Comments on: Huh? Uh…wha…?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 20:14:00 +0000

I think it is due to those years he was trapped on that island.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:07:00 +0000

Maurey is now doing mostly the paternity tests…I'm not the babee daddy.
Derrick

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 16:00:00 +0000

There's a difference between saying a culture may not resist an idea and saying there is not much of a rationale for or against the same idea.
The latter is saying there is not much of an argument to be made. The Supreme Court (at least, the SC before Roberts and Alito joined it) has opined that there is no rational basis for a state to restrict sexual activity (which is to say that such restrictions are literally irrational).
But the SC is not the final word in our system, and its rulings on this matter, if taken seriously, are unbelievably radical precisely because they would overturn centuries of law, tradition, and common practice regarding the cultural/legal institution of marriage.
But I wouldn't want to misunderstand you Bill, on this matter. In saying there's not much rationale in our law, are you agreeing with the SC in Lawrence that all arguments for a traditional understanding of marriage are in themselves irrational? That there are no valid reasons for people to think that marriage should be just between a man and a woman?
This would seem to be out of character for you insofar as it would have to rely on some very strong argumentative conclusions that leave little room for the validity of alternative perspectives.
If it's an empirical legal observation (i.e. our actual laws and legal tradition don't offer rationales against polygamy and homosexuality), then I'd have to disagree just as to what the facts are. Lincoln's party was founded in the late 1850s with an express purpose to fight the “twin barbarisms of polygamy and slavery.” Many of those rationales are still reflected in state and federal law, though as we've all agreed, that may not last long.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:48:00 +0000

First the DaVinci Code now this . . .

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:40:00 +0000

Maury Povich?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:24:00 +0000

Plus, I don't think most of the guys would be sad about this from a “natural” perspective. They would get to have more s– (lol- sorry, I couldn't help myself).
And since many of the issues associated with “freedom” and “finding youself” seem to have to do with “how I can have more sex without serious consecuence (abortion, homosexuality, free love, no fault divorce, Maury Povich…), the “guys would really enjoy this setup.
Oh, wife #1's not in the mood? Well, that's to bad for you…wife #2?…Maybe later, ok…wife #3?…oh yeah (play romantic music, dim the lights) Wife 1 and 2, better luck next time.
I do agree that it is simply a matter of time before we see it more and more. There is no reason for us to “discriminate” against these folks because as others have said here, the same arguments used for same -sex marriage can be used here. Then watch out for the poor child and animal molester…No reason to stop with only the homosexual and multiple wives.
Keeping it real,
Derrick
bright-idea.blogspot.com

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 15:16:00 +0000

It also doesn't surprise me that we would allow polygamy. There doesn't seem to be much in our current rationale of state and law to support prohibiting it. You may remember my comments about a biblical response to polygamy in this coversation a while ago.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:58:00 +0000

Exactly. It doesn't really matter that there may not be much support for it. What's crucial is that there will be little resistance against it. And the legal path in the courts is already laid out.
The Supreme Court's reasoning in Lawrence v. Texas, striking down sodomy laws, applies to polygamy even more than it does to gay marriage. Polygamists' legal groups have already filed cases on the basis of Lawrence. Legally, they have a strong case. And don't believe that just because Kennedy said this had nothing to do with marriage (in Lawrence), that this will continue to be the case.
In the case that struck down laws against contraception (Griswold v. CT), the Court's rationale was that the state had no business regulating the sacred confines of the marriage bed. Marriage was the important value to be protected. Within a few years the marriage rationale was forgotten and Griswold made contraceptives a constitutional right (and then gave us Roe).
Once marriage is seen as purely a creation of the state (and we are well on our way), polygamy will be next. This is not alarmist; barring a seachange it will happen.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 07:25:00 +0000

"I doubt there is much if any public sentiment supporting polygamy." Bill, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case in Canada (see here). It's actually the natural result of following the principles set forth by those who are now arguing for the redefinition of marriage. Following their logic, there's no principled argument against it. Judges are picking up on this in Canada. I don't see why we shouldn't see more support here soon, as well--especially if this is "the next cool thing on TV" (as Time said) and people get used to the idea. It's just a silly taboo we have, right? Marriage is what we decide, right? They're just like anyone else, so why do they have to hide? Why are we oppressing them? Those are difficult questions to answer, and not many people will try. Nobody wants to sound like a mean oppressor. Nobody.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 06:57:00 +0000

Whoa…whoa! The producer is Tom Hanks? TOM HANKS?