Blowhard, Esq. writes:
I’ll admit this guy is indeed just a wee bit paranoid because pedophilia and bestiality are easily distinguishable from same-sex marriage or polygamy as the former involve a lack of consent or coercion. So, calm down dude, they’ll remain crimes for the foreseeable future.
But, using the majority’s reasoning in U.S. v. Windsor, please explain to me why a ban on SSM is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, but bans on polygamy and marriage between adult siblings are not. If the state cannot regulate the sex of who I marry, then explain why it should be permitted to regulate the number.
When I last discussed this issue with classmates back in law school, the vast majority of whom were and are SSM supporters, they would roll their eyes or throw up their hands and make some crack about marrying a duck. Some of them, with a lack of irony that practically knocked me over, would express disgust at the idea of a man having multiple wives! Regardless of their reaction, though, they completely avoided the issue. Apologies to my friends, but a refusal to deal with the blindingly obvious logical consequences of your position is intellectually dishonest.
The best reason not to fear a polygamy legalization movement is a practical one: The Cathedral and its like-minded acolytes don’t like Mormons. The only group that could conceivably generate the kind of groundswell necessary to legalize polygamy are our brothers and sisters in Utah and they’re just kinda icky and silly, right? Magic underwear and all that. Indeed, when I asked a friend today why the Supreme Court’s reasoning shouldn’t be applied to polygamy, her response was, “I don’t give a fuck about Mormons.” Precisely. The only difference between her and the majority of SSM supporters is her blunt honesty.
This is not to say that any of us here at UR is a closet polygamist. God, no. One woman is headache enough.