In 1920, when women finally got the vote, I wonder if anyone said it was a slippery slope, and -- what's next? -- will goats get the right to vote?

Was there a flurry of "marrying animal" worry when the Supreme Court ruled on Loving v. Virginia in 1967?

Semi-serious questions. I'm wondering if this had historical, if not hysterical, precedent.

I dont know why religious conservitives are trying to stop incest and polygamy.

It was practice by damn near every prophet of god and every "good" person in the bible held up as a role model of decent behavior.

Anyway homosexuality is a sin, so become part of a god blessed union by marrying your sister and forcing your slaves to raise the babies you raped into them after killing their parents for worshiping the wrong god

I guess my circle of acquaintances is too small, because I don't know anyone seeking legitimacy for marrying their goat (or even desiring to do so). Probably because I don't live in DC or know any congressmen (persons?).

Some of the comments to Simon's article are pretty revealing.

There's an entire coterie of useless DNA stains (who claim to be against a too large government) arguing that this is a failure of government.

They're all like, "we don't want government to interfere with our lives, but we need it to protect us from the gays." And they don't see the irony of that statement.

And what's even more telling is that most of them don't actually understand the context of the ruling (not to mention that they dismiss far worse things the government does just to rail against this decision).

This ruling is essentially nothing more than a restriction on the federal government unconstitutionally targeting a specific group of people.

Mostly, this issue now goes to the states, sort of an acknowlegement of federalism by the court (whether intended or not).

And that's more or less a proper outcome, even though there are some 'Jesus rode a dinosaur' morons like most of the state I live in.

Ultimately, marriage should be entirely removed from the duties of any level of government. The only involvment government should have in that context is the upholding of any explicit or implied contract involved in the process.

I'm not concerned about anyone marrying their goat.

I am concerned about people marrying their siblings, and I am concerned about polygamous households forming, where a man is married to one of the women, and the two additional women are married to each other, (for the tax and insurance benefits of course).

But since Roger Simon is not a constitutional law expert, He thinks that opposition to same sex marriage is simply bigotry, and not based on real concerns of how previous social engineering legislation has generated brutal unintended consequences.

In five years or less, you will start seeing a real push for polygamy to be granted parity with two person "marriages".

And why shouldnt there be?

The pedophilia crowd want to normalize their vile, kid-oriented attractions as well. Unlike homosexuals, I say we take off and nuke these idiots from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

I made a bong out of a telephone pole in my car while driving a pirate to work, where he will milk a cow.

Kevin: In 1920, when women finally got the vote, I wonder if anyone said it was a slippery slope, and -- what's next? -- will goats get the right to vote?

Actually, what happened was arguably worse. In the first election in which women could vote, they helped the nation elect Warren G. Harding.

So what if Simon doesn't know many (if any) polygamists? If there are 4 or 4 million why does it matter? I can't imagine you all would say that gay marriage shouldn't be legal if there were very few gay people wanting to be married.

I am concerned about people marrying their siblings, and I am concerned about polygamous households forming, where a man is married to one of the women, and the two additional women are married to each other, (for the tax and insurance benefits of course). -- Isab at June 29, 2013 12:55 AM

The siblings or parent/child incest won't need to get married. The inheritance rules already work for them as well as the tax laws. Cousins may have to do some work but not much. Actually for any opposite sex couples the laws are generally already there.

The problem is the same sex couples have not been recognized. That is why the DOMA effected the Fifth Amendments Takings clause was overturned. ("private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.")

The lawsuit was from a couple living in New York and married in Canada. They had been together for 40 years. Her spouse died. Under DOMA she owed $363,000 in estate taxes that she wouldn't have if they were recognized as married.

"If there are 4 or 4 million why does it matter? I can't imagine you all would say that gay marriage shouldn't be legal if there were very few gay people wanting to be married."

Exactly! Look how far public opinion has changed in just the time since DOMA was passed. Are there any victims of polygamy?

And Jim P, A spouse has more favorable inheritance tax implications than a sibling or decedent.

This is just ignorant.

If the government cannot place limits based on the sex of parties of a marriage/union, then it cannot do so regarding number of parties or relatedness.

