Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

27 June 2013

Hey, Proggies! The Polygamy Train Is Leaving The Station. Hop Aboard Or Face Being On The 'Wrong Side of History,' Bigots!

Who are YOU to decide that your gay marriage is any better than a polygamous marriage?

The Left is in an absolute tizzy because Senator Rand Paul, Glenn Beck, and others, have claimed that the two SSM rulings yesterday will lead to bans on polygamy.  The lady doth protest too much.

Remember when Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in his dissent in Lawrence v Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), that the ruling striking down laws that banned sodomy between consenting, same-sex couples made 'same sex marriage INEVITABLE'?  Remember how the Left howled and claimed that he was being hysterical?  Remember when Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that it wouldn't?

Well, guess who wrote this yesterday:

'The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits. Private, consensual sexual intimacy between two adult persons of the same sex may not be punished by the State, and it can form “but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.” (citing Lawrence v. Texas) Marriages performed in other jurisdictions and then by authorizing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages, New York sought to give further protection and dignity to that bond.'

If you said 'Scalia,' you'd be wrong!  It's from Kennedy's opinion - guy who said that Lawrence would not lead to SSM.

Now, for those on the Left crying 'Hysteria!' now, as I predicted long ago, polygamy is a done deal (Jonathan Turley already represents the ‘family’ on Sister Wives).

…and, guess what?  If you support SSM because ‘love is love’ and all marriages between consenting adults are equal, but do not support polygamy, then YOU ARE AN INTOLERANT BIGOT. Also, if you oppose polygamy for Muslims, YOU ARE ALSO AN ISLAMOPHOBE!

You wanna ‘equality’? You got it and your marriages are no better or worse than polygamous marriages, which have a helluva lot more children. So, you MUST support polygamous marriages ‘for the children.’

Back to Kennedy in Windsor:

'It seems fair to conclude that, until recent years, many citizens had not even considered the possibility that two persons of the same sex might aspire to occupy the same status and dignity as that of a man and woman in lawful marriage. For marriage between a man and a woman no doubt had been thought of by most people as essential to the very definition of that term and to its role and function throughout the history of civilization. That belief, for many who long have held it, became even more urgent, more cherished when challenged. For others, however, came the beginnings of a new perspective, a new insight. Accordingly some States concluded that same-sex marriage ought to be given recognition and validity in the law for those same-sex couples who wish to define themselves by their commitment to each other. The limitation of lawful marriage to heterosexual couples, which for centuries had been deemed both necessary and fundamental, came to be seen in New York and certain other States as an unjust exclusion.

The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.'

Now, substitute SSM for polygamy; same-sex couples for polygamous couples.  Who are  YOU to stigmatise their relationships?  Who are YOU to claim that your SSM is just an extension of the idea that it 'takes two to make a marriage'?  'Marriage equality' and all that!

Polygamy precedes SSM by millennia, luv.  So, suck it up:  You. Are. Just. Not. That. Special.

Just file away in the ‘Toldja so’ and ‘The Left’s totally foreseeable, if unintended, consequences’ files.


'A common-law marriage is recognized for federal tax purposes if it is recognized by the state where the taxpayers currently live, or in the state where the common-law marriage began.

All states — including those that have abolished the contract of common-law marriage within their boundaries — recognize common-law marriages lawfully contracted in those jurisdictions that permit it. This is because all states provide that validity of foreign marriage is determined per lex loci celebrationis – that is, “by law of the place of celebration.”

I think you can see were I’m going with this.'

JustTheFacts on June 27, 2013 at 12:21 PM

Except for the FACT that there is a public policy exception for states when it comes to Article IV, Section 1.

See, among others: Wisconsin v Pelican Insurance Co, 127 U.S. 265 (1888); Huntington v Attrill, 146 U.S. 657 (1892); Finney v Guy, 189 U.S. 335 (1903); Clarke v Clarke, 178 U.S. 186 (1900); Olmsted v Olmsted, 216 U.S. 386 (1910); Hood v McGehee, 237 U.S. 611 (1915); Gasquet v Fenner, 247 U.S. 16 (1918); Pacific Employers Insurance v Industrial Accident, 306 U.S. 493 (1939), etc.

That's exactly why 49 states have adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, for example.

BTW, before you start calling me a stupid-racist-sexist-homophobic-Islamophobic-xenophobic-home-schooled-dirt-eating-snake-handling-brother-marrying-deer-shooting-squirrel-eating-hick-n-hustering-trailer-park-living-moonshine-running-meth-cooking-one-tooth-brushing-single-hair-comb-overing-blue-plate-'n-light-special-luvin'-stand-at-attention-WalMart-shopping-ignorant-untravelled-flag-waving-cry-in-my-beers-with-Lee-Greenwood-Teabag-waving-guns-n-Bibles-bitter-clinging Neanderthal, you should know that:

1.  I support SSM.

2.  I'm an atheist.

3.  I'm a libertarian and actually don't give a damn what you stick up your ass with or without butt butter.

4.  I've never been to a trailer park.

5.  I'm a woman.

6.  I've never eaten - too my knowledge - squirrel.

7.  I have never handled a snake.

8.  My brothers are married to women that aren't in our family tree.

9.  I don't shop at Wal-Mart.

10. I'm of the post-racial generation.

11.  I've actually never attended a single Tea Party event.

12.  I've never lived in the Old South, unless by Old South, you mean London as compared to Glasgow or, say, New York relative to Guam, tipping over or not.

13.  I'm a 'tini, ggguuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrllllllllllllllllllllllllll!

14.   I have more hair than you do.


Someone has asked about the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act of 1862.  It only applies to US territories where the Federal government can regulate and ban certain marriages, which is what happened in the TERRITORY of Utah and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878).


No, 'lost motherland,' the government CANNOT force religious institutions to perform SSM because it would be discriminatory if they didn't.  If it could, then the divorced would have already won a case forcing the Catholic Church to perform their marriages.  None have.  Further, no one can walk into a church, synagogue, mosque, etc, and demand that they be married by an official of the institution.  There is NO right - constitutional or otherwise - to a religious ceremony.

And, no, religious institutions CANNOT be stripped of their tax-exempt status for refusing to marry anyone or their doctrine...regardless of whether some find it offencive.  Religious institution are allowed under Federal statutory and tax law to advocate for causes (antiwar, pro-life, more welfare, global cooling/global warming/ climate change/climate chaos/nom du jour, traditional marriage, etc)  or doctrine.  Religious institutions are only proscribed from endorsing a candidate or engaging in the campaigning against another.

I'll have a lengthy post on this subject up later today, which will include the relevant law.


Anonymous said...

Hey RWM, great piece, but you're missing out on squirrel...although removing all the buckshot can be a pain in the ass.

Anonymous said...

Hey Bonehead, if we decide, or our courts or elected officials do, to expand the definition of marriage beyond the boundary of a state-approved contract between two adults, so be it. Do you think this bothers us, or scares us? Do the world a favor and Grow The F Up!

Predictable-History said...

Hey, retard, I am actually PRO-SSM.

But, from a legal standpoint, Kennedy's opinion for the majority applies to polygamous relationships, too.

Of course, you'd first have to read it to understand and, apparently, you are incapable of that.