Willie Nelson shares his thoughts on same-sex marriage

Country star Willie Nelson sums it up best.

“I’ve known straight and gay people all my life. I can’t tell the difference. People are people where I came from.”

When I think about the debate over same-sex marriage, I’m reminded of this line from the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..”

Equality for all….that’s what I support.

Share:

Related Articles

19 thoughts on “Willie Nelson shares his thoughts on same-sex marriage

  1. The age of consent to get married varies by state and is thus NOT equal. Are you in favor of nationalizing all state marriage standards and regulations?

    Also, equality for ALL should mean all. I’ll believe that when you are ready to grant polygamists the same rights as couples, so they no longer have to face prosecution (anyone prosecuting gay couples for living together? nope didn’t think so.)

    1. No, but my point is why are groups of people who ARE prosecuted today not included under your banner of “equality for all.” In one state you could get married at 15 or 16, but in another state not until 17, and in another not until 18. So it’s apparently ok to discriminate on an age basis. And as I already mentioned, those wishing to marry more than one partner are persecuted and prosecuted everywhere in America. Shouldn’t the focus be on those who are really discriminated against?

  2. FMSN,

    Please specify your meaning of the term polygamy so we can all be certain you know precisely what you (we) are talking about. Do you refer to polygamy as a conflation of polyandry, polygyny or for that matter polyamory – are you questioning if there is a legal basis for polyfidelitous arrangements? If so, your point is well taken, but are you suggesting we lump all of these together and not consider them independently for what they are? If the latter, I would disagree.

    One thing to consider is the principle of equality within polygamous marriage arrangements. If all partners are legally equal within the framework of the multi-partner marriage, then yes. You do have a cogent argument to put forth. If the status of the individuals within a polyfidelitous arrangement is not equal then you don’t. In that case, we’d be talking about legalizing inequality. If individuals can exit that polyfidelitous arrangement on their own accord, yes. If not, the arrangement is not one of equality, but of an inequity in power structure codified by the state.

    As for your age of consent example – another good point. Yes, the age should be nationalized because you are right. Equality for all should mean all.

    1. Of course all partners in a polygamous marriage would have equal status – same as couples. I don’t why today’s movement has only singled out same-sex partners and excluding others from equal rights.

      I point out the inequality when it comes to varying ages to get married, but do you really believe something like that should be a national issue? Are matters of contract law routinely decided by the federal government or by the various states? Another perspective is why any of it should be sanctioned nationally — just let everyone do what they want.

  3. FMSN,

    Just to clarify as well with polyfidelitous marriages because I didn’t quite make it a solid point – all individuals must be able to enter and exit the arrangement on their own accord. Pertaining, of course, to arranged marriages and child swapping – both being components in some polygamous marriage arrangements.

    It is not the case that equal status is assured within certain polyfidelitous arrangements currently practiced. But if it were, I’d say you’d have a good point. Our laws should find a way to reconcile multi-partner marriages.

    Do I think marriage age should be a national issue? Of course. Especially if we are to consider the legal status of polygamous marriage. I wouldn’t see contract law as germane, but I can guess where you’re headed with it. Contract law is a huge issue, you’ll have to break it down a bit more for reasonable discussion, however, to your point of national sanction – why not just let everyone do what they want? Because letting everyone do what they want was not the purpose of abandoning the Articles of the Confederation in favor of creating a new government codified by the Constitution. Mistaking liberty for libertine is just that – a mistake. Not at all the principle that led to creating our government.

    1. Yes I agree, under sanctioned polygamous marriage all individuals must be able to enter and exit the marriage, same as laws pertaining to couple marriage. I would point out that arranged marriages are not exclusively a component of polygamous marriages. If it is your intent to outlaw such a practice, you may have to take into account cultural sensitivities, as I am sure you would not want to discriminate. As far as child swapping, I would think that all partners would be allowed custody rights, but that is for courts to decide.

      I would argue that equal status is not assured within certain polyfidelitous arrangements (as you claim) because it is not currently sactioned within society.