Would this c-person actually claim that two sisters who want to marry to gain health benefits or spousal social security benefits should be unable to do so? Or that a man who marries two women in Gabon should be unable to obtain spouse visas for them?

And, friend from above, no tax laws do not work for non-married relations. There is no unlimited exemption for anyone but a spouse. Those sisters who created a multimillion dollar company cannot freely transfer it to the surviving person at the point of death. The law does not allow for it.

"The siblings or parent/child incest won't need to get married. The inheritance rules already work for them as well as the tax laws. Cousins may have to do some work but not much. Actually for any opposite sex couples the laws are generally already there."

This is not true. Inheritance and insurance laws treat family relationships other than marriage, no differently than two unrelated strangers.

Please point out an example where you think a sibling has any kind of automatic preference available under the law.

Amy, but *why* only benefits to two? Why does marriage only have to be between two people?

If Simon's argument is that opponents of SSM shouldn't push the fight now because it's not good strategy, or that the government has more pressing issues to deal with, then fine I understand that. But when that time comes, what will the argument against polygamy be?

Amy,

I have a hard time believing you think redefining marriage just once will be the end of it!

"Incest is prohibited whether you are two sisters or a brother and a sister" - Homosexuality was prohibited whether you were two males or two females.

How many times has the definition of an eligible voter been changed? I believe initially only male landowners could vote. Now some people want to give that right to illegal aliens.

The line had been drawn at one man and one woman. It has changed now. There is absolutely no reason to think it will not change again.

"Incest is prohibited whether you are two sisters or a brother and a sister."

You assert this like it was some kind of immutable law of the universe, rather than a cultural preference of no particular importance and of very short historical duration.

I find it hysterical, that in this day and age of anonymous sperm donations, that more than one brother and sister have actually found themselves married to each other.

Truth be told, the cultural taboos against incest have a much shorter historical existence than any of the cultural prohibitions about homosexual sex.

If marriage is not about reproduction, than preventing incest, is a non starter of an argument against marriage between siblings.

@Matt: But when that time comes, what will the argument against polygamy be?

Why would there be one? Is there something about having more than one spouse that should offend the government?

Now, I could think of scenarios where distribution of benefits could be kind of awkward: Imagine an Army captain with two wives. He dies while on duty. Does each wife receive full survivor's benefits, or do they split a single survivor's benefit between them? That's something that should be worked out ahead of time, but doesn't really argue against polygamy per se.

@Goo: The line had been drawn at one man and one woman. It has changed now. There is absolutely no reason to think it will not change again.

You're right. It probably will. Whether we embrace or reject the changes depends on the standards we, as a people, use in evaluating them. And that could get hairy real quick!

"How many times has the definition of an eligible voter been changed? I believe initially only male landowners could vote. Now some people want to give that right to illegal aliens."

You're right. That's a pretty slippery slope right there. Too bad those white male landowners didn't stick to their guns when they had the chance. Is that when you believe the country started going to hell in a hand basket?

Also, could you please name one person who is advocating giving the vote to someone that is in the country illegally?

Amy, so besides your funny "finding one mate is hard enough" argument you really don't have another? If I lost on gay marriage, and your side won, then why did you win and why do those reasons to support SSM not apply to marriage between three people?

This is just one of the pages of articles that were returned from a google search.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/05/10/nyc-lawmakers-consider-allowing-non-citizen-immigrants-to-vote/

Okay, so if it does lead to polygamy being legal, so what? If someone marries their pet albino goat, what of it? It may disgust you, but guess what? It's still none of your business. If the people are over 18 and not being coerced, I could not care less what they are doing in their homes. I think the ones who feign outrage over this are simply jealous that they can't do this. "I can't sleep with my brother, because all I have are sisters! Therefore, none shall do this!" Or they are secretly members of Westboro. Or both, even!

Get over yourselves, morally outraged nannies! Rational people are not impressed with your hair-on-fire dancing and breathless illogical rantings. Take a chill pill, and take care of your own house. Leave mine be. I'll drive to work in pirates if I want to, dammit!

