple wives and the courts struck those laws down as unconstitional because they were based on an old fashioned morality. Now that we're in a new day and age, by golly marrying within one's family shouldn't be outlawed the way sodomy once was. Haven't you folks heard of Jerry Lee Lewis? Don't you think he was unfairly persecuted for partaking in a Southern tradition? What about the movie "Deliverance?" huh? I think that was a pretty vicious attack on inbreeding, don't you?

And my neighbor down the street, he's Hmong and he's all set to marry a six-year old child bride. The other family has given their consent. They used to do that all the time back in Laos. It helped strengthen ties between the different mountain clans and since life expectancy was pretty low, what with being poisoned gassed by the North Vietmanese and all, they figured, hey, why wait? Why can't he have his pre-arranged child-bride marriage? We had laws banning different types of marriage before and we struck those down as unconsitutional because they were descriminatory. So why is marrying a child any different?

Besides, we're all one big happy multicultural family here in the U.S aren't we? Who are we as whites to judge another person's tribal culture? If we let them into this country to dig the ditches we don't wish to dig ourselves because we're too busy at the computer in the office cubicle, then I think we can let them keep their cultural identity no? It would be pretty racist to think otherwise would it not? Oh, and I hope the other neighbors in our subdivision don't mind when my Hmong neighbor's wedding party slices up a cow in the back yard. It could get pretty nasty back there, you know, like the ending of "Apocolypse Now," that sort of thing. Yeah, I hope they don't mind. They'll just have to turn their heads, close the blinds and check the siding in the morning.

Then there's the farmer I know down the old country road who lost his wife of 36 years to cancer. He's pretty depressed and trying to get back on the rebound. So he's thinking about marrying his state fair, blue ribbon-winning horse. In fact he's already moved into the stable to be with the animal. He really loves his horse. He's taken care of it ever since it was a colt. And when love is involved, well then what kind of law would step in the way? Hmmm? Isn't that what the laywers would say on "Ally McBeal" or "Boston Leagal" or any other David E. Kelly TV show? The law can't stop love. Love breaks down the law just like water can break down earthen dykes. Yes, I know there are laws against beastiality but it's none of my business who the farmer sleeps nor it it yours. What standard of law exists to stop the love between two things? Once upon a time we had laws against homosexual marriage, interracial marriage, sodomy, child marriage, polygamy, all sort of things society used to outlaw because they were offended by it. But societies change by 51 percent and thus laws should too to reflect it. Beastiality is the new in thing these days and old prudes shouldn't use the law to suppress true love.

Do you see where I'm going with this, in all seriousness?

Sean,

That's the oldest one in the book! In all seriousness, your case scenarios are absurd. There are laws determining minimum spousal age and laws protecting livestock from interspecies "love". There are also several therapeutic avenues for you to deal with your "reality disconnect". We were all commenting on equal rights between two consenting adults of the same gender, not your latent sexual desires.

I would think that anti-abortion activists would be more supportive of homosexuals. Gay sex never results in abortions.

All through the history of mankind - never once has such a thing as 'gay marriage' been even heard of.

And I'm close-minded because I'm against it? Right!

wow.

Bad news, I'm against gay marriage and have NO intention of changing my mind.

Yes Mr. Trollop, and there were once laws forbbiding whites marrying blacks, a men marrying other men and women marrying other women. Once upon a time their were laws forbidding homosexual sex. Laws have a funny way of changing over time don't they?

Now go gallop.

the Left's love of Judicial Activism

I certainly didn't love it when activist judges installed George W. Bush as President.

All through the history of mankind - never once has such a thing as 'gay marriage' been even heard of.

You are a liar: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20464004/

Marrying children and animals: Does the phrase "consenting adults" mean anything to you?

Sean,

I don't see any point to jump the gun. If, after gay marriage, there is a similar movement to legalize polygamy, can't we deal with that when it comes?

Steve, Steve, the reason King thinks straight marriage will "cease to be" if gays can marry is that ALL of those husbands out there, who THINK they're happily married to women, will IMMEDIATELY "go gay" and abandon wives and families for, well, guys. Or that's all I can think that he thinks, and I choose not to wonder why.

