The Most Dangerous People In America
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Elections, Legislation, Sexuality
The Republicans have found their issue for the fall, and it is gay marriage. Why? Because gays are dangerous and they must be stopped at all costs. They want the same rights that the rest of us have, and that’s why our President says he strongly supports an amendment to ban same sex marriage.
But lest you think we’re only talking about gay marriage, remember…this is really just about religion…
WASHINGTON — President Bush on Saturday backed a resolution to amend the Constitution to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, although the idea has little chance of being passed in the Senate.”Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,” Bush said Saturday.
”Marriage cannot be cut off from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening this good influence on society.”
Natural roots? Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t there been homosexuality since the emergence of homo sapiens? Also, and more importantly, does it bother anybody here that the most powerful man in the world is using the inclusion of bigotry into the constitution to secure his political capital this fall? Unheard of? Probably not, but I can’t remember the last time such a transparently political move has been made, and against our constitution no less.
But hey, I understand. This is all Bush has left. He can’t use his leadership in domestic affairs, because that has been uninspired at best. And he certainly can’t use his foreign policy record, because that has been incompetent at best. The only thing he has left to use is a group of people who still suffer the type of bigotry and hatred in some corners of our country that few of us can understand.
Now will this work? Well, seven states are going to be voting this November on a same-sex marriage ban, so it could very well be a hot topic for the Sunday best crowd. And I’m sure all of you are well aware that this particular segment of the population always comes out to vote for their values. Always. The same will be true in November because they’ll feel it’s a sin if they don’t.
Long live the politics of division.
This entry was posted on Sunday, June 4th, 2006 and is filed under Elections, Legislation, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 4th, 2006 at 11:45 am
There’s been homosexuality since long before the emergence of homo [sic!] sapiens.
I wonder what the Log Cabin Republicans are saying. Here’s what:
June 4th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
The Log Cabin Republicans have it right. This isn’t conservative. It has nothing to do with “limited government.”
What amazes me is these same people who push this crap are the ones who love quoting man’s unalienable rights in Declaration of Independence but have no problem taking those rights away when it doesn’t square with their world view.
And regarding Federalism…I’m not sure I believe in it anymore when the people who praise its virtue want to use the states instead to “stamp out” those unalienable rights.
I’m hoping there will be a huge revolt in the GOP against the Religious Right. And I’m not anti-religion…I just don’t want government to be my spiritual guide.
Oh and BTW, I’m not gay and maybe just a little homophobic. :) And becoming a RINO (queue the Apple switch music–not to Dem tough).
June 4th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Yes. This is what me and my fellow Dems have saying for quite some time, but it’s fallen on deaf ears, especially post 9/11. This type of extremism can’t stand, and I sincerely hope the American people feel the same way come November.
June 4th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
“Long live the politics of division…. you evil homophobic backwards bigots”.
Right. So, Justin, what precisely IS their argument for government benefits. So far all I’ve heard is a lot of noise about how anyone who dares oppose gay marriage is a backwards homophobic bigot. This accomplishes two things for the pro-gay marriage crowd: One, it delegitimizes anyone who argues against their cause on a moral basis. and Two: Because they are considered morally inferior, you can ignore their arguments. It also amazes me that every gay activist is also a psychiatrist who can diagnose phobias in people they have never given an examination too. Just another quirk of the pro-gay movement.
Yes, there was homosexuality since the emergence of homo sapiens. They died out, obviously, because there was no invitro fertilization or sperm banks. Hey, dogs hump everything in sight, does that make dog-chair or dog-fire hydrant love natural? The existence of something does not signal its legitimacy or sanction. And please, feel free to call me a bigot for daring to wonder what help society gets by giving government benefits to a very tiny cross-section of an already small minority.
We’re not talking about denying people the right to breathe, own property, or protection from assault, what we’re asking is for a coherent, logical argument for why we should dole out benefits that have nothing to do with inalienable rights. Gays can already get married in some denominations, its the government benefits they are after, and for that they need to formulate an argument for why those benefits are neccesary vs the impact they have on society, namely the normalization of deviant behavior. Can you choose to be gay or straight? People are leaning towards no. Can you choose to act on your fantasies? Always.