The problem Jim Armstrong is that the door has just been opened inviting all sorts of tax and entitlement issues and that affect all of us. The government went the wrong way. They should have gotten out of the marriage business. They had a hard enough time dealing with it when it was just between one man and one woman.

This is not true. Inheritance and insurance laws treat family relationships other than marriage, no differently than two unrelated strangers.

Not true. I just wrapped up a case in probate court, and family members have rights that the unrelated do not. When someone dies intestate, there's an entire chain of relations to go down before the court tosses its hands in the air in defeat.

In my case, my half-brother tried to sue the estate to get what he considered "his share." Had he actually been my father's son, we'd probably still be in court. Since he was my father's stepson, he didn't have the right to challenge.

The idea of people trying to marry their pets is just silly. Before we get that far, we'd need to give animals the right to enter into contracts, and that doesn't seem likely to happen any time soon.

As for polygamy, it's a possibility, but I don't have a hard time with that. In a democracy, the people shape the laws. If a majority of people think polygamy should be legal, then so be it, and we'll sort it out then.

"You can be involved with six people if you want; you just can't get state benefits for all of them. You get state benefits for one person.

Silliness people are pushing because they've lost on gay marriage, and they're distressed that gay people would have equal rights."

Why? What is the reasoning other than because you feel that you have been elected supreme ruler of the universe?

There is no valid reason for limiting the number of parties that receive benefits. None at all. there are moral reasons (never valid in terms of law). Nothing else.

Why should someone who wants to enter into a willful and consensual union with multiple partners not receive the same rights and benefits as monogamous partners? What interest does the state have to create such limitations?

The author of this post is a bigot and a hypocrite. She actually believes that the state can enact her morality but that of no one else. Because she is right, and we all must listen to her.

Marriage is inherently unequal as it is now (benefits not available to single/unmarried persons in most cases). The prohibitions against polygamy and incestuous unions make it more unequal.

"As for polygamy, it's a possibility, but I don't have a hard time with that. In a democracy, the people shape the laws. If a majority of people think polygamy should be legal, then so be it, and we'll sort it out then."

But that is not how the state works. Rights are not determined by the will of the majority. With regard to extending rights to recognition of unions, it does not matter if the majority opposes it (see California).

There is no marriage equality without polygamy, incestuous unions, and elimination of inessential marriage benefits and subsidies. It just cannot happen.

"Not true. I just wrapped up a case in probate court, and family members have rights that the unrelated do not."

the claim was that the individual made. Someone above claimed that family members are offered an unlimited exemption (like the spousal exemption) in estate law and such things. That tax and inheritance law treated married partners the same as other family relations. The person was just countering that point.

"Not true. I just wrapped up a case in probate court, and family members have rights that the unrelated do not. When someone dies intestate, there's an entire chain of relations to go down before the court tosses its hands in the air in defeat."

There is no automatic tax free inheritance of estates by other family members, other than a spouse. The fact that the family members had to go to probate court, just like any other unrelated person named in a will, defeats your assertion.

Miss Alkon, twice:
You can be involved with six people if you want; you just can't get state benefits for all of them. You get state benefits for one person.

I suspect if polygamy were legalized in any of the states, you'd get a lot of arguments about how state benefits are calculated. After all, if some social welfare benefits are based on the number of children in the household, why can't others be based on the number of spouses? I'm not saying you're wrong, but the idea won't go unchallenged.

Silliness people are pushing because they've lost on gay marriage, and they're distressed that gay people would have equal rights.

Really? There couldn't possibly be any rational arguments against gay marriage? Not any?

Goo,
I stand corrected regarding your Bloomberg link. Wow.

If you want more "wives," you can have them; they just don't get benefits.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at June 29, 2013 9:17 AM

The families of Kingman Arizona, have made quite a nice living off the government by claiming that all their excess wives are actually single unemployed mothers with lots of kids.

Those Welfare, WIC, and AFDC benefits add up to a pretty nice chunk of change.

The question is not "if" polygamous households will collect benefits. They already do. It is just a matter of what you call all those government benefits they are already receiving.

But that is not how the state works. Rights are not determined by the will of the majority.