      I wonder why you do not see contact law as germane, because that’s exactly what marriage is. Thus the state regulates that matter of such a contract. Contract law varies by states. I do not see marriage as a civil right found in the Constitution, thus I do not see it as a matter for the federal government. One is free to pass a constitutional amendment to make it so, and that would be the proper course of action, not letting the nine robed-ones pull constitutional rights out of thin air.

      My point about letting everyone do what they want appears to be what you are advocating – you just want it all sactioned by the feds. I would point out that everyone is free to do what they want now (save for the aforementioned polygamists), it’s just not sanctioned. I do also wonder what age you would choose to sanction for marriage at the federal level? If you say age 18, you would actually be advocating to take AWAY some rights that currently exist in states that allow younger marriage. Maybe the feds can leave that part up to the states, but threaten to withhold federal funds until states pick the “correct” age (like they did with the drinking age, MLK Day, seatbelts, etc.)

  4. FMSN,

    Whether or not arranged marriage is exclusive to polygamous marriage hasn’t any bearing here. The matter at hand is equal rights and individual rights. An individual who, by legal definition, cannot choose his or her own marriage (be it monogamous or polygamous) is not granted individual rights. Again, you are drifting toward libertine – suggesting there are no limits to what individuals may do and you’re using culture as a pretext. That’s simply off base. Trusting parents, extended relatives or third party matchmakers to suggest a match as a cultural practice isn’t the matter at hand. It’s writing that practice into law that’s at issue. Or conversely, ignoring practices that violate an individual’s right to choose.

    Child-swapping in terms of custody rights is not what I was referring to, but it is a good issue to consider when thinking about polyfidelitous marriages. I was referring to the practice of arranged marriage within some polygamous systems where a child is given (or sold), usually as a bride to an older spouse within a polygamous community. Also selling or gifting a child to wed an individual outside the family or polygamous community. In either case, a child bride (or a child groom) isn’t one who has been granted individual rights. Essentially, the individual is reduced to chattel whether the marriage is a gift or a commercial exchange. Be that practice religious or cultural is immaterial. What is material is whether or not individual rights are denied to those whose marriage is chosen for them. Again, the parameters of the arrangement once the marriage is complete is of issue as well. As is sanctioning coercion or force at any point in the process – before, during, or after a marriage may have ended. Legally sanctioning a practice where an individual hasn’t any right to choose one’s own marital status is at issue in this case. That is what I was referring to with child swapping.

    I don’t claim that equal status isn’t confirmed within certain polyfidelitous arrangements. That’s the way it is. The specifics of myriad forms of multi-partner marriage have nothing to do with my claiming them as such nor do their specifics have any bearing on societal sanction. They are what they are independent of what our or any other society thinks. There’s also the potential for the development of inequality even if that aspect of status or “custom” isn’t currently practiced… As I mentioned earlier, for a cogent argument you need to specify what kinds of marriages you’re talking about. There are all kinds of multi-partner marriages and you’re simply lumping all of them into one vast category of polygamy. “Polygamy” itself is a meaningless term if we are seriously discussing sanctioning multi-partner marriages. Your charge that polygamists are discriminated against doesn’t really make sense until you articulate what kinds of polygamists you’re talking about.

    Contract law: I’m aware that some marital arrangements are contracts, but not all are. And if we are concerned about equal rights and individual rights, which I assume we are when we are considering individuals entering into a marriage, then we’re not talking about contract law, we’re talking about constitutionality. In theory, at least, state laws are subordinate to Constitutional rights. You don’t see marriage as a civil right in the Constitution? You are aware, I hope, that rights and powers in the Constitution are not exclusive to those enumerated? If you don’t see marriage as a civil right in the Constitution, then do you really have any basis for arguing that unspecified polygamists are discriminated against or do not have equal rights?

    As to the states’ rights angle you’re inching toward, you’re already angling from a Neo-Confederate or “ quasi-antebellum” perspective, which isn’t necessarily the same perspective as that of the Revolutionary Era. So, we’re bound to run into conflict since I ascribe more to the latter. But, I’m sure we can keep it civil. 🙂 Given that, I consider the national apparatus, not the states to be the agency of greatest concern. I think it is the national apparatus, not the states that best secures rights and liberties – no doubt that’s a repugnant thought for many and far too big a subject to go into here. So, when you say I think everyone should do what they please and have it sanctioned by the feds? Sanctioned by the feds, yes. Do anything you please. No.

