Lindsey Graham Asked Amy Coney Barrett About Polygamy and People Got Mad Online

Why are LGBT leaders letting the antigay senator frame polyamory as something bad and wrong?


During this morning's questioning of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R–S.C.) asked Barrett whether there was a constitutional right to polygamy.

Barrett didn't answer because, she explained, "it's an issue that somebody might litigate before the court at some point." Graham wasn't truly trying to pin her down on polygamy. He was actually bringing up Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decision from 2015 that mandated the states and the federal government recognize same-sex marriages.

Graham brought up Obergefell because he wanted to discuss how likely it might be that the Supreme Court may reconsider the ruling. Just last week, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, wrote a statement calling on the Supreme Court to take another look at Obergefell to make sure that the court properly protected the right of people to express religious objections to gay marriage.

That's also not what Graham is after here. He was getting Barrett on the record explaining the circumstances by which the court would revisit Obergefell. He is pointing out that reliance on the decision to determine other cases might prompt the Court to reconsider Obergefell (or Roe v. Wade, or other Supreme Court precedents) if the Court believes that the case was wrongly decided. Barrett agreed that's how the Court would work, though to be clear, she did not say or agree that Obergefell was decided "wrongly."

Graham, though, has a bit of an obsession with insisting that same-sex marriage recognition may eventually open the door for legal recognition of polygamous marriages. He previously asked Loretta Lynch during her hearings to be confirmed as attorney general under President Barack Obama what the difference was between legally recognizing same-sex marriage and legally recognizing polygamous marriage.

This morning, Graham's line of questioning has produced outrage in LGBT quarters that comparing gay marriage equality to polygamy is absurd and homophobic. Here's the clip of the exchange along with framing by LGBT law nonprofit Lambda Legal that the comparison is uncalled for:

Here's a question though: Why are these LGBT or LGBT-friendly voices essentially agreeing with Graham that legal recognition of polygamous relationships is something ultimately bad and unwanted? The Obergefell ruling does, in fact, include a very lengthy analysis and recognition that our country's legal and social framework for marriage is ever-evolving. Here's a paragraph from the ruling:

The history of marriage is one of both continuity and change. Changes, such as the decline of arranged marriages and the abandonment of the law of coverture, have worked deep transformations in the structure of marriage, affecting aspects of marriage once viewed as essential. These new insights have strengthened, not weakened, the institution. Changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations.

The decision makes it clear that the court believes "The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person," and while the ruling itself is entirely focused on couples, there is nothing about the ruling that suggests its logic wouldn't apply to polygamous relationships, which Chief Justice John Roberts noted in his dissent.

So Graham's fears actually do have a foundation in the Obergefell ruling, which states that our country's concept of marriage evolves over time. But why are people treating Graham's framing as though it's something we should all be afraid of and resist? At one point, the idea that the government would recognize same-sex marriage was absurd. Then it was something to organize and fight against. And now, for most Americans, it's uncontroversial.

If two men want to get married, it's no big deal. If three men want to get married, then… what's the big deal? A significant amount of perception and analysis of polygamy is based on stereotypes of religious cult groups with one powerful patriarch having many wives. But that's just one framework and not the entire story of polygamy or polyamory.

Organizations like Lambda Legal can and should oppose Graham's fearmongering about the Obergefell decision, but they should also consider whether they are themselves embracing a stereotype that polygamous relationships are or should be treated illegitimately under the law. There are LGBT people who also pursue them, after all, not just straight men looking to control women.

NEXT: Mitt Romney's Lament Highlights Trump's Swing-State Mormon Problem

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Government regulation of how people screw and live together was always stupid.

    1. “Why are LGBT leaders letting the antigay senator frame polyamory as something bad and wrong?”

      Why aren’t you outraged that they are doing it themselves?

      “This morning, Graham’s line of questioning has produced outrage in LGBT quarters that comparing gay marriage equality to polygamy is absurd and homophobic.”

      Why is it homophobic if it is totes cool with them?

      1. “Because shut up, Russian bot.”

        1. I make up to $90 an hour on-line from my home. My story is that I give up operating at walmart to paintings on-line and with a bit strive I with out problem supply in spherical $40h to $86h… someone turned into top to me by way of manner of sharing this hyperlink with me,PPA so now i’m hoping i ought to help a person else accessible through sharing this hyperlink…

          ===========► Click here

      2. “Anti gay” senator…

        How so, Scott?
        Not enough special rights for you? Not enough worshipping of your preference?

        Go suck more FBI dick, bitch.

      3. Why are you asking this of Mother’s Lament?

        1. Mothers lament is the one quoted?

          Oh no actually, you’re just fucking stupid.

        2. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Fgh I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

          what I do………………………………Visit Here

      4. What? LGBT has leaders?

      5. The issue should be, Does the US Constitution empower the Federal Government to deal with these issues. The 1st Amendment states that Congress shall make no law…”. Where is marriage, divorce, contraception, abortion, education, healthcare mentioned as issues of Federal Government concern. IMO Roe vs Wade should never have come before the court as it was not an issue that could become law. In other words abortion is legal as it is none of government business.

        1. “In other words abortion is legal as it is none of government business.”

          Wrong. It would be up to the states to decide for themselves through their legislatures.

          1. You were doing great until you said that.

            1. Makes $140 to $180 per day online work and i received $16994 in one month online acting from home.nmb I am a daily student and work simply one to a pair of hours in my spare time. Everybody will do that job and online makes extra cash by simply You can check more.

              open this web….Click here

    2. From a principled perspective, I have to say that I don’t agree the government should have these laws. But it isn’t stupid.

