Friday, June 26, 2015

Gay Marriage, what next? Oh that slippery slope...

Same-sex marriage has won.  “Definition of Marriage” traditionalists’ best argument didn’t meet the rational basis test, much less any stricter scrutiny requirements potentially on deck.  Now then…  What about that slippery slope argument Scalia and his ilk railed so vehemently against?

As I recall, it went something like this:  If we let a man marry a man or a woman marry a woman how could we prevent a man marrying two women, or three people marrying each other, or a couple marrying a couple, or a grandmother marrying her grandson, or a retard marrying a broomhandle or a collie?

(That language isn't mine, it's Republicans')

C’mon, even the slipperiest slopes get tacky.  I’ll guarantee you that it shall be slightly tougher to stop a throuple from tying the knot henceforth than it has been.  Incest, though, has always been and will continue to be distinguishable not just on religious grounds but on “health and welfare” grounds [1]. Everyone who has taken freshman genetics understands the risks of truly “unnatural” intercourse.

Neither the nation nor the state can prefer one religion over another.  Nevertheless, the Mormons got railroaded by Lincoln, look it up!  He also suspended Habeus Corpus!  Father of our nation, what?

For all of its avowed commitment to the separation of Church and State, our nation has always been a Christian one, "under [the Bible]" with liberty and justice for the domesticated.

Both the Latter Day Saints and Mohammed's Men believe in the sanctity of polygamy.  But radical mainstream conservatives demonize those "others'" faith as un-American. [2]

Before today, any swinging couple with a good lawyer could marry another down couple in all meaningful ways except assigning federal government benefits; it’s just that sometimes those government benefits are the best (social security, pensions, immigration).  That is separate, but NOT equal. Unacceptable.

Why should the fed care if various claimants split their hard-earned, well-deserved benefits as they choose?  What, they anticipate being rendered incompetent by the slightly more complicated paperwork?

Although a man can have a sexual relationship with a broomhandle or a collie, this can’t be the only reason we’re granting people marriage licenses.  Neither can procreative ability be.  Thus, a grandmother can legally marry a man young enough to be her grandson in every state today (without being required to submit proof of her fertility).  On a completely related note:  one of the best reasons to let gays wed is that they’re dying to adopt needy kids into often prosperous, surely stable loving homes- do you dare to contest homosexual people’s ability to epitomize family values?

That is to say, Don’t you know it’s better for kids to have mas responsible, committed, loving, concerned, invested adults around than menos

Indeed, I say,

Why not consensual polygamy?

Where're the Lesbians 4 Libertarians t-shirts!  Homos, why don't you heart sluts!  (C’mon: polys need your support, you’re a dominant democgraphic now, after such a long brutal epic struggle to victory!  Way to go, congrats on all your success!  Won’t you be empathetic, in turn?  Don’t you remember how it was?  Help your fellow outsasts.  Or wouldn't that be "just"?)

At least co-habitation is no longer prohibited in Utah - thanks Kody Brown.  Many ancient and modern societies both abroad and at home actually encourage it.

God forbid we respectfully ponder our forebears’ conclusions; just because they were wrong about a few things don't mean they had pittance IQs.
Big family=successful model.  Tried and true.  Tell me I'm wrong.

Law of contracts dictates parties should have the freedom to promise what they like, so long as they possess the capacity to give informed consent and it’s not otherwise illegal.

Marriage is a contract; it should be governed by contract law (no coercion, unconscionability, impossibility, etc.), not majority values - that's tyranny, man!  

And yet,

Plural marriage will remain illegal for at least another generation (I predict). 

Eventually, though, tribe mating will rear its chillaxed head, because so many "normies" are doing it.

By 2099 each man woman and child will be required to work 5 hours per month minimum, nobody more than 10/week max; all arbitrary boundaries will be erased like an etch-a-sketch. 

[1] States' police powers allow them to pass laws for benefit of their citizens, interestingly, the U.S. Congress does not have any police powers, but not to worry; it has apparently convinced the Court that the Commerce Clause is basically unlimited, so it now feels it has carte blanche to legislate however it wishes.  Federalists rightly argue that the founding fathers intended the powers of the federal government to be limited.  To be fair, however, they never could have conceived of the modern United States, with its 300 million citizens.  The game has changed since then, fundamentally.

[2In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145,162 (1878), the Court opined that polygamy was "Non-Christian", and "more appropriate for Asians and Africans" than for Americans, and that, like human sacrifice, polygamy was not a legitimate spiritual practice which should trigger First Amendment protection.  Embarrassingly, this case remains good precedent today.  See, e.g, State of Utah v. Green, 2004 UT 76. (emphasis added)