And down ... goes ... DOMA

Breaking Duh! news:

[T]he 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston said the [Defense of Marriage Act] discriminates against gay couples by not giving them the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples and is unconstitutional.

My intro was not meant to make light of this ruling. It was meant only as an indication of how utterly unintelligible and mindlessly prejudiced I find opposition to its kind. Why the precise sexual orientation of any loving couple, married or not, should grab the U.S. Congress's attention is--I'm sorry--simply beyond me.

For that matter, why Mitt Romney's religion's originalist position on marriage should be of any jurisprudential concern is beyond me, too. (True, even farther beyond me is why any sane woman would want to marry one of us insensitive brutes, let alone three or four of them wanting to marry and share the very same insensitive brute.)

What the hell. What business is it of ours?

I guess I'm possessed by the unalarmed demons of damn-the-torpedoes libertarianism, which, when it comes to its expression in civil liberties and human rights, is still struggling to find rationally unacceptable limits.

Comments

[Peter G]

I've always assumed the women endured the multi-wife thing to limit individual exposure.

[Robert Lipscomb]

As I understand it, one of the current arguments against same-sex marriage is that marriage is a religious issue. Frankly, I concur. But, that is also the basis for arguing against the state or federal government having any standing in the issue, as per the First Amendment.

I concede the state's right to prohibit child marriage as means of avoiding the sanctioning of pedophilia. And a tip of the hat to Rick Santorum, we probably should prohibit marriage of a man to dog or at least the consumation of that marriage.

Otherwise, have at it. I wish everyone much better luck with marriage than I had. I will be sticking with serial dating.

[AnneJ]

Maybe the reason why three or four women would want to marry the same insensitive brute is because sometimes less than one man is more than enough. But all kidding aside, yes, Mr. Carpenter I totally get what you're saying here. And while we're at it how many jobs would enforcing DOMA have created? Didn't the repub class of 2010 run on "jobs, jobs, jobs"? Instead look at everything they have focused on since taking power. Small government for the boardroom big government for the bedroom.

[Janicket]

Why would three or four women (or more) be willing to marry the same man?

Because it's better than being beaten to death by one's male relatives for defying the patriarchal will.