Reply #22: You hit on the strongest argument I have run across [View All]

[tom2kpro]

"Vote against Polygamy should it bother you that much but don't pretend it'll just happen to you and your country one bright morning."

You hit on a potential argument right there. You cannot VOTE for or against polygamy at all, or for or against any other matter involving sexual matters among consenting adults, because it is all now within the Constitutional zone of privacy. The changes are being done by tests to laws, with courts deciding whether something is okay or not.

Perhaps I am expanding the meaning of the recent US S Ct case which finally put to rest all the old anti-sodomy laws, but it is inevitable that this case will eventually be read to mean that a State cannot pass judgment in any way on anything sexual involving consenting adults. No State will be able to refuse to recognize a gay marriage from another State based on the idea that gay marriage offends a strong public policy of that State, because that public policy went out the window with the recent US S. Ct. case.

Of course, we can simply say that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds and say that gay marriage is desirable, for which there are many excellent arguments, but marriage among three people is disgusting and absurd, but this would involve making a judgment about what is desirable as a matter of taste or public policy or morality or what have you, and then we sound like the homophobes telling people what they like or don't like. Some of the homophobes would probably go for polygamy in a minute (think Utah), yet most of us will say polygamy should not be permitted because it usually works against women. All of this a a policy argument, and the courts have taken the whole area out of the realm of policy arguments or debate or voting. Of course, the flaw in this is that I am probably reading too much into the recent US S Ct decision.