To Have and to Hold Down

Julian Sanchez | September 14, 2004

Jon Rowe and Eugene Volokh have a bit of fun with a spectacularly inane column by Les Kinsolving in which he frets that "marriage licenses for sadomasochists" are "next on the agenda of the Sodomy Lobby." Sadomasochists are, of course, perfectly free to marry now. In fact, while I've always taken exception to the conservative notion that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, I suspect there's a decent case to be made that "sadomasochistic marriage" is redundant.

Comments

|9.14.04 @ 2:56PM|#

Last night the Daily Show identified a threat to marriage.

Ed Helms started by saying that this is the greatest threat facing marriage. Then he showed a picture of 2 gay men getting marries. "No, not them." Then he showed footage of _The Bachelor_. "No, not that either." Then he showed footage of some reality dating show that involves a midget. "No, but good guess."

Then he did a report about online divorce.

Btw, does anybody know what show that is with the midget and the dating? I think it was Dr. Evil's Mini Me, but I'm not sure.

|9.14.04 @ 3:00PM|#

"Consider that, ladies and gentlemen. The very essence of what our nation stands for includes marriage licenses for sadists who love-beat their masochist spouses � who love being beaten!"

i realize that he's being outraged and all, but i consider that one of america's many finer points.

the terms "sodomist" and the less-used "homosexualist" always confused me - they sound like vocations you'd pick up at a trade school.

|9.14.04 @ 3:12PM|#

That's the funniest thing I've read in a while.
[brando] The stupidity...the stupidity[/brando]

|9.14.04 @ 4:06PM|#

Thoreau: The Littlest Bachelor?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4264380/

|9.14.04 @ 4:26PM|#

Kinsolving, at many others, are now grasping at straws to stop gay marriage. Whether one is for or against gay marriage has nothing to do with the swill being spouted by Kinsolving.

For example:

"Why should American necrophiliacs be prohibited by law from engaging in their "pursuit of happiness" with corpses, as well as being denied the right to marry the corpse?"

The simple answer and the most obvious is corpses cannot consent. That is why bestiality is illegal and can be distinguished from gay sex or consentual S & M. (However, one must recognize that most states don't allow consentual battery, and arguably S & M is consentual battery, but battery is no reason to deny a marriage either.)

Kinsolving further states: "Nor is there any AIDS-spreading record of those whose 'pursuit of happiness' involves them with freely consenting beasts. (Consent need not involve either written or oral ? but availability, rather than running away.)"

But Kinsolving misstates the law and reason, and perhaps run afoul of alienating many female readers (if he has any left) who would find it troubling that Kinsolving's logic dictates that rape wouldn't be rape if the victim didn't try to flee.

|9.14.04 @ 6:26PM|#

Kinsolving has been going on these bizarre rants about "sadomasochist marriage" since before the Lawrence v. Texas decision. I've e-mailed both him and WND to point out that it's perfectly legal for adult male and female S&M practioners to get married, but I've never received a response from Kinsolving, nor have I gotten a letter published on the website.

Eve Tushnet|9.14.04 @ 10:37PM|#

"...I suspect there's a decent case to be made that "sadomasochistic marriage" is redundant."

Oh Julian, you should really spend more time with _The Devil's Dictionary_. Ambrose Bierce is well ahead of you on this one.

(from memory:)
"Marriage, n.: A household consisting of a master, a mistress, and two slaves, making in all, two."

ELT

|9.15.04 @ 5:44AM|#

Masochist: A man who proposes.

Sadist: A woman who accepts. :)

Well, that's what all my divorced guy-friends think. Me, I've got a basement full of comic books, so what do I know?

Kevin
(no ponytail or beard, though)

|9.15.04 @ 12:24PM|#

it's funny that when the institution isn't being defended by the stalwarts holding the wall against the necros and the juicers, it's being made fun of more or less constantly.

on the surface the whole thing puzzles me, but anyone who makes a huge part of their world out of stringent rules about the consensual sexual practices of unrelated people is obviously going to suffer from some form of obsession/envy. out of the four people i've ever known who worked in the S+M biz had at least two or more major clients who were either clergy or local conservative heavyweights of business or politics. and often delinquient on payments sometimes to boot (hacidic rabbis are bad at this for some reason)...i guess they don't realize the sessions are taped for this very reason.