      For time immemorial, polyamorous societies have tended to be horrible societies to live in due to the imbalance among potential mates that they tend to create. Polygynous societies tend to make women subservient so that they cannot object to sharing one man with multiple women, and on top of this, many young, unwealthy men are disenfranchised so that they cannot get even one woman for themselves. Polyandrous societies, though rare, tend to be marked by women treated as chattel to be traded as favors by powerful men.

      In a free society, it is definitely preferable to just stay out of it. Being skeptical about the process is not stupid though.

      1. Society can’t stay out of these questions as long as there are courts.

      2. In Portland isn’t polyamory usually 2 male incels fighting over a fatty?

        1. Fat girls are like mopeds. They’re fun to ride until your friends see you on one.

          1. Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29758 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. Asd I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month the from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it

            what I do………………………………Visit Here

      3. It’s completely stupid.

    3. Regulation of how they screw — stupid. Regulation of how they live togther — also stupid except insofar as defining legal terms. Regulation bad, but customary law definitions good.

      Customary law has generally favored liberty over legislated law. My example in this regard is money terms, which had customary definitions, but then sovereigns decreed that their favored entities could produce things like “dollars” that would be legally recognized as such without meeting the customary standards.

      Same with terms like “spouse”, I’m afraid.

    4. Exactly, but Graham (obviously he’s in the closet) and ilk feel that religion trumps government and individual rights. I don’t care what your beliefs on marriage are. You go marry whomever you want but if two gay people or trans or just confused people want to marry it’s their rights as long as they accept all the legal ramifications of that union. I think that eventually polyamory will also enter the scene of legality. Right now people need to be worried about the supreme court justices who feel that there is no separation of church, state, or their personal beliefs on apply evangelical reasoning on court cases.

      1. You are both nasty and stupid.

        You are nasty bc you speculate on a stranger’s sexual habits or predilections.

        You are stupid bc you think that there are SCOTUS justices who want to establish a religion. There are none.

      2. You manage to get your homophobic slur in there with your baseless assertion about Coney Barrett, kudos, bigot.

    5. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this Agh month easily and I earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructions……….Click here

    6. A proper libertarian response, but what about the family courts, divorce, and custody and care of the children arising from a marriage. Probably the biggest issue around polygamous marriage is how the courts would deal with these issues. At present, they are ill equipped to do so.

    7. I quit working at s5hop rite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $45 to 85 per/h. Without a doubt, this is the easiest and most financially rewarding job I’ve ever had. I actually started 6 months ago and this has totally changed my life.

      For more details………………Visit Here

  2. The left is finally afraid. They cannot smear ACB and they cannot fight her confirmation. They have to run an election campaign without alienating voters. It’s a tightrope walk now. And I suspect they know their internal poling is not showing Biden leading as much as they wanted, and could still lose the states Trump won 4 years ago. It isn’t over at all.

    1. Did she answer any questions? This whole thing is a total farce.
      And if you think Trump can still legitimately win, all I can say is, I am sorry for your delusion, mate.

      1. Fuck off Tulpa.

      2. Betting in the UK implies that Trump has a 33 percent chance of winning (according to MarketWatch)

      3. I agree with that, all the D’s will vote no, all the R’s will vote yes, why waste money on the hearings? Next comes 3 new members from a blue wave of congress and biden and then the popcorn time really starts.

      4. Did she answer any questions? This whole thing is a total farce.
        And if you think Trump can still legitimately win, all I can say is, I am sorry for your delusion, mate.

        This is nearly pure deja vu.

        It sounds just like 2016.

        1. He probably has a better chance than in 2016.

          His base is unchanged, and probably grown. The economy was good.

          People who were willing to hold their nose and vote Trump because of what the Dems have become are even more repulsed by them now.

          The Democrats have hard core loyalists, and people swayed by the idea that Trump is icky. That might not be enough.

      5. Yes. She answered the question of how she would decide cases: based on the law alone, leaving her personal ideology and preferences out of it.

        This concept is so alien to Democrats that they kept asking about her ideology.

  3. [Thing] and People Got Mad Online isn’t news. Just wanted to point that out.

    1. Usually just implied

  4. “Graham, though, has a bit of an obsession with insisting that same-sex marriage recognition may eventually open the door for legal recognition of polygamous marriages.”

    It is a legitimate question. I have seen nothing in the Supreme Court’s strained jurisprudence over the past several years that would prevent the extension of marital rights to practitioners of polygamy. Or, for that matter, to those that wish to marry their siblings, or parents, or children.

    1. Agree. Obergefell opened the door for just about anything.

      It took language describing nature of man and woman who can have intercourse and biological ability to reproduce to now include two men or two women who cannot have intercourse or biologically reproduce. So there is no distinction in the word marriage. The word marriage is now based on feelings and not biology. Therefore marriage can mean whatever consenting adults want it to mean.

      1. Feelings are biology.

        1. The biology in question was procreation, But you know that, and were pretending to be obtuse for our amusement, right?

          Parenting children in stable homes was the societal good that marriage benefits were intended to foster and maintain. Procreation (at least potential) was implied.

          Now that two people who cannot together procreate (but can parent) also can access those benefits, by virtue of the reasonable argument that government ought not play favorites, the door is open.

          Once marriage is not about genetic sexually complimentary pairs, it can, and likely will, be redefined according to the fashion of the day.

      2. The trouble is with treating marriage as a right whose exercise needs to be equalized between certain classes of persons, rather than as a necessity of family law. It would be best if marriage were not treated as a right at all, but as a thing that either exists or doesn’t exist from case to case.