My understanding, when I try to stop laughing and crying at the same time, is that fundamentalist, conservative people, and especially American Christian fundamentalists, require the rigid, man plus woman set up because it reinforces the "place" -- subservient, obedient, homebound, pregnant in summer and barefoot in winter -- role of women, which these guys, who are obviously pretty insecure about their masculinity and assorted powers, need.

Here's what's missing from the argument. The anti-gay-marriage folks believe that marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman IN WHICH THE MAN IS IN CHARGE. The reason you can't have "same-sex" marriage is because with two women or two men, the relationship lacks the hierarchy of man-over-woman which is essential to their understanding of "traditional" marriage.

That is why same-sex marriage "threatens" traditional marriage: it means implicit acceptance that marriage is a relationship between equals, and the "traditionalists" believe that marriage is no such thing.

They don't SAY that's the reason... but when someone asks a gay couple "so who's the wife in the relationship?" that's because they really MEAN it. They belive it isn't a "marriage" unless one party is the man/husband/superior and the other party is the woman/wife/subordinate.

Wow, he used the word "values" *six* times in that quote. I wonder what his message is?

While I could care less who marries what, given the fact that most homosexual unions are recognized fully and the benefits conferred are equal to that of a marriage, why then do then is having the "right", which it is not, so important?

That's quite a sentence there, sport. Hint for future work: words aren't Legos to be added randomly.

I'll skip over your reference to gay and lesbian Americans as "what" rather than "who" and point out that you couldn't be more wrong about "most homosexual unions [being] recognized fully." By whom? How? There are in fact many hundreds of specific legal rights, some extremely significant, which are conferred only by marriage and do not extend to civil unions. You've been listening to the wrong radio stations, it seems, or you'd know that.

This is incoherent.

King's statement can only mean that he hopes gay Iowans will defy the law by refusing to get married.

I think he's hoping county clerks will refuse to issue marriage licenses and justices/judges will refuse to perform marriage ceremonies. No doubt he'd also like liquor stores to withhold the bubbly, master bakers to decline to make cakes, and florists to send weeds instead of blooms.

Hope he's not holding his breath...the brain damage is already so extensive.

Minor unrelated observations: Dirty Davey's got it right at 1:10, and Sean Scallon continues to be the saddest and weirdest excuse for a libertarian I've ever seen.

I've been married four times — honest! — so I've done more than my part to maintain our traditional cultural values; but if they allow homosexuals to legally marry, then, by God, I'll never get married again, I swear it.

But Daryl how do you intend to deal with when it does come up (and it won't be long) and what possible argument can you use against (assuming you oppose it)now that such arguments have been effectively nuetered through the homosexual marriage debate?

This was just the edge of the slippery slope. You haven't seen anything yet. After us, the landslide..

Name calling means you know I'm right shortstop. Thanks.

Name calling means you know I'm right shortstop.

Right, Sean; everyone who thinks your posts are a cry for help is just cowed by the unimpeachable coherence of your bitter rants here. Just keep telling yourself that and wondering why you keep getting this reaction.

Re: the slippery slope argument, for any other potential marriage that is discussed by right wing paranoids, there are perfectly legitimate secular arguments to be made that justify statutes prohibiting such unions--with the weakest being polygamy. Such arguments include:

Polygamy: would make an absolute mess of community property laws and intestacy. Now these could be overcome with some careful re-drafting of statutes, but it is a legitimate concern.

Incest: Public Health

Inter-species: lack of consent; public health.

Minors: lack of consent/statutory rape

The idea that same-sex marriage is the same as these other unions is silly, aside from the fact that it reveals pretty clearly how the proponent of the slippery slope argument views homosexuality. Having said that, of the items listed, I would have no problem if some idiot (man or woman) thinks it's a good idea to have 4 wives/husbands, and he/she can convince the other participants of the same.

Sean,

As I said, I have no plans to deal with calls for legalizing polygamy. If it comes up, I'll worry about it then.

actually, sean, it isn't a "slippery slope" at all as that term is commonly used in legal arguments. indeed, the slope is hardly a slope at all, and appears to be dry and solid and provide everything but a safety rail that one could need to avoid it being slippery.

"informed consent." a very common legal principle that immediately solves every bizarre fantasy you've come up with except polygamy. minors? we already have long held that people under the age of majority cannot give informed consent. duh. animals? unless you can read their minds or they learn to sign a contract, again no problem.

