If one can change the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years by a popular vote then there is no rational basis to deny a form of marriage that has been continually recognized by nations of the world and at least one of the worlds major religions for over a millennium.

DaTechGuy 6-25-11

I’m old enough to remember when activists insisted that Gay Marriage was completely different than polygamy and they certainly wouldn’t support it:

Recently, I went undercover posing as a same-sex marriage activist and asked prominent sodomite activists and Democrats the following question:

“If the purpose of marriage is to confer dignity upon individuals who love each other, then what about polygamous couples who love each other? They should be able to marry too, don’t you think?”

Shockingly, the homosexual activists and Democrats all answered, “Yes!”

Frankly it didn’t shock me at all, nor does it shock me that with a national election coming up that such items can only be seen on hidden camera.

Go here to see the video for yourself and remember that our friends who are now closing business who don’t service gay marriage once told us that civil unions had nothing to do with gay marriage and furthermore that Gay Marriage would not affect anyone who didn’t believe in it.

Those who said it were liars, those who believed them were suckers, it only remains to discover if they still are.

********************************************************************

 

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Boy how time flies.

I Remember those heady days of Yesteryear. That time only 17 months ago when Rick Santorum was making this point in Concord New Hampshire:

“How about the argument that all men are created equal and the right to happiness?” Santorum pounces:

“Are we saying everyone has the right to marry?”

The crowd claps and agrees with loud shouts, Santorum continues

“So anyone can marry anyone else?” when the crowd approves, he asks “So anyone can marry several people?”

At once the crowd starts to object, filibuster and interrupt,

Well of COURSE they were objecting , filibustering and interrupting after all it’s not like gay marriage was going to lead to polygamy, otherwise after the Supreme Court ruled it it’s favor you would have mainstream reporters like Matt Lewis in the Daily Caller talking like this:

I mean, who are we to say that two or three or even four consenting adults — who want to make a lifelong commitment to love one another — shouldn’t be allowed to do so?

What’s magical about the number two?

Or Buzz Feed saying this:

Anne Wilde, a vocal advocate for polygamist rights who practiced the lifestyle herself until her husband died in 2003, praised the court’s decision as a sign that society’s stringent attachment to traditional “family values” is evolving.

“I was very glad… The nuclear family, with a dad and a mom and two or three kids, is not the majority anymore,” said Wilde. “Now it’s grandparents taking care of kids, single parents, gay parents. I think people are more and more understanding that as consenting adults, we should be able to raise a family however we choose.”

Or Reason saying this:

Is it time for a discussion of polygamy as a viable life choice tolerated by the federal government? With the Supreme Court striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, it may be the time to start publicly considering whether the state has any legitimate interest in monitoring the number of people in a marriage, not just the gender. And unlike spouses in same-sex marriages, polygamists can go to jail.

Weren’t those fun old days when all the right people justy knew Rick Santorum was just some Catholic fundamentalist spreading alarmist rhetoric.

How quaint.

****************************
Olimometer 2.52

Down to $52 bucks for a full paycheck and $423 for a full Mortgage payment.

The second is a bit iffy but the first only requires two readers at $26 or one at $52.

I gotta believe it that can be done in the next 7 hours.

.

Sheldon: Amy Farrah Fowler has asked me to meet her mother.

Leonard: Yeah, so.

Sheldon: What does that mean?

Leonard: Well, you know how you’re always saying Amy is a girl who is your friend but not your girlfriend.

Sheldon: Uh huh.

Leonard: Well, you can’t say that anymore.

The Big Bang Theory The Desperation Emanation 2010

Although my Breitbart “Bring it On” video remains the single most popular video I ever shot in terms of total hits (even making MSNBC) the video that constantly gets comments on a weekly basis is Rick Santorum’s answer to a college student during the New Hampshire Primary on the subject of Gay Marriage:

The full nine minutes is a spectacular reasoned argument by Santorum simply knocking it out of the park. The most interesting point was when he posed the following question to the crowd of liberal college students:

“Everyone has the right to be happy so if you’re not happy unless your married to five other people is it OK?”