        Same with sex, by the way.

        These should be treated as questions of fact, not law. The water was muddied by the issuance of decrees purporting to license marriages, and now treating those as the be-all and end-all of determining whether a marriage is in effect. We don’t treat licensure of other activities like that. A fishing license doesn’t mean something that was caught is a fish, and a dog license doesn’t make what’s wearing it a dog.

        1. What is your proposed solution?

          1. Just keep things the way they traditionally were, and when a court has to decide whether A is B’s spouse, use the customary meaning of “spouse”, which depends on the customary meaning of “married”. Use a legal dictionary. Ignore anything a legislature, plebiscite, or other government official says, and ignore marriage licenses.

            1. Or…

              Just remove the State from the argument.

              The State should not be in the business of telling people what is or is not marriage.

        2. Interesting. I’d also be curious as to a solution that works in under the Constitution, doesn’t encroach on liberties, and doesn’t endow groups with special privileges. I can admit, I have no tenable concept in mind.

          1. Same “solution” that was always used until recently, i.e. before the absence of same-sex “marriage” was considered a problem.

          2. Remove the State from the equation.

            1. The state does not simply give up power it has rightfully usurped.

      3. @Anteater

        Marriage was never about biology or reproduction. As far as I know, there have never been any laws forbidding women from marrying after they hit menopause. People with medical conditions causing sterility have always been allowed to be married. Intersex people have never been barred from marrying either, even though they are not biologically male or female.

        Marriage is, and always has been, about relationships and feelings.

        1. As a historical matter, you would be wrong. At several points in time and culture, a marriage was only valid if it produced children (or at least, pregnancy) within a reasonable period of time. In those settings, marriage to a post-menopausal woman would have been invalid.

          In the more modern era, you’re partially right. Missing, however, is that marriage was and often still is even more about inheritance, child support and economics.

          1. The view also eschews the explicit link between sexual activity and gender through history. Even if you ignore intercourse and reproduction in marriage throughout history, you’d be exceedingly stupid and arguably misogynistic to assert that marriage conferred no property rights to women where none previously existed. In historical societies across the board, marriage granted women the right to own property and command authority and conscribed men to honor that right and authority in a reciprocal manner. The most bloodthirsty, industrious, and hardworking of men could be effectively usurped by an attractive woman, a woman of noble birth, both, or even neither. It was an organic notion of equity/equality that predates ‘liberte, egalite, fraternite’ by millenia.

            It turns a mannered, considered, and tested means of a men forced to figure out how to divide, hold, and defend his property among his female progeny and descendants and turns it into a vapid question of “Whose feelings matter most?”

            1. It turns

              ‘It’ being the notion that marriage has always been solely about emotional love.

        2. Wrong.

          Individuals may get married bc of their feelings or desires.

          The institution of marriage exists bc it was useful to human evolution in that it formalized obligations to children.

          If people did not have children, there would be no marriage in the traditional sense of the term. The fact that people who do not have children get married does not abrogate this fact.

        3. I’m not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here, but I assure you, it isn’t working

          1. Pretty simple really.

            What I believe Macy’s is saying it, that although heterosexual (traditional) marriage did not always beget children, it’s purpose was to foster a structure that raised children, legally assigned to the responsibility for supporting them, and defining the inheritance of family wealth.

            In short, the reason for marriage is children, even in cases where there are none.

    2. What makes it an obsession? That the left wants to pretend the two aren’t linked for a little longer even though Shackleford admits they are?


    3. Marriage to siblings, parents or (adult) children can plausibly still be blocked on public health grounds. Assuming that procreation is still considered one goal (though not the only goal) of marriage, in-breeding leads to a high incidence of the emergence of recessive traits, many of which are quite detrimental to the children.

      But it’s only a plausible argument, not a guaranteed winner. Procreation as a goal is not an obvious trump card over other goals of marriage. And one could argue that genetic testing and individual prohibitions would be a less-intrusive way to achieve the public health goal than blanket prohibitions. Maybe in time you will be allowed to marry your sister. It’d still be creepy but maybe it doesn’t have to be illegal.

      On the other hand, blocking marriage to minor children (and, for example, your horse – another common hyperbolic complaint) remains easy and consistent with modern jurisprudence. A marriage is a contract. Minors and non-humans can not legally consent to the contract. Case closed.

      1. Hell, if these lockdowns go on much longer in many countries and states, marrying your sister may be your only choice, since you aren’t allowed to be intimate with persons not of your household.

        1. In New Zealand, compliance with lockdown orders correlates with the number of sheep per capita. Coincidence? I think not.

      2. If that can be blocked on public health grounds the how can eugenics be outside the realm of government?

        Where is the line drawn that doesn’t leave the door open for justifying total government control?

        1. That is a challenge. The best I can offer is that cultural rules against incest have a lineage that traces back millennia while eugenics is a modern invention. This may be a situation where “tradition” draws the line.

          1. Relying upon “Tradition” clearly didn’t work that last time, but this next time…

        2. If that can be blocked on public health grounds the how can eugenics be outside the realm of government?

          Least burdensome approach, positive vs. negative right, etc. If you think that the slope between recognizing incest and enforcing eugenics is neither downhill nor is slippery.

          Unless, I suppose, you’re of the “everything not forbidden is mandatory” mindset, in which case, marriage of any type or even just the existence of sexual customs generates all kinds of slippery slopes for you.

          1. If you think that The slope between recognizing incest and enforcing eugenics is neither downhill nor is slippery.

            grrr…. edit.

      3. No, incest cannot be justified on public health grounds, at least not if consistency is a value.

        People who carry serious hereditary diseases can marry and have children. There are no laws against this.