    When I say no, I’m not advocating that everyone can do as they please, I’m not arguing against “polygamy.” I am arguing that, as you suggested, our discourse on equality should expand to include multi-partner marriages, and our laws should possibly accommodate them providing those laws don’t sanction inequality or violate individual rights. I don’t think the best place for those laws to be contained is within the individual states.

    No, it is not the case that “everyone is allowed to do what they want now” save for aforementioned (but unspecified) polygamists. Such a sentiment suggests victimology rather than serious concern for accommodating diversity. Again, please specify which polygamists you are referring to. I’m not trying to be pedantic when I ask. Is your angle bigamy law? If it is, that is still pretty general, but maybe that gets closer to your concern? Again, if we’re talking about repealing bigamy laws, we’re talking about allowing a vast array of marriages into the legal realm. We need to look at those cases individually. Perhaps we need to find a multi-partner framework that fits into our Constitutional system if society chooses to sanction unspecified “polygamy.” If so, I should think that would be a situation which strengthens the argument for removing inconsistent vagaries currently stipulated in the 50 states. Personally, I’m not willing to favor or disfavor any unspecified polyfidelitous marriage arrangements prior to robust discussion. I do think society, ultimately, must make that call.

    I’m not saying it would be easy to do. As you mention, there are cultural and religious considerations to take into account. But need I stress, culture and religion are not the issue. Not all cultural or religious practices conform to the principles encoded in the Constitution. With marriage, like everything else, if one chooses to live in civilized society, one must choose to give and take at some level, and really, at more than one level. Equally important, if one chooses to live in a secularized society, religious practice, religious belief, and even religious law may conflict with the principles of the Constitution. Liberty of conscience is like all other liberties. One is free to believe whatever one pleases, but one is not free to do whatever one pleases if the doing violates any other individual’s rights or liberties. I shouldn’t think arguing for legal recognition of polygamous marriage with religious belief or cultural practice as the basis of the “right” will be the most effective nor do I think it reasonable.

    At what age do I think marriage should be federally sanctioned? 21. But, I think that the age should be determined by society as a whole. Prepare yourself, I’m liable to send you spinning with this next bit: Whatever the final choice our entire society makes, my position would be this: the chosen age should conform to all other matters of legal adulthood – with most of the flexibilities that many of our laws currently entail. So that would include things like the draft or military enlistment, driving a motor vehicle, being tried as an adult, the drinking age, legal consent, voting, and parental custody. I also think parents and legal guardians should be responsible for their children, their children’s actions, and their children’s children until their children reach legal age. That’s not to say that I think the parent or legal guardian is the determinant of their dependents’ Constitutional rights. I don’t. All individual rights are determined by the Constitution which, to me, is the national apparatus, not subject to state jurisdiction or parental whim. The “nine-robed ones” are one part of the national apparatus – and a broken piece to be sure – much in need of fixing. But, we’re not really talking judiciary with these matters – at least initially. Initially, we’re talking legislative.

    Ultimately, however, we as a society are responsible for all the children in it. Deferring to a nebulous canard like “states’ rights” or the myriad fallacies falling into the category of “parental choice” would not be responsible nor legitimate rationale when arguing the contours of individual or equal rights, in my view. For example: I would contend the condition of “parent” is a legal, not a biological consideration for society to reconcile. If that is an accepted premise, I would consider it a potential argument in favor of unspecified polyfidelitous marriage. Ultimately, however, in my view, the rights of children supercede individual parental whimsy. In which case, polyfidelitous custody becomes more complex. But, I don’t think we should be deterred by complexity in these matters.

    Instantiating that rights will be taken away by changing what legal age means is not really an argument – a tepid one at best. Were we to accept it as a valid premise, we’d never be able to create or alter our laws. In this case, Grandfather Clause is always an option. As is parental/judicial consent. With the latter, I’d say within reasonable parameters too. Some states specify minimum age even with parental consent.