"informed consent," a stable, long-standing, well-recognized legal concept simply stops all of your scenarios dead in their tracks except polygamy, which frankly i could care less about (and there are also good, but not as easy, legal arguments there).

There just is no slippery slope, unless seeing same sex couples makes you personally feel a growing, slippery urge to fuck your goat.

Sean, dear, animals and children can't sign legal contracts, so they can't enter a civil marriage. Pretty simple. Your buddies at NAMBLA are telling you lies when they say that now they and their victims can be legally wed.

The Iowa decision specifically noted that same-sex couples are "similarly situated" to straight couples, and so there was no Constitutional reason or compelling state interest to deny them the same rights that their straight counterparts enjoyed. Marriage is already set up civilly to be a two-person system, and there's no compelling reason to deny that to gay people.

Why shouldn't multiple-partner marriages be made legal? The Bible certainly says they're okay. Yeah, it would wreak havoc at the IRS, having to re-write the entire tax code, and the state family courts would go through hell, and then we'd REALLY have to define legal marriage because now there's a whole class of people wanting a right who are NOT similarly situated, but hey. We'll cross that bridge when we get to it.

Shortstop doesn't actually have any other gear, SS. Get used to it.

A couple items that require more traction:

1) Krenigh -- in fact, lots of people used to be against legalizing divorce, notably the Roman Catholic Church: a hundred years ago, a Pope issued an encyclical insisting that no Catholic should ever vote for a politician who would allow legal divorce.

Since that encylical (Casti Connubi) is the model for the current Pope's campaign against same sex marriage, your question deserves a more serious (not to mention informed) response than you've gotten.

2) Pudentilla (a clitoriste, I should think) raises an interesting point, though she doesn't address it: "for some straight women, the opportunity to avail themselves of the legal benefits of marriage with another straight girlfriend (health care etc.) and take their boys on the side might be quite attractive.

"The boys who want to contend in such a competition would have to be supportive, affirming, 50/50 around the house, responsible, etc."

I'd never really thought what an arrangement like that would mean for kids -- but since we're talking about the legal rights (and responsibilities) of marriage, it's worth noting what they ARE.

Take the example Pud raises, and refine it: two straight women marry, so they can be a partnership with the same rights and responsibilities as a straight married couple. Only, the way she describes it, what she has in mind is essentially a way for two women to support each other AGAINST the men -- excuse me, "boys" in their lives. To exploit them, would be a more honest way to put it -- 'if you want me you have to outcompete my current spouse', only the spouse has a wholly different sort of relationship, both intimately AND legally. Intimately, cuz it's two women, and legally, because she's a SPOUSE, not a boyfriend.

Well, in a straight marriage, should the wife bear a child, the presumption is that it is THEIR child -- the husband is presumed to be the father and to have full responsibilities for the kid. In fact, there is a considerable fight about the meaning of feminism and equal rights in cases where the couple divorces, and the mom has advantages in custody, etc.

So what happens when a woman's spouse has "boys on the side" (curious that they're not "men"), and winds up pregnant through a mutual understanding with a guy that they would be, you know, PARENTS for their child -- also HIS child, after all.

That his lover is married indicates a zero sum relationship of his rights, as a father but not a husband, relative to his lover's (female) spouse. Why? Because that is the way a straight marriage would treat him, the father who isn't the husband, as a matter of law.

In a straight marriage, this kinda dynamic is well understood, with a ton of law surrounding it. In Ped's example, I doubt the law is clear -- which suggests a ton of heartache.

For one thing, for a wife to bear a child by a father not her husband is generally infidelity, grounds for divorce. For another, if the husband (for whatever reason) chooses with his wife's consent and cooperation to continue the marriage, that is generally understood to be central to the value, the legal and moral power, of marriage in the first place. (I know people like this -- a guy who married his high school sweetheart, went to Korean to get his frozen butt shot at, and returned to find his wife and a son who didn't look like him. They stayed together, and now it's just a technicality.)

Which brings up the last point:

3) Dirty Davy's idea is that "The reason you can't have "same-sex" marriage is because with two women or two men, the relationship lacks the hierarchy of man-over-woman which is essential to their understanding of "traditional" marriage."

As reasoning, this is spectacularly stupid: because people we disagree with are confused, WE should be even more confused?