        Any claim that the taboo on incest is about public health, rather than moral revulsion, are transparently hypocritical.

        1. That statement displays a disturbing ignorance about how heredity works. If you have a hereditary disease that’s a dominant trait, the disease is highly likely to kill the host, breeding itself out of the population. The vast majority of hereditary diseases are recessive traits.

          A recessive condition only presents when both parents are carriers of the condition. When the two parents are randomly selected from the population at large, the probability of selecting two carriers of the same recessive gene is low. When the two parents’ genetic heritage is highly correlated, such as by being siblings, the probability of selecting two recessive carriers is much higher.

          Okay, that’s a massive oversimplification of hereditary disease mechanisms but the point remains that we have literally millennia of evidence across multiple species that while anyone can have hereditary disease risk, incest dramatically increases the risk.

      4. Marriage to siblings, parents or (adult) children can plausibly still be blocked on public health grounds.

        This argument doesn’t hold in the case of same-sex incestuous marriage, or marriage with post-menopausal female relatives. Surely those marriages must be permitted. Love is love, after all.

        1. What’s love got to do with it?

          1. … Tina Turner wants to know!

    4. Your hate is showing through, you’re equating homosexuality with incest. You’re fine that homosexuals rights are infringed on as long as yours aren’t. Great libertarian stance you have there.

      1. Do you equate homosexuality with heterosexuality?

        Does something have to be equal in order to be legal?

        Maybe his statement that he sees nothing legally preventing other forms of romantic bonding is a libertarian viewpoint. How does a romantic relationship between relatives affect you? Can’t we just let others live as they wish?

      2. No, you are equating incest and homosexuality, and assuming that Roberta did. She did no such thing, she made a comment about lockdown, marriage, and intimacy outside of the family. Perhaps simply ‘Old Fool’ would be more accurate if you are going to make assertions and project based on misunderstanding a single sentence.

      3. The post does not in any way equate homosexuality with incest. The point is that the Court’s reasoning in Obergefell can be extended to intrafamilial marriage. This is just like the smear of Scalia stemming from his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas. He was accused of comparing gay sex to bestiality. Yes, he did “compare” the two, with the clear implication that bestiality was much worse. Comparing two things is not the same as equating two things. Not even close. If you don’t understand that then you don’t really understand the meaning of “compare.”

    5. Marital privileges. If it comes from the state it is a privilege.

  5. Everything is legal now, sex-wise.
    If there is no male or female, per the supreme court, marriage is now just a numbers game; two is good, three or more is bad.
    How can anyone pretend that will be held legal?

    1. Why, as libertarians, should we care what consenting adults do?

      1. We shouldn’t. If you wanna marry multiple people, go for it.

        1. I don’t, but thanks for the proposal.

          1. What if I offer to always take out the garbage.

            1. It’s a yes if that’s a euphemism for butt stuff.

              1. Butt stuff is libertarians’ favorite kind of stuff, right up there with weed and Mexicans.

                1. Who *doesn’t* love Mexican weed sodomy?

                  1. Dibs on that for a band name.

                    1. Dirty Sanchez and the Ditch Weed Sodomites

                2. Fat Mike’s Drug Habit “Butt stuff is libertarians’ favorite kind of stuff, right up there with weed and Mexicans.”

                  That’s why modern libertarians have been so successful, practically and philosophically.

      2. Even if we, as libertarians, don’t think the state should care (even if our own morality might… you CAN theoretically be religious and libertarian), that does not mean his statement is wrong. Perhaps we should, legally, accept that the “two good, three bad” argument is trash and just open it up. But the fact that the left is now saying “Nuh-uh! You can’t do that!” despite the fact that it clearly can and presumably SHOULD be done is interesting… since the very vehicle by which the state would finally get out of marriage all together is the very vehicle the left said wouldn’t/couldn’t do that despite the right’s cries to the contrary.

        1. I’m not defending the position of the left which seems to be rights not based on principles but based on preferred identity groups.

          Legally speaking, what is fundamentally different about straight, gay, and polygamous marriages? That’s all that the government should concern itself with.

          1. Reproduction and inheritance

            1. Would you say that there’s a legal difference with a marriage between infertile people vs fertile people?

              1. Until fairly recently under common law, infertility was a valid reason to nullify a marriage.

                1. What about couples getting married in their 60s or 70s?

                  1. The Constitution is silent on these points. These are State’s issues. This is not a libertarian perspective.

                    However, it is generally difficult to reconcile the text of the Constitution with libertarian principles. The Constitution is not a libertarian document.

                    1. Equal protection clause jurisprudence seems to indicate that the constitution limits legal privileges based on arbitrary criteria.

              2. Inheritance rights also refer to the surviving spouse, not just children.

      3. Should parents be permitted to marry their children?

        1. Because they aren’t consenting adults?

          1. That is not an answer. Is your answer yes?

            1. Of course not. The whole premise is that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. Children are neither adults, nor do they have the capacity to consent.

              I’m not sure if you have a point or are just trolling.

              1. Do children have the capacity to define their sexual orientation and gender?

                1. No

                  1. Is that your view, or the libertarian view?

                    1. I’m not aware of a large movement within libertarianism that thinks otherwise. Are you? Can you provide a link?

                    2. I am not aware of a “movement.”

                      However, it strikes me as rather un-libertarian to posit that a 16 year old child, for example, should be deemed to lack the capacity to gauge their own sexual orientation, or gender identity.

                    3. Sexual orientation is entirely a different order of thing from sex identity. Sexual orientation is subjective, all in one’s head; sex identity is physical fact.