Should the President be using an Amendment to the constitution for political power? No. Is everyone who dare opposes government benefits for a tiny cross-section of the population when they have not made an argument for why it is a societal good automatically evil homophobic bigots? No.
Please Justin, don’t go on a diatribe claiming bigotry and hatred against a group of people just because they don’t support your pet cause and then complain about “politics of division”, you’re above that nonsense.
June 4th, 2006 at 6:28 pm
There are two ways to approach this:
1. as a Big Question issue about how society ought to work
2. as a political tactic in the next few elections.
Discussions of 2. on blogs quickly tend to blow up into discussions of 1 (see thread above). Which is a shame, because 2. deserves its own discussion.
Gay Orbit, a RINO site, calls it the “We Got Nuthin” strategy, and thinks it will flop.
June 4th, 2006 at 11:18 pm
That is a fantastic picture, showing a true expression of love between two old lesbians. And the woman to the far left…I have no doubt those are tears of sincere joy. What exactly are we looking at? I mean, is that a wedding or civil union or what? I’m just curious.
I don’t like the idea of a constitutional amendment defining marriage. It leaves a nasty taste in my mouth…(aaahhhh). But, the gay movement has given the ammunition to Bush. If there wasn’t a concerted effort to “find” a constitutional right to gay marriage, there wouldn’t be a concerted effort to pre-empt the discovery of one. Bush may be exploiting the issue, but this amendment didn’t form in vacume — it is the direct political result of the Lawrence case.
So Justin, before you get to moral on your big broken back moral horse, please don’t think that the “politics of division” was somehow formulated out of the blue by the politically clever Bush Co.. You may come to THANK Bush years from now when a more liberal SCOTUS uses the failure of this amendment as “evidence” of national consensus that gay marriage deserves equal recognition as normal man-wife marriage.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:06 am
Opposing gay marriage it is not bigoted. Trying to put it into the Constitution certainly seems like it is.
June 5th, 2006 at 4:25 am
I’ll go out on a limb and say opposing gay marriage IS bigoted, especially if the reasoning is a “moral” one.
It may be divisive to use those words, but its the harsh reality.
Calling pro-segragationists bigots may have been offensive, but it was also the reality. Were the pro-slavery people bigots? Hell yeah. But I’m sure they would have taken offense at the language too.
I have yet to hear an argument as to how legalizing gay marriage would harm a family. There is no evidence to back up such a notion.
So to claim that you oppose gay marriage on “moral grounds” really has about as much basis as opposing mixed race marriages on “moral grounds”, and the last time the government tried to control who could and couldn’t get married. Were the good spirited Christian people who opposed that bigots? Hell yeah.
This has nothing to do with “morals” unless “morals” are synonymous with arrogance.
June 5th, 2006 at 7:53 am
[...] Donklephant.com reveals the roots of understanding have shifted from a Creator to Evolutionary thinking. Natural roots? Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t there been homosexuality since the emergence of homo sapiens? [...]
June 5th, 2006 at 8:12 am
I’m glad to see that Unity08–the movement for a bipartisan ticket in 2008–is deprecating the “values issues.” This certainly does NOT belong in the Constitution, and I do agree there are much more critical issues to worry about. Stop the pandering.
June 5th, 2006 at 8:29 am
First off, this seems like a blatant attempt by Bush and Frist to play to the religious right and divide the nation. Why is it that this topic only emerges as a priority during election years? Because these guys don’t really care about acting on it, they just like to use it to try to win elections. One of these election cycles, hopefully sooner rather than later, this use of wedge issues that the politicians in question really don’t care about except as ways to divide the nation and gain votes will backfire.
As for the question of this topic itself, I for quite some time have questioned why government is at all involved in the business of marriage. Why not leave marriage to the church and leave governments to use civil unions as the way to grant the legal rights that are currently granted through marriage? Marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental institution. Let the church decide who has the right to get married based on what the Bible says. States can then focus on granting certain legal rights to any two consenting adults as a legal contract, not a half religious, half legal contract. In my mind, letting states handle marriage is a gross violation of the separation of church and state.