I dunno as you'd find a lot of lawyers who will tell you that their experience of straight divorce law backs up your hallucination, there, Dave.

The classic example is a woman who marries a guy, and they are more or less equal partners for a decade or two, then she is older (and less competitive), while he, although older, may be in his peak earning years -- so when they divorce, at best she gets a financial reward that is less than the full partnership she signed on for, and he gets to use his higher economic status to troll for a trophy wife.

It's hard to identify that as the patriarchy of traditional marriage, particularly since, as several folks have pointed out, straight divorce all but destroyed traditional marriage. And why was that? Because many people properly argued that women, especially, should have a way out of bad marriages -- that becoming a wife shouldn't require a lifetime of servitude.

Likewise, many feminists object to the idea that a husband must be the principal breadwinner in a marriage, etc.

But it's precisely because married couples, particularly with children, tend to divide up responsibilities -- one will sacrifice career to be there for the kids, the other makes more money -- that many people think the temporary marriage/easy divorce dynamic is bad for women. This is especially true when women are treated equally in the divorce, cuz that can often mean that she devoted the peak years of, say, 25-40 to a guy who walks just when her 'investment' in the partnership was supposed to pay off.

With that half-baked patriarchy crap, what you might actually be thinking of is that there will be a more even distribution of age and career prospects in same sex couples, so there will be less trophy second marriages. Maybe -- but that won't affect what yer bitching about, at all, unless maybe to screw up the law to make the problem worse.

I'm all for civil unions, and any church that wants to perform same sex marriages (I've renewed my vows with a bunch of couples) and naturally expect state recognition, that's fine with me.

But don't let's kid ourselves that we are opening up doors to stuff we haven't thought about much: human relationships aren't gonna get LESS messier.

Oh my buddies at NAMBLA...chuckle, chuckle chuckle. Boy you sure are a riot Keori. "Incohernet cry for help," Yep, one cannot help but think that debate is hard to come by around here when so many like to toss sand in the air from the sandbox and stomp off muttering to themselves.

One does not need consent laws if we deal with older inbreeding couples and as for children, well in the cases that I cited, it's doubtful such persons wouldn't be heading down to the County for the marriage license but when they're arrested for such deeds, I do believe they would have the consent of the parents of that child bride to be given away even if it's not written on the dotted line. That's what their public defender would probably argue, oh and cite the civil right acts upon which the homsexual marriage arguments are based charging discrimination against their race and culture as well. But that's for the courts to decide. So far they've said consent is all one needs to be married and if that's the standard, well then it does open the door further than it ever has been.

SS, this will be my only attempt to respond to your straw man arguments.

You're right that in the case of a post-menopausal woman wanting to marry a close relative for reasons of emotional or financial support that the public health aspect goes away. The question would then be whether the law should make an exception to the normal rule against such marriages and how narrow that exception should be. For example, what about younger incestuous couples agreeing to sterilization before the marriage? My guess is that most jurisdictions will choose not to make exceptions and that it simply won't come up often enough to be an issue.

Any attempt to suggest that there is no legal or moral difference between gay marriage and child marriage or statutory rape is proof that you are not interested in honest discussion or are too stupid to undestand the issues. Society has determined that children below a certain age are incapable of consenting to sexual relations with an adult and also unable to enter into contracts of all types, which logically can extend to marriage even where the relationship is not consumated while the child is a minor. There is very real harm to the child in such relationships and there is a huge body of case law that says religious and cultural beliefs do not excuse most criminal acts.

As others have said, polygamy opens up a number of complicated contractual issues including community property, child custody, divorce and inheritance. If those are resolved, I have no theoretical objection to polygamy.

However, there remains the practical issue that most groups currently practicing polygamy in the U.S. also engage in arranged marriages, frequently to children below the age of consent. They also typically have highly patriarchal social structures that deny equal rights to women (and to deny the chance to marry to lower status young men). They typicall raise the children with limited or no contact to anyone outside their community, and generally to set up mechanisms to punish anyone that rebels against the group's authority and to deny them access to outside courts or resources.

Check out coverage of the FLDS for examples. These posts by Sara Robinson at Orcinus can provide a good starting point:

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/04/secret-lives-of-saints.html

and

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/04/are-flds-women-brainwashed.html