                      Gender just means type, and doesn’t need to even be about sex. Saying “gender” instead of “sex” is weaseling out.

                    4. Maturity levels differ for different teenagers. As a society, we have set a reasonable standard for age of maturity that may not always be fair. There is a legal path called emancipation of minors that exists for teenagers if they want to demonstrate maturity and the ability to enter into contracts.

                    5. Libertarianism is silent on the issue except to say that, as minors, they have limited capacity to consent.

                    6. “Libertarianism is silent on the issue except to say that, as minors, they have limited capacity to consent.”

                      Capacity to consent is a legal artifice.

                      Let us posit that States lower the age of consent. Or, let us posit that States raise the age of consent.

                      Would libertarian doctrine be constrained to concur?

                  2. I don’t know what age a child has the capacity to consent or make their own decisions, but society has come to a consensus on a number. I suspect it’s different for all people, but within our legal framework there has to be definition and age seems to be as good an indicator as any.

                    What is your position?

                    1. “I don’t know what age a child has the capacity to consent or make their own decisions, but society has come to a consensus on a number.”

                      And, prior to a few years ago, society came to a consensus that two men, or two women, should not be permitted to marry.

                      The artifice of the age of consent is just is artificial as the definition of marriage.

                    2. In Colorado, conversion therapy is illegal for minors (under 18). That appears to be the current “societal consensus,” never mind that as Geiger says, there are 16-year-olds who are likely mature enough to make that choice. If you believe in government intervention in this sort of things, probably the right way is to set an age and then insist on hearing for special cases.

                      There are also idiots (we know of one couple) who encourage their way-pre-pubescent children to choose a gender identity that doesn’t match their biological identity. For one 4-year-old we know of raised by Idiot Parents X, it turns out it was just a phase. (Ostensibly it started when the kid tried on a dress one day.)

                      The question is–if the goal of forceful bans of conversion therapy is to “protect the children” because of the psychological harm it can cause (“has scarred many survivors for life”, per Gov Polis), doesn’t that also mean people like Idiot Parents X are guilty of child abuse (particularly considering the prepubescence of the child)?

              2. Uh, there is such a thing as adult children. I, for example, am one. You haven’t answered whether I should be allowed to marry my father or mother (if either was still alive).

        2. We talking child children, or grown children?

          1. I’m putting this here because I can’t reply to Geiger Goldstaedt’s post above, and relates to your question:

            ‘“I don’t know what age a child has the capacity to consent or make their own decisions, but society has come to a consensus on a number.”

            And, prior to a few years ago, society came to a consensus that two men, or two women, should not be permitted to marry.

            The artifice of the age of consent is just is artificial as the definition of marriage.’

            The age of consent isn’t artifice, it is arbitrary, which isn’t the same thing. No sane person would argue that an infant or a 5 year old is capable of making life-altering decisions in their own best interests, but as a practical matter of law there must be a point of transition to legal agency. There is no analogy here with same sex marriage between consenting adults.

      4. I, as a libertarian, care how consenting adults pay taxes — and maintain authority over their children, purchase property, and do a few other things that affect their interactions with strangers.
        So any two people? Fine.
        So any three people? Mmmm, I do have some questions, but nothing that couldn’t be worked out.
        Four? Five? At some point, it starts to get impractical and you are just going to have to find some way for your little sex-and-volleyball team to buy a house together or whatever the problem is.

    2. Everything is legal now, sex-wise.

      I can think of a few things that aren’t.

      1. Go on…

        1. You can view some of them on Netflix.

        2. What is the libertarian stance on adults engaging in sexual intercourse with prepubescent children?

          1. You might consider seeking help.

            1. Do you not know? Or, do you not want to answer?

              1. Answered above. I’m more concerned with why you would even ask such a question… twice.

                1. So, now you’ve resorted to concern trolling?

  6. “has produced outrage in LGBT quarters that comparing gay marriage equality to polygamy is absurd and homophobic. ”

    It was a horrible thing to do because it’s like telling someone about a surprise party being planned for them.

    Also, that is probably not the right sequence of SJW Overton window events. Pedophilia is supposed to be next.

    1. That is right. Polygamists are religious people usually and they are icky. Gay marriage is supposed to open the way for transgender which in turn opens the way for pedophilia. The icky Mormons need to wait their turn.

      1. Ah yes, the pedophilia conspiracy. Tell us more, QAnon John.

        1. You can hardly wait to get a boy of your own, huh.

          1. You guys are sick in the head. You are the ones always bringing this stuff up. I would call that an unhealthy obsession.

            1. “Chipper Morning Wood————————————————————————–
              October.14.2020 at 3:58 pm
              You guys are sick in the head. You are the ones always bringing this stuff up. I would call that an unhealthy obsession.

              “Chipper Morning Wood————————————————————————–
              October.14.2020 at 2:40 pm
              Ah yes, the pedophilia conspiracy. Tell us more

        2. It isn’t a conspiracy you fucking moron. If children are mentally competent to choose their gender, they are also competent to consent to sex. One follows another.

          Is this Qanon?


          Yeah, that isn’t sexualizing children and normalizing pedophilia at all. Is that your final answer you lying fuck?

          1. No it doesn’t follow. That’s a logical fallacy, John, and a sick view of the world. Seek help.

            1. The person who thinks 10 year old kids can change their genders says someone has a sick view of the world.

              Fuck off you degenerate

            2. It’s hard to see how it couldn’t have to follow. If you have the responsibility and authority to change your sex, clearly merely having “sex” would seem to be a much lesser thing within your capacity.