That's exactly how the state works. We elect the people who make the laws. Those people are elected by the will of the majority (who bother to vote).

There is no automatic tax free inheritance of estates by other family members, other than a spouse.

This is true. That wasn't what I got from your original statement, which seemed to be saying something different, so my apologies for misunderstanding.

Spouses have certain rights, but so do other family members. (Side note: When my mother died, my father also had to file her will with the court. He didn't automatically get all her property. And in some cases, the bank can temporarily freeze assets no matter who you are.)

If you want more "wives," you can have them; they just don't get benefits.

Why not? if the first wife/husband gets benefits, why are you discriminating against the second/third/Nth one?

You know who still practices polygamy? Muslims. Hater.

;-) (and I'm all for eliminating the tax code as social engineering tool, with subsidies for this or that, but not other things, actually we should ditch the income tax and go to a consumption tax but that's a discussion for another day)

To add: The state will always have an interest in marriage because it will always have an interest in property law. We need to know where all our stuff goes, and who is responsible for it.

It's not enough to let people create wills separate from marriage, because too many people won't, which will still leave the courts trying to sort it all out. Ultimately, they'll probably still be giving the property to the people who were closest to the deceased -- his or her spouse and children.

Actually, I know a lot of polyamorous people.

"You know who still practices polygamy? Muslims. Hater."

You know who else practices Polygamy? Anyone who enters into a second marriage, and still has a living former spouse.

It is just sequential polygamy rather than the more traditional kind.

The paperwork and benefit calculations for someone who has been married more than ten years to each of two or more different spouses. Is no less complicated, than what an actual polygamous marriage would require.

Goo, google "The Lost Boys of Utah" for victims of polygamy.

Any man ( or woman ) should be able to legally have as many husbands and wives as he (or she ) wants so long as all are competent, consenting adults.

You can't marry a goat because a goat, unlike a human, is not competent nor can it give knowing consent.

Amy: "If you are married to six people, only one gets benefits". That only discriminates against multiple -party marriage. Laws can change to adjust to new realities. If one spouse dies with a 100,000K death benefit and the deceased had 4 spouses, each spouse gets 25,000K. What is difficult about that ?

Y'all know Melissa Etheridge right?

She had an unofficial wife, whom she cheated on. Anyways when it came time for the "divorce", for all her marriage, activist babble when it came time to pay up she was like FUCK THAT. The ex really had to fight in court for alimony & child support or any kind of financial settlement.

She was happy to use the "unequal" law for her advantage, even though as an activist she was all for gay marriage....uh well....except when it came to gay divorce.

Y'all know human beings are nasty little things right?

Goo, google "The Lost Boys of Utah" for victims of polygamy.

Posted by: NicoleK at June 29, 2013 10:28 AM

The lost boys are actually indirect victims of polygamy, much as children of divorced parents are indirect victims of no fault divorce.

However, as i pointed out, the entire polygamous social structure in these towns is fueled by a loosely run, government benefits system, that financially rewards the polygamous marriages masquerading as single unemployed mothers with children.

I doubt if any empirical study would find that the lost boys are any worse off than the products of the baby momma, baby daddy system of reproduction with no personal responsibility at all.

Y'all btw I'm all for gay marriage.

I watch alot of Judge Judy & Judge Mathis and people who commit to one another & live together without the "benefit of marriage" STILL expect the courts to sort through their financial mess.

I thought the whole thing about living together without marriage was so you could just "walk away". Dont come to courts with your nonsense.

Let's step back and look at what marriage--as recognized and enforced by the laws of the US--really is.

It's not about sex. No law requires a married couple to have sex with each other. If one forces sex on the other without consent, (s)he can be charged with rape. Nor is there any legal penalty for sex outside the marriage.

It's not about child support. Your legal obligations toward your children are the same whether or not you are, or ever were, married to their other parent.

All a marriage is, legally, is a contract between two people to pool their earnings and acquired property, and to divide the pool in ways specified by law if the marriage is dissolved. It has to be two, because the relevant divorce and other marriage-related laws don't cover other numbers, and it has to be people, because animals can't agree to and be bound by contracts.