The college kids were not happy with the question claiming it was “irrelevant”

Well it’s less than 9 months later and guess what? It’s not irrelevant anymore as per this article in the Guardian:

Why shouldn’t three people get married?

As three Brazilians are legally joined as a ‘thruple’ it starts to look illiberal to insist that marriage must be between two people

Note the appeal to “feelings” it doesn’t matter what Marriage actually IS it matters how something feels. Notice also the arguments that sound so familiar:

Without reverting to religious arguments, or logistical ones (does Ikea manufacture a big enough bed to accommodate this union?), it begins to feel a bit illiberal.

Is it possible that if we allowed more people to marry simultaneously that more marriages might be successful? Fewer breakups over infidelity might occur, for example, if those who found themselves in love with more than one person didn’t have to choose or conceal their feelings. And relaxing the expectation that one partner should fulfil all of one’s needs – good sex, complementary taste in television and shared preference for dogs over cats may just be too much to ask for – might mean that people who opt for a portfolio of other halves (or thirds) could outdo the rest of us in happiness.

Yes and if we re-defined the word deficit to mean only amounts over 500 Trillion then we would no longer have one.

That this is advanced in the Guardian is interesting, even more interesting is the comments, tons of people agreeing after all one does not want to be “Judgmental.”

I submit and suggest anyone who claims they didn’t see this coming was either delusional, ignorant or a liar and I further submit and suggest that the basic goal of this debate from the start has been for many of those involved the destruction of marriage as an institution.

But I will concede this in terms of logic, ignoring the religious argument she is quite correct, if you redefine marriage to include gay marriage there is absolutely no logical case to forbid any other different combination ick-factor not withstanding.

On June 25th in a post called In NY the people have the right to be wrong I said this:

3. I will be shocked if we don’t see a devout Muslim suing in NY for the right of polygamy. There is a significant population of Muslims in the state. If one can change the definition of marriage that has stood for thousands of years by a popular vote then there is no rational basis to deny a form of marriage that has been continually recognized by nations of the world and at least one of the worlds major religions for over a millennium.

I got the religion wrong but 17 days later:

On Wednesday, the Browns are expected to file a lawsuit to challenge the polygamy law.

The lawsuit is not demanding that states recognize polygamous marriage. Instead, the lawsuit builds on a 2003 United States Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down state sodomy laws as unconstitutional intrusions on the “intimate conduct” of consenting adults. It will ask the federal courts to tell states that they cannot punish polygamists for their own “intimate conduct” so long as they are not breaking other laws, like those regarding child abuse, incest or seeking multiple marriage licenses.

Via Robert Stacy McCain who quotes Justice Scalia’s dissent in the above mentioned case and comments:

What can we say when such an awareness just suddenly starts emerging? And what possible objection can any liberal voice in the matter, without attempting to “impose morality” on Kody Brown and his wives?

Let’s remind you of what the Catholic Bishop of New York wrote on the subject just this week:

Veterans my age and over can remember sixty years ago when we fought widespread, no-fault divorce, convinced it would lead to a cheapening of the marriage bond and harm our kids (as, of course, scholarly studies now report has, indeed, happened). Recall how the Church resisted the “contraceptive mentality,” fearing it would rupture the sacred bond between love and the procreation of children. Then, remember how the Church sounded the alarm over rising rates of promiscuity, adultery, pre-marital sex, and cohabitation prior to or instead of marriage. And now we ring the steeple bell again at this latest dilution of the authentic understanding of marriage, worried that the next step will be another redefinition to justify multiple partners and infidelity. If you think I’m exaggerating, within days of the passage of this bill, one major newspaper ran a flattering profile of a proponent of what was called “nonmonogamy.” Apparently, “nonmonogamy” is the idea that society is unrealistic to think that one man and one woman should remain faithful in marriage, and that openness to some infidelity should be the norm!

The irony being that over and over the consequences the Catholic Church warned society about came to pass when society and some mainline Churches embraced these changes over the years.

We are likely at least a generation and a half away from the full consequences of this nonsense, but they will come. The legal victory of polygamy in states that embrace gay marriage will come mush faster.