        3. You just decided to go full bore on leftist memes huh?

    2. No, that’s the big fight.
      Polyamory is nothing because the polygyny aspect is somewhat natural and pretty common. The hard work will be animals and kids.
      But the directors of GLAAD want their catamites and progress über alles.

      1. “The hard work will be animals and kids.”

        One at a time, or both together?

    3. seems like they’re ignoring their own Q

  7. It’s a big deal because the left loves gay people and hates Mormons. They don’t like to be reminded that the logic that led to Obergefell would also allow polygamous marriages, and like basically every other time someone points out their logical inconsistency the only thing they can think to do is screech “RAAAAACIST!!! BIGOT!!!” as loudly as they can.

    1. Except the LDS church banned polygamy over a century ago, and most polyamorists these days *are* lefties. Which is inconvenient being both poly and libertarian.

  8. >>the antigay senator

    the gay senator?

    1. nttawrt

    2. if an antigay Senator bumps into a gay Senator do they cease to exist?

      1. Well, they definitely do release energy. I don’t know about the annihilation part, though.

  9. “antigay senator”

    Since the article presented no evidence indicating Sen. Graham is “antigay”, why did the byline contain that unsubstantiated accusation?

    1. It’s a mis-transcription. They said Auntee Gay Senator.

      1. lol

      2. Poor Miss Lindsay

    2. Reason has decided unsubstantiated claims against certain people is acceptable.

  10. I’m going to make it super simple for you. Icky religious people practice polygamy. Most of the LGBT movement is made up of bigots. Straight line between the two.

    1. Sadly, it is an entire movement of Tonys.

      1. Eww.

      2. I don’t think that’s as much of an insult as you think it is, considering that Tony has been among the most rational commenters on here this year.

        1. Lol.

          1. If constantly flat out lying is “rational”.

            1. Tony mostly expresses opinions. Are you trying to say he is lying about what he believes?

              1. Yes, and also you’re lying when you claim he mostly expresses opinion. He’s constantly coming up with phony facts and ridiculous claims.

                But then you’re a notorious liar too.

                1. How about some links to Tony’s phony facts? Three will do.

                    1. And that’s just half way through one thread.

                      Off course you knew that, but you’re a liar too, and you were hoping that I wouldn’t be bothered to look and then you could score a cheap point.

                      You’re so fucking pathetic.

        2. You have to stop saying shit like that or at least give some warning. I laughed so hard I spit diet coke all over my keyboard.

          That some funny shit. Bravo.

        3. Would be simpler to say ‘I usually agree with what Tony is saying’ than this, which is demonstrably false.

  11. In case anyone asks, here’s evidence that the 9News people in Denver were using the Black Guns Matter guy to stir up shit with people so that they could have some footage of violence, or at least heated exchanges. This guy was harassing the victim seconds before the shooting.


    1. Do you have a cite?

    2. What are the odds that our resident propagandists, Chemleft, Tony and The White Shill watch this video? All the raw footage is going to really hurt their narrative.

    3. http://twitter.com/DanielMannix10/status/1316137017739149312?s=19

      New angle of fight-9mmNews gives up prime filming spot to Denver Post after getting shot of “fight” they contrived together-she walks away with her 3 second shot. I am turquoise shirt man in background of her shot-I circled the scrum to hail police & was behind her & saw murder

  12. marriage equality ≠ polygamy

    Polygamists aren’t allowed marriage equality?

  13. The social and legal framework around marriage is ever evolving…Well, not now. Now we have a direction marriage is precluded from evolving into. Decisions n societal evolution are the scope of work of legislative branch, not the judiciary. The judiciary’s scope, is, if anything to prevent the evolution of legal frameworks out of the constrictions of the Constitution.

    1. Now we have a direction marriage is precluded from evolving into.

      What direction is this, and what is precluding it?

      1. As there is now a court created right to same sex marriage, the societal understanding of marriage is constrained against evolving back into a heterosexual relationship.

        You go to courts if you want to constrain or force societal evolution, not if you want it to evolve spontaneously.

        1. Progress defines change in only one direction.

          1. That’s obviously not true if we started with polygamy and evolved into monogamy and polygamy is somehow “progress”.

            Obviously history shows a back and forth on this. Pretty certain it will in homosexuality, too. At some point civilization might say it was a bad idea. Given the birth rates all over the developed world, I wouldn’t count on it lasting very long (civilizationally speaking).

  14. Much like how we always understood “affirmative action” would lead first to quotas and then to explicit race preferences critics were right that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. We just have to wait long enough that left wingers don’t feel their criticisms that anyone saying this is crazy can be used against them.

    I wonder when left wingers made those statements will consider what it says about their inability to understand how institutions and law work.

    Just kidding, I don’t wonder at all.

    1. Today they say that polygamists aren’t entitled to marriage equality. Tomorrow that statement will be highly offensive and Webster’s Dictionary will change the definition like they did with sexual preference today.

    2. Who cares of a woman has two husbands? Why is it any business of yours?

      1. My Two Dads was prophetic.

      2. The monogamous nuclear family is what made the West successful and unique.

        1. Ah yes, because the West is the only culture with monogamous nuclear families. The fuck?

          1. For most of human history people everywhere lived in extend family groups, and polygyny was the norm anyplace the church did not hold sway.
            The evolution of a family group solely consisting of two parents and their children only began to occur in Western Europe and New England in the early 18th century with the advent of industrialization. It only really spread globally after WW1.

            It must be embarrassing being so ignorant and a constant failure.