    As for existing rights or custom, if there is adequate and reasonable justification for why someone at age 9 or 14 or 16 should marry other than “this is the way we’ve always done it,” or “this is what I believe” likewise if there is adequate, reasonable justification for why there should be differences in ages of consent granted to each gender other than “this is the way we’ve always done it” or “this is what I believe” bring it into the discourse. If you think there is a reasonable justification for disunity I’d be interested in learning it. All I’m saying is I haven’t thought of any justification for maintaining disunity. In addition, to imply that “correct” is an arbitrary standard, which you seem to do, please defend how 50 varying state statutes are not an arbitrary conglomeration. Or why the “correct” marriageable age shouldn’t be a municipal matter left up to cities or towns or counties.

    1. “You are aware, I hope, that rights and powers in the Constitution are not exclusive to those enumerated?”
      — Your answer is found in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      “If you don’t see marriage as a civil right in the Constitution, then do you really have any basis for arguing that unspecified polygamists are discriminated against or do not have equal rights?”
      — I am arguing that those who do think marriage is a civil right should not forget polygamists who are discriminated against in every state. Do not forget the 16 year old who can get married in one state, but not another. Do not forget the first cousins who can get married in one state, but are discriminated in another. All of these must be included under your umbrella of marriage as a civil right. If you choose to exclude any group as a matter of national law, you will actually be rolling back rights that some currently have and I can’t believe you would want to do that, although you do say you want to do that by raising the age of consent in all matters (!) to 21. I am not surprised, given the current trend of mandating 30 year old “children” stay on their parents health insurance.

  5. FMSN,

    Yes, the 10th Amendment is a negative on the authority of the states; it is an assertion of federalism. It negated the principle of state “sovereignty.” The Constitution reversed pre-eminent authority. Intentionally. And let’s not forget Implied Powers.

    I am aware you are suggesting that advocates of marriage equality should include polygamists and other cases under the marriage equality banner. But you have yet to set forth an argument for discrimination. As I indicated earlier, the discussion is open; but I don’t think anyone need recognize anything until after considerable discussion and debate – surely you agree. I can’t speak to polygamy discrimination because I don’t know that discrimination has taken place. I’m ignorant on this issue. Likewise with the other examples you mention.

    I won’t belabor the point of “rational basis” and “rationalization,” yet there is a rational basis for standardizing legal adulthood. Human adolescence isn’t merely an arbitrary social distinction. Medically speaking, the human body doesn’t reach maturity until approximately age 21 – specifically the development of the human brain. Given that, it would seem to me to be a reasonable standard. Really, I see no reason not to standardize Family Law – again, that would be a potential argument in favor of polygamy. It would certainly make sense for all the examples you cite. I don’t think it’s sensible to attempt to think on all your examples in exactly the same way. But it would make sense in terms of comprehensive family law.

    1. I don’t know why discrimination is necessary to prove in the circumstances I cited. Polygamy is not legal in any state. Why? Thus it should not be illegal for those that want to. (Incidentally there have been many cases of polygamists both past and present who have been prosecuted by the law, one family being that of a cable reality show. But again, why is it necessary to argue discrimination, when it is a matter of “equal protection”.)

      There’s one group we haven’t covered yet and that is single people. Why should they not receive the same benefits and privileges that are afforded to married people just because they have chosen not to tie themselves to another?

  6. Why not argue a case for polygamy? You haven’t given any justification for why bigamy laws and the other laws that polygamists are charged with are wrong. As I’ve stated, “polygamy” isn’t a meaningful term because it isn’t specified. It is generalized. There are all sorts of polygamous arrangements. You must specify. Because court precedence exists. I believe the court distinguishes same-sex marriage from polygamous marriage. So, you don’t have an apples to apples comparison. Because polygamous marriages are controversial for a variety of reasons. So, as you suggest, our society should discuss it. Polygamy is not legal in any state. Why? You have the floor. Defend polygamy. Preferably as many kinds of polyfidelitous marriages as possible. So we get a fair assessment of the issues surrounding the various arrangements.