In light of this, there's no reason not to allow any two adult humans to get married. (An exception would be a sham marriage for the sole purpose of obtaining a green card or other government benefit, but that's already against the law.) Only two small details:

1. People who are legally prohibited from having sex with each other, like brother and sister, should still be barred from that even if they marry each other.

2. No clergyman, or anyone other than a government official, should be required to perform a marriage that violates his personal beliefs about who should be allowed to marry.

"All a marriage is, legally, is a contract between two people to pool their earnings and acquired property, and to divide the pool in ways specified by law if the marriage is dissolved. It has to be two, because the relevant divorce and other marriage-related laws don't cover other numbers."

The laws can be modified, just like they will be modified to cover same sex marriages.

And this is incorrect. There is no real reason that a contract has to be two party.

Multi party contracts are signed, and enforced every day in this country. I have written quite a few of them myself

It is also possible for a two party contract to have multiple beneficiaries who have rights under a contract, without being a party to the actual contract.

There is also no good reason to enforce a no sex clause in regards to incestuous relationships, as the problem isn't with them having sex, it is the possibility of passing on a duplicate set of damaged genes to their offspring. The risks of this have been greatly exagerated, since plenty of non related parents pass on damaged genes also.

You should have stuck with your original premise. Marriage is not about sex....

I agree.

Robert Heinlein's SF novel Friday deals in passing with the issues of poly marriage. In a future New Zealand, when marrying a Family, the financial requirements to get in and get out are set out contractually. Children are legally the joint responsibility of all adults who are in the Family at the time of birth. Families could go on for hundreds of years and build huge assets. It's an interesting read.

Also, could you please name one person who is advocating giving the vote to someone that is in the country illegally?

Everyone who thinks voter ID laws are racist

And this is incorrect. There is no real reason that a contract has to be two party.

True. But the standard marriage contract created by existing law is two-party. Legal polygamy would require new laws creating a new standard contract. Gay (and other two-party) marriage, by contrast, doesn't require any change to the existing contract, just a wider definition of who is allowed to enter into it.

There is also no good reason to enforce a no sex clause in regards to incestuous relationships, as the problem isn't with them having sex, it is the possibility of passing on a duplicate set of damaged genes to their offspring.

That risk is why there are laws against incestuous sex. All I'm saying is that those laws can be kept and enforced even while legalizing incestuous marriage. If you're arguing that those laws aren't justified by the risk and should be repealed, that's a separate discussion, not germane to this thread.

"Silly" Why silly? Changing the definition once does open it up to more changes and easier changes.
I know far more people that I know are poly than gay. But then again I don't live in California, and know most from the SCA.

"You know who still practices polygamy? Muslims. Hater."
Yup, and you will be forced to like sharia.

"True. But the standard marriage contract created by existing law is two-party"

Marriage has no standard contract. It is a jumple of common law and statuatuory law,that has never meant the same thing in any state or in any time.

Marriage licenses were uncommon in almost every state until 1923. Before the Civil war, almost no one had any certificate legalizing their marriage. It was a church document and ceremony only, usually recorded in the church register.

"That risk is why there are laws against incestuous sex"

Good luck enforcing those laws. If challenged, i believe they would be found unconstitutional.

There are a lot of ethnic groups that are extremely inbred like the Amish, and Ashkenazi jews. One of them marrying their 4th cousin is a riskier genetic outcome than you having children with your sister. These populations will defeat any rational basis for laws against incest.

I also wonder how you are planning on enforcing a rule where a brother and sister can be married, but cant have sex. You going to send the police on no knock raids or what?

But that is not how the state works. Rights are not determined by the will of the majority. With regard to extending rights to recognition of unions, it does not matter if the majority opposes it (see california). -- someguywhoissmarterthanthisc-person at June 29, 2013 8:55 AM

That's exactly how the state works. We elect the people who make the laws. Those people are elected by the will of the majority (who bother to vote). --MonicaP at June 29, 2013 9:46 AM

No it doesn't. Every state in the union is a representative republic not a mob rules democracy. That means that even if 51% don't like what you are doing, it shouldn't be illegal. There needs to a reasonable consideration based on someone violating the rights of others before there is a law.