A generation ago, I wouldn’t have been allowed to marry my wife because I was in a slim minority of “social deviants” who loved someone who happened to have a different skin color than mine. Thank God people have become more accepting of interracial relationships. I know there seems to be a world of difference between interracial relationships and homosexual relationships but, when I look back at what people like my wife and I have had to go through in the past, I can’t help but see the parallels.
June 5th, 2006 at 10:38 am
There are certainly parallels, but those who oppose same sex marriage will always fall back on the “choice” aspect. And to be fair, I think that the GLBT community needs to use the “born like this” meme sparingly. However, at the end of the day, what we’re talking about are human rights. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It shouldn’t matter what the Bible says about homosexuality. It should only matter that two people of the appropriate age are wanting to form a union.
And to David’s point, I think it’s absolutely insulting that right-wingers have suggested same sex marriage threatens the sanctity of marriage. How about the sky high divorce rates among evangelicals? In my mind, the only threat to the sanctity of marriage are those who refuse to allow it to evolve. But they’ve never been fans of evolution anyway so it’s no real surprise.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:39 am
I do not support the proposed constitutional amendment for a number of reasons. I despise the way in which the issue of gay marriage is being used, on both sides, as political fodder. It seems to me that that many people on both sides, in terms of the debate, frequently display remarkable disingenuousness.
so it could very well be a hot topic for the Sunday best crowd
I don’t want to let that swipe pass. Justin, you undercut yourself when you insist on throwing in little statements like this.
Try formulating a similar statement that dismissively whacks at other crowds and see if you think it’s OK. You keep saying you respect people of faith, but then you whip out little phrases like that, I believe unthinkingly and probably unintentionally, that ooze condescension. Assuming that that, indeed, is not your attitude or intention, perhaps you might wish to reconsider such toss-off phrasing.
June 5th, 2006 at 11:44 am
And I, too, believe that the Log Cabin Republicans have it exactly right about the amendment.
June 5th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
“How about the sky high divorce rates among evangelicals?” Among “evangelicals”? Really? I haven’t heard this.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Cheap political tricks are not new to the Republican party. This is just another piece of evidence that this current admistration is more interested in right wing ideology and pandering not governing.
June 5th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Here are two stories about it. One, two.
June 5th, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Interesting. I believe there is compeling evidence that the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands has increased about 2% per year since they passed their same-sex marriage act. Is there a connection? I have not the foggiest clue.
Causational arguments on the battlefield of the culture wars is hard, if not impossible to prove empirically, because it is almost impossible to find an ideal control group in reality to test the hypothesis against.
I don’t agree with those who reflexively attribute a negative effect with same-sex marriage on the family, culture and society. Likewise, I am weary of those that confidently declare there will be NO effect, period, end of story. It is because I don’t know that I caution against drastic measures either way.
June 6th, 2006 at 2:06 am
I was hoping someone would call out on the “Sunday best crowd.” I’m not one of them, but I respect a lot of people who go to church. In fact, “Sunday best” in my neighborhood means the AME church (and they do Sunday like nobody’s business). If you didn’t mean them, try applying the slur with a narrower brush next time.
June 6th, 2006 at 2:38 am
The Evangelical movement is firmly behind this amendment and was key in securing its inclusion in Bush’s domestic agenda. And pointing out that there higher than average divorce rate is certainly ironic, don’t you think? Imagine what those divorce numbers would be if people of the same sex were able to get married. In the 80% range I bet. “Honey, I can’t stay married to you. Once those gays started getting married, I just don’t respect the institution anymore.”
Listen, this is about good people. But good people make mistakes too, as history has shown us time and time again. And in particular, we’ve been show how organized religion’s attempts to control social progress has eventually been thwarted every single time. As if there’s only one way to have a relationship when nature itself suggests a myriad. And as I type that, my mind sees a near future (absolutely in my lifetime) where millions of same sex couples are happily living in this country raising children. Oh wait, that’s happening now. It’s just in the future, they won’t be second class citizens anymore.
And I think this piece of a previous comment bears repeating…
Say what you will, but this is no slur.
June 6th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I may favor letting marriage be broader in definition, but don’t say “refuse to allow it to evolve”. Evolution does not necessarily mean change, and even if it does, it could mean change in any number of directions, not just the one you want. This country could move toward a more restricted definition of marriage, and the same argument could be made that you weren’t “letting it evolve”. Don’t wrap yourself in that flag.