    By the way, I believe the case against Sister Wives was dropped for publicity reasons.

    1. My justification is the same as for gay marriage: because they are people who love each other and should the legal ability to do what they want and what other people can do. Why should gay couples get to do that in the very same states that won’t allow multiple partners to do the same? I think that’s all the defense that is needed and I believe I have made that point in every post here. I don’t see why people are only willing to go half way on this issue — let’s be done and over with this. Maybe you can explain the case against it.

      But since we are ultimately bound to legalize all and any sort of marriage contact (again, make the case for NOT doing so), I propose that the government REQUIRE a marriage contract for any and all parties that choose to live together. The case can definitely be made that cohabitation without a contract is unclear and messy if the parties dissolve their relationship(s): property, income, and children. In the same way that government now mandates that all individuals must buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government might as well require marriage contracts as a matter of law.

  7. FMSN,

    Yes, you do need to provide more justification for your position because same sex marriage and polygamous marriage are not the same. You have defended no points and you have offered rationale for nothing. With all due respect, it is you who posed the idea that same-sex marriage be treated in the same way as polygamous marriage.

    I didn’t see any specific objection to that notion in this thread, which would indicate to me that you’ve been given an opportunity to make your case for why polyfidelitous marriages should be included under the banner of “equality for all.” To simply posit, as you do, that there is equivalence between them is wrong. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to defend why they should be treated equally.

    I’ve taken your request quite seriously, but apparently, you don’t even take yourself seriously. You seem to know nothing at all about polygamous marriages and therefore you’re jabbering out of sheer ignorance. I haven’t voluminous knowledge on the issues surrounding polygamous marriage, yet there are list of matters I think should come under discussion if we were to take you seriously (for that matter if you are serious about standing by your own request):

    First. Precedent. The Supreme Court does not view the marriages in question in the same way. So, FMSN, you’ll have to answer to this if you wish to be taken seriously.

    Second. Family Law and taxation isn’t currently structured to accommodate multi-partner marriages. I’ve attempted to open the dialogue on this subject; I have offered some solutions. I think there is room for serious discussion in revamping Family Law so it is comprehensive and consistent throughout each state. My own view would be to allow polygamous marriage legal sanction by incorporating into the legal code under which every other family in the United States must abide. Equal Treatment. So, FMSN, you’ll have to answer to this if you wish to be taken seriously.

    Third. Bigamy laws are not the only laws pertaining to polygamous communities. Among the issues raised in polygamous arrangements are: domestic violence, child abuse, incest, child rape, statutory rape, forcible dominance, and fraud: marriage to a child prior to age of consent for purposes of collecting multiple forms of public assistance. So, you’ll have to speak to these in the context of polygamous arrangements if you wish to be taken seriously.

    Obviously, I’ve highlighted very little here given the scope of polyfidelitous marriages. But I think the issues raised here should be enough to discuss.

    So, in order to accommodate your opinion, that equal treatment should be given to polygamous marriage, you’ll need to provide an answer to these questions:
    Do you support legalizing child rape?
    Do you support legalizing incest?
    Do you support legalizing welfare fraud?
    Do you support legalizing child abuse?
    Do you support legalizing domestic violence?

    So, my answer to you, FMSN would be no. We do not need to include polygamous marriage under the banner of equality for all – but we could – if we, as a society chose to confront the issues surrounding it. Legalizing polygamous marriage “as is” would just be irresponsible. Is that what you are proposing?

    As to your mandated marriage contract, you’ll need to provide a defense for that too. But since you haven’t provided any defense for your first proposal regarding polygamous marriage, there isn’t any need to discuss your second. One issue at at time. I think sorting through your opinions on polygamous marriage, incest, child rape, welfare fraud etc…. will lend more heft and weight to your second proposal. So let’s get to the nitty gritty of your first proposal shall we?