        2. I read it was because the Catholic Church banned cousin marriage.

          1. Cousin marriage is legal in most states, by the way.

          2. That was a factor in the creation of the nuclear family.

        3. The monogamous nuclear family is largely a myth, and mostly relegated to a few decades. And even then honored more in the breach than in the observance.

          For several century’s the “West” had a tradition where one got married for economic reasons, then had an affair on the side for reasons of hanky panky. And not just kings. It was a Judeo-Christian tradition, and one which sought to remove marriage from the jurisdiction of the State, that said only one sexual partner ever. But even the so called celibate priests, monks, and nuns strayed as a regular course of action. But ironically it’s that same tradition that has its Biblical Patriarchs being mostly polygamists.

          In the US the polygamists cults (of which LDS was merely the largest) got in trouble not because they were polygamists, but because their leaders (including Joseph Smith) invariably preyed on underage girls.

        4. Why are you celebrating Western civilization, you racist?

      3. There’s nothing in my comment suggesting I care. My criticism is of people criticizing that the claim X leads to Y is crazy then watch it happen still believing they have proven others crazy.

        I care because this reveals who the liars and idiots are, similar to people who ask why I care about a point not made in my comment.

      4. When I first heard of the book “Heather Has Two Mommies”, I thought it was about polygamy.

        I’ll tell you who cares if a woman has two husbands: anyone who’s obligated to provide a spousal benefit. Also the children in inheritance cases.

  15. I would probably be offended if someone equated the quality of a relationship that was important to me with a type of relationship that has a stigma in the mainstream. But it’s not clear to me that Graham (as much as I don’t like the guy) is equating them on a quality basis. Legally speaking, they were treated the same prior to Obergefell, so his comparison on a legal basis is apt.

    1. ” would probably be offended if someone equated the quality of a relationship that was important to me with a type of relationship that has a stigma in the mainstream”

      So I should be outraged that homosexuals compare their marriages to straight ones?

      1. That’s on you. I guess it depends on how you view gay marriage.

        1. Ok changing it up alteady.

  16. In San Francisco there’s a big split between gays and polyamorists. The gays specifically through the polys under the bus as a tactic not to freak out the straights. But it was a tactic based in identity not rights. “Gay” is an identity, “sleeping around with multiple partners” is not.

    The Left is so bound up in their Identity shit, that none of them even bothered to stop and ask what exactly they were fighting for. Gays got to marry, everyone else could just go pound salt. It’s not about rights, it’s about getting privileges for your group.

    Polyamorists who discover that special someone (male or female) and go exclusive get shunned by other polyamorists. They ‘re sellouts. It’s not about who people choose to sleep with, it’s about the fucking label [sic]. I know a couple in this situation. Used to be polyamorist, found each other, went exclusive, now have a family and a farm in the woods. God bless them. But the polyamorist community now thinks of them as sellouts because they put on a different label.

    So base it all on rights. Do adults have the right to enter into contracts with other adults, and does the government have the obligation to recognize those contracts? The answer is yes. Doesn’t matter if they are straight or gay or white or black or rich or poor or two or three.

    1. Polyamorists who discover that special someone (male or female) and go exclusive get shunned by other polyamorists.

      That’s not something I’ve commonly seen.

    2. You’re getting into the territory which speaks to the rift between “gays” and the “queer” movement.

      1. I thought it was LGBTQ+ now.

      2. I still don’t understand the difference between the two. And I probably never will.

        1. Can we just go back to when “queer” meant strange, odd, etc.?

          1. I’d also like to go back to “GLBT” because I can pronounce that easier than “LGBT”.

            Also, can we go back to when the “G” didn’t include the “L”? We had “H” for that. Now what do you have to say, “male gays”?

          2. You mean the 1800s?


          3. And “gay” meant cheerful?

            1. Yeah. It’s queer that now so much old writing and song sounds queer because of that confusion.

  17. Why are LGBT leaders letting the antigay senator frame polyamory as something bad and wrong?

    Because there’s a totem pole?

  18. Oh, and by the way, with our current civil structure around marriage, Polygamy would be wrong. Not from a moral standpoint, but from a matter of budgeting. Spouses of police officers, for instance, get a pension for life if their officer-partner is killed in the “line of duty” (which includes crashing your patrol car while you’re texting your side chick). Imagine if officer friendly could marry nine women?

    Sorry, but when you set the rules which make polygamy unsustainable, people are going to argue against it.

    1. Easy, split the pension nine ways. Next case.

      1. What if it was one of the 9 who was killed in the line of duty? Does the hub of the wheel get 1/9 the benefit or all of it?

        1. Why do you assume strict polarity in the relationships? In other words, why is officer friendly the “hub”?

          From the studies I’ve read, most polyamorous relationships are more like webs. Admittedly, some threads of the web are stronger than others but a strict hub-and-spoke relationship seems confined to just a few cultures.

          And yes, in the web model, the “hub” gets 1/9th – just like everyone else.

          1. I don’t. My example was one of just the opposite. The original example was one that had the person with the benefit as the hub of the wheel. Mine asks, what if it’s one of the spokes who dies with that benefit?

    2. Sorry, but when you set the rules which make polygamy unsustainable, people are going to argue against it.

      That would be true, if those were (A) the sorts of arguments that people made in good faith, and (B) weren’t imminently solvable.

      But much like opposition to same-sex marriage, most people’s response is a visceral, cultural thing. They only start thinking up sophistic reasons why it can’t work when the first response becomes passe.

      So I think we’re a few decades out from the airwaves being flooded by such drek.

      1. I’m not like that. In the 1990s when I first heard of the marriage equality movement, I thought it good. After the turn of the century, I thought about it and realized it was bad.