June 6th, 2006 at 11:21 am
I know that homosexuals have not been enslaved like african-americans were, and I know that they have not been denied the right to vote, and no, I’m not claiming that they are the same, BUT, I would have thought this country would have learned something about equal rights for all human beings after all that happened.
In this country, we used to treat both african-americans (and other minorities) and women as if they were not worth the same as white men. Now, we know (i guess) that differences in skin color and gender do not make people worth any more or any less.
I know that this next one is a bit of a curve ball, but try to guess whether people with a different sexual orientation have just as much worth as other human beings.
Since the answer is yes, a homosexual counts for one whole person, just like everyone else, we should allow them to have the same rights as everyone else has. It’s just that simple. It’s really embarassing that this administration is encouraging and promoting a rebirth of discrimination, especially when they are singling out one minority in this country. And really, what have the homosexuals done to anyone? If you think they’re going to hell, then let them go or pray for them, or, mind your own business for god’s sake.
One more thing: Whether you “legalize” gay marriage or you “ban” it, men and women are going to live with, have sex with, and have kids with, members of the same sex. I think all this talk about not wanting to legitimize this because it will hurt the institution of marriage is just a bullshit screen. Whenever the extreme right wants to stop someone or something they try to criminalize it, and if and when that fails, what’s next? Pull the funding/benefits. “I guess we can’t stop you from riding on the bus, but you’re going to have to sit in the back next to the fat, sweaty guy, and you’re not eligible to receive any of our special package deals.”
June 6th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Dos,
I believe there is compeling evidence that the out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands has increased about 2% per year since they passed their same-sex marriage act. Is there a connection?
Nope. That particular argument got spread around, notably by Stanley Kurtz, but he twisted the study’s findings significantly.
To follow up on Cal’s point, the political subtext of Bush’s choice is interesting. Democrats have been nervous for a while now that Bush would launch air strikes on Iran and use this as a wedge issue. But as it turns out, air strikes just don’t look very feasible – or prudent – at this point. So without the possibility of running on national security again, the Republicans are left to this pathetic number.
I’ll give Bush credit, though, for putting prudence with Iran above political gain at this point.
June 6th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Exactly. Tom, I don’t believe this is the same as saying there is not a connection — it is saying exactly what is says – “the data reveals no causal connection.” I couldn’t agree more, but I would suggest that an enormous amount of data would do no better. Scientifically, the problem is not with a lack of data — there is enough data out there to “prove” (falsly) anything some fraud huskster wants to try to pawn off to fulfill a political agenda.
The problem is that soft-sciences, like sociology, can not provide the objectivism to make definitive statements of truth like: Gay Mariage = Increase in Out-of-Wedlock Births. However, despite the inherent lack of objectivity, it would be idiotic to say: Gay Marriage = No Change to the Culture/Social Status Quo.
How might gay marriage effect heterosexual marriage: Very easily. If my marriage is legally equivalent to a gay marriage, I might chose to simply not get married, because rightly or wrongly, marriage as a legal contract, at least, has lost some of its positive utility. Look, I’m not saying it would be a good thing or a bad thing, BUT whenever you increase the supply of something (in this case marriage), the price (a reflection of value) goes down. Gay-marriage in the purely economic sence will lower the value of marriage.
June 6th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
A quick example along the same lines:
No-Fault Divorce. The legal inception of No-Fault divorce had the effect of making the marriage contract less valuable, because it became exceding easy to get out of the contract. Think about what would happen if there was: no-fault construction contracting. There would hardly ever be a building ever completed. The contract would be worthless.
Now there is intensely strong evidence showing a correlation between the inception of no-fault divorce and the rate of divorce, but because as I’ve stated before, I won’t make a definitive causational argument that NF divorce caused the increase in divorce — for all I know, it could have something to do with global warming.
June 7th, 2006 at 12:12 am
I have been visiting centrist types Websites for the last several days, and am surprised how pro gay marriage they are. The common attitude with some exceptions seems to be that only the ignorant, stupid or bigoted could possibly be against gay marriage This is dished out from a perch of self-righteous superiority combined with an air of contempt and condescension towards the masses.
