Glory be!
One of my favorite sparring partners (oh how I wish she would post more regularly, but suspect this is the pot calling the kettle black) has written something with which I am in complete concurrence.
Glory be!
One of my favorite sparring partners (oh how I wish she would post more regularly, but suspect this is the pot calling the kettle black) has written something with which I am in complete concurrence.
AGH! Not agreement! My dearest evil nudist…..I can’t hardly take it!
There will be more to come!
So I assume this means you both support polygamy, right?
One can make an esay distinction between ssm and polygamy. No one is allowed the legal benefits of polygamy, so a universal ban does not violate “equal protection of the law.” Denying marriage to homosexuals does violate equal protection, and lacking a compelling state interest, is unconstitutional (and all the “it will ruin families” stuff is poorly-reasoned window dressing for people who thinks gays are icky).
I call foul — You’ve changed arguments. The argument put forth by Ally, and agreed to by you, had nothing to do with constitutionality and Equal Protection, it was an argument from the point of view that Marriage is “About people expressing love” and not “Protecting Traditional Institutions”. Based on THAT argument, there is no distinction between SSM and Polygamy.