    1. Hi PJ, I am sorry if I am talking past your point but I do not see why more justification is necessary. After all, the only justification for gay marriage is two people who love each other should have equal protection under the law. You say same sex marriage and polygamous marriage are not the same. Why not? I see no difference in that the state is denying people (in one case, multiple people) the same right to marriage. The fact that you do not see all kinds of love as equal could be considered as bigoted by many who read this blog.

      You bring up Supreme Court precedence. Is that your justification to uphold bigotry against sanctioning polygamy?

      To your second point, that our laws aren’t structured to accommodate multi-partner marriages, to that I say so what. Laws must have (and have been) changed all the time to reflect the recognition of civil rights.

      Your third point reflects more bias to polygamy. Domestic violence, child abuse, incest, child rape, statutory rape, etc. are certainly not limited to polygamy situations. It is reminiscent of years ago when many called homosexuality deviant, mental disease, and perverted and used the fringe Man-Boy Love Association to defend those statements. Certainly I don’t condone legalizing incest or domestic violence. The fact that you would pose those questions are ridiculous and, in the context of polygamy, highly offensive. As I have pointed out before, any polygamous marriage would need to operate under the same laws as everyone else. No crimes need be condoned in the granting of multi-partner rights.

      To not include polygamy, universal first-cousin marriage, or a universal age of consent is hypocritical in the debate of same sex marriage. If we are going to expand the definition of marriage, let’s be done and over with it and grant it to EVERYONE who loves each other so we don’t have to go through another upheaval in a few years. (The fact that you defended a universal age of consent to be 21 is particularly interesting in light of the recent court decision granting the morning after pill to anyone of any age. Where do you come down on that?)

  8. FMSN,

    Yes, you are talking past and completely missing my point. Perhaps I can make myself more clear. I’m not necessarily agreeing with the Supreme Court’s differential treatment of same-sex marriage and polygamous marriage, I’m saying it is something one must attend to if one is trying to argue that differing marriages should be treated in exactly the same way. One must address the “why” of the matter.

    How do polygamous marriage and same-sex marriage differ? I should think one painfully obvious answer is that the latter involves a coupling arrangement (two people), the former involves multiple partners. The dynamics are, therefore, inherently different. I tried to speak to that in my earlier comments. Questions of equality are at issue. For example, in a polygynous marriage are the wives ranked? If so, then we’re talking about legalizing inequality and that would stand in contrast to every principle of equal rights. As I tried to point out earlier, bigamy laws are not the only laws that pertain to polygamous marriages. For those reasons same-sex marriages and polygamous marriages differ. Obviously, tax law will need to be seriously overhauled to accommodate multi-partner marriage. Probably not an easy thing to do, but inevitable debates surrounding it would probably be a good thing to have. The structure of tax law doesn’t need to be changed when considering same-sex marriage. It’s simply a matter of allowing for same-sex marriage within existing tax law. Very different things.

    You may want to re-read my comments. I never indicated that I didn’t think polygamous love was any less equal. If you re-read, you will find that I have, in fact, argued in favor of it if the issues surrounding it are addressed. You may want to re-read my comments because I have articulated an openness for restructuring family law to accommodate multi-partner marriages. This is a matter you must attend to if you are arguing for legalizing polygamy. I offered solutions in that context to which you scoffed at. If you have other ideas, please do offer them.

    I haven’t expressed any bias toward polygamy. I brought up issues that are existent in documented prosecutions. If you are going to argue a case for polygamy, you must address these issues. It is not ridiculous for me to bring up these matters because these are issues that pertain to some forms of polygamous marriage. If you just say “legalize polygamous marriage” you’re legalizing a suite of items in one setting while those same items are illegal in another. For that reason, I argued in previous comments for comprehensive family law that would accommodate multi-partner marriages.

    FMSN, I’m not sure where you’re coming from. I DID propose federal age of consent as part of comprehensive family law. You dismissed that idea when I posed it earlier. I DID advocate rethinking our laws so that they might accommodate polygamy. You dismissed that idea when I posed it earlier. You think it’s a good idea to expand the idea of marriage so it needn’t be revisited later. I agree. I don’t think the issue will go away by leaving it up to the states to decide. I don’t think the states are the best place to secure rights and a disjointed structure naturally means an increased number of legal challenges… state by state by state….

