Before you leave to tell people to thank God for the California fires, you should note that many of us opposed the California Supreme Court ruling [endorsing fag "marriage"]. The Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles had issued a statement condemning same-sex marriage in the strongest words. I can provide you a link to their statement if you like.

We will work to amend the constitution to conform the legal definition of marriage to God’s Law, just as we will work to do good and oppose other evils. [Ed: Yes - and just as effectively, too. These people are clueless … hello, is this thing on?! It’s WAY too little, WAY too late for your milquetoast and ineffectual hand-wringing-while-you-tip-toe-to-not-offend-any-poor-little-pervert routine. You’ve not gotten this picture clear: God is looking at each of you, and seeing each of your evil hearts, thoughts and deeds … and he’s raging mad at each of you. Every day, every day, every day you’re seeing the siege strengthen and further choke you. Congratulations - you’ve made company with every kind of sin and filth - and now you’ve nothing to look forward to except absolute certain destruction and everlasting punishment. And for those of us right here looking you in the eye as you INTENTIONALLY and MALICIOUSLY rebel against your Creator: That’s pure goodness! :p]

Michael Ejercito

Greetings, liar -

You condemn yourself with your phony words of pretence. WHERE are you to stand in the gap and make up the hedge for the Lord your God?!? PICK ME – I KNOW – you are hiding with the rest of the fearful and unbelieving that will also find themselves in HELL!

First – the Catholic Pedophile machine is not really your most credible spokesman for anything on morality!

Second – what did YOU do? You will stand before God on your own two feet – there will be no pedophiles standing with you to protect your or run interference for you.

So – how about you shut your mouth and OBEY YOUR GOD! The nerve of you writing us to run your contentious mouth while you have all these years sat quietly on your dead arse while the fags took over this nation lock, stock and barrel! YIKES! How much does God hate you? 88| YIKES!

Meanwhile – we will THANK GOD FOR THE CALIFORNIA FIRES and we will pray for more! :yes:

Just remember that God is the Final Arbiter, not the state of California.

Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/19/2008 @ 5:57 pm

That’s ok. We’re not inviting God to the ceremony.

For that practice (Polygamy) to effectively take hold in the US, there would need be a corresponding limit to the recourse sought out by the poly (the wives) in the arrangement. I don’t think that would come to pass, due to equal protection.

Polygamy, as it’s practiced, requires women to be second class citizens to men, as is the case in Saudi Arabia. That would not be a private act. I go on to explain, and you go on to confuse, in your #70 – This is based on two faulty assumptions.

The second assumption is that women who enter into polygamous marriages are unavailable forever. Given the nation’s divorce rate, there would be significant turnover in polygamous wives.

Again, you ignore my full comment. Please re-read:

Otherwise, with litigation at the levels of this country, a wealthy man would be eaten alive by his wives as they divorced him one by one and took off with the fortune.

Similar to what I said regarding the identical twins, there’s really no law against multiple women living with one man – it’s just not recognized as marriage. I don’t know of any legal restrictions currently in place preventing a group of women from writing a contract with a wealthy man whereby they make certain promises of time spent in return for monetary compensation, as long as there’s no sale of sex.

Wealthy men have several “girlfriends” sometimes, but that’s not really a disadvantage to the men. The disadvantage is the lack of recourse for the women upon being dumped.

In order for Polygamy to take hold in the US, there would need to be a State recognized reduction in the rights of women. As I said, there is nothing keeping multiple women from living with one man right now. The difference is in the equal rights of women. When women have a say and are treated as legal equals, it becomes rare and transient.

What I have never understood about this whole controversy is why no-one ever refers to Mr. Ehrenstein (for example) and his husband.

Well, I suppose conservatives don’t because “it’s not and can’t ever be marriage” and “partnership” is okay (albeit clunky) as a substitute.

But those who agree with Patterico and Volokh and all the rest who want Ehrenstein and his boyfriend of 37 years (now husband) to be able to marry, why don’t they use the word?

Unless they don’t think it’s “really” marriage either? Or…? One would have expected them to have claim the term for their own right from the start…

My partner of 7 years and I plan to wed in October, but it’s the above that makes the whole thing seem somewhat futile to me.

Just remember that God is the Final Arbiter, not the state of California.

As to polygamy, currently practiced in a larger part of the world, the correlation between commerce, status and multiple wives is evident in its actual practice. It is worth noting that polygamy is recognized only in areas where there is no equal-protection. In this instance, the acquisition of many wives is concurrent with the acquisition of wealth and status. The wives are property, cheating them of equal protection in the relationship. If they cannot bear children, their function, along with their worth, is diminished. What’s more, the removal of many women from the matrimonial pool for one man deprives men of lesser means the opportunity to marry, while simultaneously shrinking the gene pool of the offspring.

This is based on two faulty assumptions.

The first assumption is that women would refuse to live with a married man if the state refused to recognize that relationship as a marriage. Clearly, married men and women do take mistresses.

The second assumption is that women who enter into polygamous marriages are unavailable forever. Given the nation’s divorce rate, there would be significant turnover in polygamous wives.

I actually did state a Constitutional reason to restrict Polygamy – and that is equal protection. Polygamy, as it’s practiced, is primarily a business decision, ensuring a multiplication of the power and connections of the man taking multiple wives. (See Saudi Princes)

Equal protection only places restrictions on public acts, not private acts.

Lest you think this is an exaggeration, our family was made subject to this when my folks split. And this was in enlightened California, not some Bible-belt backwater.

Good.

Divorcees should be shunned by those who have not been divorced.

- L.N. Smithee

… I can’t. Thought about it, and I can’t. There are the economic issues raised by Apogee in re: polygamy, but the incestuous relationship analogy is airtight, as far as I can tell – two adults prohibited from marrying one another by society, in both cases.

For what it’s worth, the child marriage argument (to which I originally objected) remains invalid due to the necessity of consent. But I see your point. I was trying to reason around your examples on equal protection grounds and I couldn’t do it.

Also, I don’t really “applaud” this decision (if you’ll notice comment number #61). I don’t think the government should have its fingers in the institution of marriage.

Comment by Levi — 6/19/2008 @ 10:14 am

OK.