Marriage has no standard contract. It is a jumple of common law and statuatuory law,that has never meant the same thing in any state or in any time.

The only part of that jumble relevant to this discussion is today's statutory law. That does create what is in effect a standard contract--not identical from state to state, but close enough.

Good luck enforcing those laws. If challenged, i believe they would be found unconstitutional.

You're still missing my point. I'm not taking any position on whether laws against incest should exist or should be enforced. I'm saying that to whatever extent they do exist and are enforced, that need not change if marriage between any two adults is legal.

I also wonder how you are planning on enforcing a rule where a brother and sister can be married, but can't have sex. You going to send the police on no knock raids or what?

Under current law a brother and sister can live together, but can't have sex. How is that enforced? The answer to that question is the same as the answer to yours.

Listen, Rex, one of the characteristics of a contract, is that it must be enforceable, and provisions need to be made in the event of breech.

Under no definition that I know of, does a marriage qualify as an actual contract. No fault divorce removed the element of enforement totally.

A license is quite different from a contract,and that it what you get from the state when you are married according to their rules.

Many libertarians agree, that rather than sanctioning gay marriage, the state should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage entirely. I agree that is the better way to go.

As far as trying to enforce "no sex" brother sister marriages, why did you suggest in a previous post, that this is the only kind that should be allowed?

"1. People who are legally prohibited from having sex with each other, like brother and sister, should still be barred from that even if they marry each other."

one of the characteristics of a contract, is that it must be enforceable, and provisions need to be made in the event of breech.

The laws relating to spousal support and property settlement in the event of divorce are those provisions.

Many libertarians agree, that rather than sanctioning gay marriage, the state should get out of the business of sanctioning marriage entirely. I agree that is the better way to go.

So do I. My discussion here presupposes that this won't happen.

As far as trying to enforce "no sex" brother sister marriages, why did you suggest in a previous post, that this is the only kind that should be allowed?

The only sex between two adults which is forbidden under current law is incest. All I'm suggesting is that marriage shouldn't create an exception to that.

My basis for proposing to allow marriage between any two adults is that marriage makes no difference, legally, as far as who you may or may not have sex with. I'm just trying to be consistent there.

I feel I have several honest questions.
Suppose a person was the source of essential and life saving support to the families of a number (more than one) lovely and lovable persons. In providing care, education and opportunity for their families, over years, this benefactor won the love of these individuals and the desire to bear children has become a request.
If the benefactor could provide for these families and would be a caring parent who loves children, one who would try to maintain relationships with just and moral care, what could be wrong with polygamy? Why is there dirty baggage attached to this word? There is much trouble for and poor treatment of women in the world. I have a hard time thinking that a loving relationship to more than one individual by another who is blessed with the means to care for them is immoral.

one of the characteristics of a contract, is that it must be enforceable, and provisions need to be made in the event of breech. -Isab

The laws relating to spousal support and property settlement in the event of divorce are those provisions. -Rex Little

Explain then why the law regarding support and division of assets have no impact from the cause of divorce?

In a contract the party who breached must pay damages. In a marriage until the last 5-10 yrs or so the man must pay regardless of the circustances.

With clever legal manuverings this has evolved into whom ever has the most money pays (usually).

In a business contract if you were to sell out our business to a competitior you would be in violation and you would ave to reimburse me according to the terms of the contract.

In a marriage were you the woman you could breach the contract and the state would expect me to reimburse you, often to the point of reducing me to poverty in an attempt to maintain you in the comfort level you have grown accustom

There is no such thing as a unversal marriage contract. Hell many states will ignore pernups at their whim

Explain then why the law regarding support and division of assets have no impact from the cause of divorce?

Because the terms of the contract state that the partnership may be dissolved by either party for any reason, and that this reason shall have no bearing on the distribution of assets. Remember, I'm talking about the de facto contract created by today's marriage/divorce laws, not anything that might have existed in the past before no-fault divorce.

"Robert Heinlein's SF novel Friday deals in passing with the issues of poly marriage."

And, as you recall, that ended very badly for Friday.