Forty-five states have enacted either laws or constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage, most in response to the Lawrence decision, or in reaction to the 4-3 judicial decision in Massachusetts that required the enactment of laws to institute gay marriage. There will never be a centrist victory that does not include social conservatives in its coalition and respect their views. Millions of faithful Catholics and conservative Protestants who hold traditional views of morality should not be written off. A true centrist party would concentrate on the economic and foreign policy issues of this country with a laser-like focus and not take a stance on the social issues in its platform, leaving each member of the party to speak out as they wished and to vote their conscience. Such a party would have members with diverse views, unlike, for instance, the Democratic Party, which did not allow a single pro-life speaker at it last convention.
In visiting the Centrist Coalition site and looking over their favored candidates, most all were graded on their stance toward gay rights. The favored position, of course, was pro-gay rights. After reading it over and over again in each profile, I wondered if being pro-gay rights was some kind of litmus test for being a centrist. In my opinion, being aggressively pro gay marriage is not centrist at all, and if you think so, you are self-deluded and out of touch with the political reality of this country.
June 7th, 2006 at 9:06 am
LJ Westlake, the question to ask is whether centrists are pro-gay marriage or anti-”defense of marriage” Constitutional amendment. From what I’ve seen, there are three types of people. One is the pro-amendment crowd. Another is the anti-amendment crowd, which could be pro-gay marriage or anti-gay marriage but, regardless of that, does not believe the Constitution is the place for such restrictions to be made. The third is the pro-gay marriage crowd.
Personally, I think a lot of “centrist types Websites” fall into the second classification. Some visitors to the sites believe gay marriage should always be legal, some believe it should be left to the states, some believe there should be a federal law defining marriage. However, nearly all believe that the Constitution should not be used to decide this.
As for me, I believe government should not be in the business of marriages anyway. Leave it to the churches to decide who can and can not get married. Then, leave it to the individual states to decide what kind of legal rights two consenting adults can obtain and what qualifications they have to meet to obtain those legal rights. Think of it as churches handling the marriage end for social and religious purposes and states handling civil union type legal contracts for legal purposes. A couple could presumably get married without the legal contracts or get a legal contract without getting married.
June 7th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Dos,
Yes, it remains possible that there is some connection between the increase of babies born to unwed parents and the advent of gay marriage in the Netherlands. But neither causation nor correlation is implied in that data. Kurtz was wrong to suggest that there was.
BUT whenever you increase the supply of something (in this case marriage), the price (a reflection of value) goes down. Gay-marriage in the purely economic sence will lower the value of marriage.
Oh, please. Value is not equivalent to price, and the “value” of marriage cannot be measured by the price of wedding photographers.
By the same thinking, we could “maximize” the “value” of marriage by preventing as many people as possible from getting married. So let’s illegalize marriage. Then the value will skyrocket!
June 7th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
Ryan,
I agree with you that Bush is simply using this issue for political purposes. and as you said in a previous post, it only becomes a priority during an election year. But this issue matters a great deal to millions of people, and even though many realize he is just cynically using the issue, they respond with support. Why? Put yourself in their shoes. If your choice was between those who insincerely supported your values and your positions, and those who were hostile and attacked those values, which would you choose?
I believe you can be a centrist and support a marriage ammendment to the Constitution, because, in my opinion, the contract clause in the Constitution is so clear. States must recognize the contracts formed in other states. Therefore, the 4-3 decision in Massachusetts will eventually become the law of the land through judicial fiat, cancelling out the will of the people expressed in Congress, expressed in those 45 state laws, in all of their legislatures and all of their courts. Not a very centrist outcome, and not a very conservative position, using the term conservative in the best sense of the word.
As to your position that government should get out of the marriage business seperating the civil and legal aspects from the religious aspects, I have heard an increasing drumbeat for that over the last 18 months as part of the discussion about gay marriage legalization. That would simply be part of the complete secularization of our society which I believe is coming. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that you think that would be a good thing. I do not. My intuition is that it would lead to further cultural disintegration. If I had the time, which I do not, I would try to present arguments as to why I think that is so.
