Not that I care that much, but it’s probably inevitable now. But as noted there, Richard Epstein makes a great point:
In particular, Kennedy never explains why his notions of dignity and autonomy do not require the Supreme Court to revisit its 1878 decision in Reynolds upholding criminal punishment for polygamy, which is still on the books. Nor does he ask whether the dignity of workers could, and should, be used as a reason to strike down the full range of labor regulations on both wages and hours that make it flatly illegal for two individuals to enter into a simple employment contract on mutually agreeable terms.
That would require them to rule consistently, rather than just making it up as they go along based on stuff they like.
Don’t know how you can say a cultural definition of marriage is discriminatory but then not recognize all forms of marriage.
What if I cry out in the night and only one husband answers?
I guess I’m “that guy” today, but polyamory is having a three-or-more committed sexual relationship, and polygamy is three-or-more marriage. Polyamory is legal; polygamy is not.
When polygamy was raised as the next step after SSM back when DOMA was a Democrat-supported idea, it was pooh-poohed as being beyond the pale, no one would support such a thing.
My rejoinder was always, “Once, so was SSM.” I never got a useful response to that — only near-hysterical comparisons of anti-SSM positions with opposition to interracial marriage, waving away the fact that even by the time such prohibitions had to be overturned, they had been only relatively recent innovations resulting from the slave economy, and all but exclusively in the U.S.
Marriage among persons of different racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds had been commonplace since prehistoric times (it’s how I got my Neanderthal DNA, after all). Same-sex marriage, not so much.
Wait until the Mormon church is told to host a gay marriage or lose its tax exemption, and then start the clock to the Supreme Court case. Alternatively, Muslims might not even wait for a gay marriage, and will just demand it.
Whatever happens, I know the feminist that think “PIV is rape” are Democrats, and that’s fine by me.
In the last third of the 20th century, there were two movements for more tolerance. One of them was for more tolerance of minority groups (we can call this “noun-tolerance”) and the other was for more tolerance of previously deviant actions (we can call this “verb-tolerance”). In recent years, more people have realized that verb-tolerance produced epidemics of crime, abortion, illegitimacy, and divorce. On the other hand, noun-tolerance is widely regarded as a step forward.
The remaining advocates of verb-tolerance are trying to blur the boundary between the two types of tolerance and use the continuing loyalty to noun-tolerance as a lever. Gay rights is ideal for that. On the one hand, gay rights can be considered a form of noun-tolerance (tolerance of gay persons). On the other hand, gay rights can be considered a form of verb-tolerance (tolerance of homosexual activity). Since other forms of gay rights have attracted less opposition than expected, they invented gay marriage in an effort to make conservatives continue to look bigoted.
It’s a bit hard to pretend polygamy is a matter of noun tolerance. I suspect legalizing the activity formerly known as child molestation is more likely. Opponents can be called pedophobes or ephebophobes. “Why do you hate children?”
You say verb-tolerance produced an epidemic of crime. What previously deviant verb (or verbs) are you thinking of? Verbs involving drugs?
What previously deviant verb (or verbs) are you thinking of?
I’d guess out-of-wedlock sexual liaisons and bastardy are among the verbs in question. Welfare-dependence might also qualify. Abortion too, as it encourages more out-of-wedlock sex and, somewhat counter-intuitively, more bastardy.
You probably already know about this controversy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
Another example of the left asserting BS that is unprovable and flies in the face of reality.
See, I just made the world a better place. Prove me wrong.
Imagine how bad the economy would be if Obama wasn’t here to save us? That I’ve lived through five decades of better economics shows I should just believe the left and not the lying experience of my life.
Bob Hope nailed it when he said about certain behavior, “I don’t mind if they allow it. I just don’t want it to be mandatory.”