    As you may probably guess, I advocate for a general revision of federalism that looks at both the origins of our government’s design and our needs in the 21st Century. Honestly, I don’t think that’s so radical. I think it’s the sensible thing to do. Comprehensive family law would seem to me a sensible move in that direction – for the reasons you state. Equality.

    The morning after pill? I haven’t yet read about the decision so I can’t adequately speak to it. That said, I suppose I’d agree with it. I don’t see where age of consent necessarily applies. Again, I can’t weigh in without looking into the matter more closely.

    1. I think we might both be on closer to the same point that either of us think lol.

      However, I did a bit of re-reading and a couple of your points seem to conflict. You say “So, my answer to you, FMSN would be no. We do not need to include polygamous marriage under the banner of equality for all – but we could – if we, as a society chose to confront the issues surrounding it.”

      Then later you say ” I never indicated that I didn’t think polygamous love was any less equal.”

      If you do not believe polygamy is any less equal then you would realize that we DO need to include it under the banner of equality for all. We can’t choose some and leave out others. In some states you can marry your first cousin but not in other states. If you advocate federalizing marriage then you MUST include that practice as well. To prohibit it federally would eliminate a current right that some have and we cannot have that.

      You should check out the morning after pill story. A federal judge ruled that it must be available to everyone over the counter, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger (as the Obama administration wanted). I would hope you wound not agree with that. It’s laughable that you would not support anyone getting married under the age of 21, but would allow a 13 year old girl to buy that pill on her own. I mean, that’s even under the age of sexual consent. We don’t allow kids that age to pierce their ears, get a tattoo, or go on a field trip without parental consent! We wouldn’t even allow them to buy a large size soda for a time. This world is just too funny sometimes!

      Have a good one and thanks for the discussion, good sir.

  9. I don’t quite see how my statements conflict, but I will ponder them further. I never indicated that I think polygamous love is any less equal than other kinds of love relationships. At the same time, simply legalizing polygamous marriage “as is” is untenable. If matters such as protecting the rights of children, reworking the tax code and re-envisioning family law are adequately sorted through via societal consensus then yes, we can include it under the banner of equality for all. Under those circumstances I would agree with you 100% – polygamous marriage must be included.

    I do think the specifics are a matter for society to decide. I’m not suggesting society dictate to, or decide for, polygamous marriage adherents how to live their lives, but to come to mutual agreement. For instance, on the matter of incest – I’ve encountered the suggestion that to accommodate sibling marriage sibling-spouses could undergo voluntary sterilization. I must admit, the idea leaves me a bit conflicted, at the same time, I can’t find any rational objection to that sort of compromise. First cousins? The practice was pretty routine and uncontroversial all the way through the 18th Century. Not quite sure where I’d stand on it. I guess I’d have to hear the pros and cons. I’m fairly ignorant of the genetic concerns that might pertain to first cousins – in the same way genetic concerns apply to siblings. Again, I should think that matter would be best covered in comprehensive family law – where every individual had an opportunity to vote on the matter at the national level.

    I think you are right – we are probably more in agreement than not on these matters. Where we may differ: I don’t hold to the idea that society (subsequently our legal code) is obligated to embrace absolutely anything or everything for all time. Nor do I agree that we shouldn’t enact laws on the basis that rights might be altered. That will always be the case when negotiating the pros and cons of every law regardless of the level of government. Given our patchwork legal code comprised of 50 states, there most definitely will be alterations to rights. Some individuals will gain relatively more and some individuals will lose relatively more in the short term. However, if those issues are debated and decided at the congressional level, then they are items of societal consensus. Every individual in the country will have a voice in national legislation. But, I do understand where you’re coming from with people losing rights. Personally, I guess, for me, I’d be willing to shuffle my rights around a bit if it means my fellow Americans might gain more rights than they have now. Or if it means posterity would gain from me changing my stance or my ways. That’s on the theoretical level, of course. 🙂

    And thank you for the discussion too.

Comments are closed.