Finally, in your original post, both you and Justin Gardner in his reply to you, talk about the right of two consenting adults to form a union. Why just two? On the basis of what do you withhold this right to polygamists? Justin Gardner has framed the question as a matter of human rights; as a matter of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If three or more consenting adults want to form a union, how can you deny them and their definition of happiness. In fact, since presently you have quite a number of polygamists families living off the state, wives 2 thru whatever posing as single mothers, wouldn’t allowing polygamists to marry make sense. That would certainly change the institution of marriage, wouldn’t it.
June 8th, 2006 at 7:42 am
If your choice was between those who insincerely supported your values and your positions, and those who were hostile and attacked those values, which would you choose?
Honestly, I see this as deciding between two enemies, neither of whom supports me but one of whom pretends to support me at times of convenience. I’d rather support the one whose views are made clear or go off to support a third alternative. I’d rather face down the wolf knowing it is a wolf than cozy up with a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
I believe you can be a centrist and support a marriage ammendment to the Constitution, because, in my opinion, the contract clause in the Constitution is so clear. States must recognize the contracts formed in other states. Therefore, the 4-3 decision in Massachusetts will eventually become the law of the land through judicial fiat, cancelling out the will of the people expressed in Congress, expressed in those 45 state laws, in all of their legislatures and all of their courts.
That’s the scare tactic being used by Republicans but I have yet to see a well versed legal position stating that this could or would happen. Until I see a legal expert make a sound statement with support that this could happen, I will continue to view it as a scare tactic.
As to your position that government should get out of the marriage business seperating the civil and legal aspects from the religious aspects, I have heard an increasing drumbeat for that over the last 18 months as part of the discussion about gay marriage legalization. That would simply be part of the complete secularization of our society which I believe is coming. I believe, correct me if I’m wrong, that you think that would be a good thing. I do not. My intuition is that it would lead to further cultural disintegration. If I had the time, which I do not, I would try to present arguments as to why I think that is so.
Honestly, if you have the time, I would love to see those arguments. Why would getting the government out of inherently religious practice be a bad thing? Currently, we have states essentially legislating religious practice. How on Earth is this separation of church and state? Nobody is saying we should devalue marriage, simply that we should leave marriage up to the church and the legal aspects of relationships up to the states. Why would this lead to, as you state, cultural disintegration?
Finally, in your original post, both you and Justin Gardner in his reply to you, talk about the right of two consenting adults to form a union. Why just two? On the basis of what do you withhold this right to polygamists?
I suppose I wouldn’t. I’d leave that up to individual states to decide. I would suspect, though, that at least most states would stick with two. Heck, some states may stick with man and woman. I think that would be a shame but it should be up to them to decide, not up to the federal government and definitely not something that belongs in the Constitution.
June 8th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
What I have yet to hear from a single conservative on this issue is, how exactly Gay Marriage can harm HeteroSexual Marriage. Do you think that if gay marriage is allowed, straight men or women will see the light and become gay? Do you think not inacting a law and in fact passing a constitutional amendment against gay marriage will convince gays to switch back to hetero lovin? And how in the hell, besides Dos’s ludicrous value of marriage example, will permitting gay marriage keep good, straight, conservative, moral, holier than thou, Christian couples from fulfilling their moral objectives and getting married and creating babies? The social conservatives keep throwing out the accusations, but never state legitimate and lucid reasons or facts or concepts to how their accusations could be founded. That just makes me believe that they are using this as a veil for a greater cause in their mind. Kinda like when you’re in an all white area (rich, poor, down south, what have you) people are a lot freer with words they would never say in mixed crowds or in public. So the challenge to the social conservatives is to come out from behind your bullshit veil of bullshit rationale and admit your true agenda.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Westlake,
Your contract clause argument is incorrect. First, you’re talking about the Full Faith and Credit Clause, not the contract clause. Second, I believe all states have the ability to decide that, for public policy reasons, they do not have to honor contracts from other states, if those contracts would be illegal to enter into in their state.
As far as polygamy is concerned, I suppose that should be legal too, but I can see regulating that some, to make sure that it’s not a situation where young girls are being exploited by disgusting old men.