        1. Yes, Turn of the Century can have that affect.


  19. I have no problem with it.

    Don’t get it though. Last thing I need is one more women telling me to get up off the couch, take the trash out and when am I going to take care of that leaky faucet she told me about two weeks ago.

  20. The common law was great in that it furthered respect for the individual as a legal entity. The law continues to be most comfortable treating an individual as a legal entity and a legal entity as an individual, even a fictitious one as in business law. Family law has been an exception to accommodate an institution that predates law (and religion and H. sapiens, it appears), and it’s an uncomfortable compromise with some tension between it and the treatment of individuals within a family as legal entities unto themselves. The law has mostly handled this by limiting family to narrow circumstances as necessary. Opening family law up to consideration of other entities that aren’t necessary for the propagation of the species hurts the tendency of the law toward individual rights and liberties.

    Polygamy doesn’t upset the arrangement as badly as same-sex marriage does (although it does present some problems) as long as polygamy is treated as exactly that: a plurality of marriages that an individual can be part of simultaneously. As long as polygamy isn’t actual plural marriage, i.e. A, B, and C all considered as married together rather than one married to the other two, the problems are minimal.

    Incorporation gave society the benefit of being able to pull together capital, as well as attract it by limited liability. Marriage had to be recognized because families are recognized as how to bring up children, and eventually infertile marriages were included because it was too much an invasion of the privacy of a male-female coupling to require a demonstration of fertility. The assignment to parents of responsibility for the actions of children was a benefit to society. But a coupling that purports to be a marriage that can’t even theoretically be fertile because they’re of the same sex is a mere indulgence of a privilege (the right to be treated for many purposes as a legal entity) to that class, where society gets no benefit in return.

    1. Awesome comment.
      I think libertarians on sexual matters are civilizational dunces.

    2. Agreed. Excellent comment. The family courts are ill equipped to deal with polygamous marriage, and this, from a practical standpoint, is the greatest issue. One of the problems though with your suggestion that polygamous marriages be treated as a plurality of marriages is the issue of marital assets. What constitutes the marital assets in this situation and how do the courts deal with this issue?

      1. With Roberta’s suggestion, that is.

  21. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
    respectively, or to the people.

    The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed
    to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted
    against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or
    by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

    Conclusion: The Union of States has ZERO jurisdiction to be telling any state what ‘Marriage’ is or is not.

    1. The justification is in Article IV.

      1. And only Article IV. The rest of the Obergefell decision is wrong IMHO.

      2. Not really; Full faith & credit doesn’t by the farthest stretch of the imagination require the Union of States to define marriage. In fact; unless a state has no marriage law on the books it doesn’t even have to honor the record of another state. Just as it is with driver’s licenses, trade licenses, hunting & fishing licenses.

        Is this really what the SC used to “excuse” their F.U.?

  22. The First Amendment should already protect polygamous marriages, since they are allowed in several religious traditions. No need for a convoluted court case interpretation.

    1. That’s BS. The civil law isn’t about what one’s religious law dictates.

  23. “marriage equality ≠ polygamy”

    Now that an LGBLT group is using the ≠ symbol, maybe it’s finally OK for me to get a ≠ bumper sticker.

    1. It’s !=, learn to code!

  24. Of course polyamory is the next civil-rights frontier, it’s just a tad close to the election to bring it up right now.

    1. Exactly what rights do polyamorists lack? Polygamists, sure, they can’t get married. But polyamorists are NOT about marriage.

      1. True, and it’s funny how that’s gotten conflated here. Like sex and gender.

      2. “But polyamorists are NOT about marriage.”

        Love is love, man.

  25. “Woman, oh woman, you have five husbands, and the one you are with is not yours.”

  26. Graham’s problem is that he’s stupid.

    He should be asking if there’s a constitutional prohibition. Because without that the yes people do have a right to arrange their personal relationships as they see fit.

    Where is the constitutional right to marriage between a man and a woman?

    1. The federal government can’t regulate marriage under the Constitution, states certainly can.

      And you can religiously or privately marry whoever you want. The law applies to issues like immigration, custody, joint contracts, and divorce.

  27. Lindsay Graham is antigay? I thought Lindsay Graham IS gay.

    1. I honestly think he might be both.

  28. At one point, the idea that the government would recognize same-sex marriage was absurd. Then it was something to organize and fight against. And now, for most Americans, it’s uncontroversial.

    Reason comment section obviously not being part of that “most Americans”. I’ve been married seven years now, and y’all idiots are still trying to debate it.

    1. That’s because we’re analytic and principled thinkers. Most others go by a superficial analysis. As I said above, I changed my mind about the issue, which shows I didn’t stay with a superficial analysis.

    2. That wasn’t what Scalia was talking about.

  29. Start making cash right n0w…. Get m0re t!me with your family by d0ing j0bs that 0nly require for y0u t0 have a computer and an internet access and y0u can have that at y0ur h0me. Start bringing up t0 $8668 a m0nth. I’ve started this j0b and I’ve never been happier and n0w I am sharing it with y0u, s0 y0u can try it t00. Y0u can check it 0ut here…

    ==========================➤Visit Here

  30. What does social policy preference have to do with individual rights?

    Either I have a right to marry whom I choose or I don’t. If this is simply a matter of what is best for society then there is no right to same sex marriage in the constitution.

    If there IS a right then it doesn’t matter what the social consequences are. And the same applies to polyamory.

    1. Family law is more involved than that. It’s a partial answer to the question, when should the law not treat an individual as an individual? In most cases, individual liberty is advanced by treating individuals as individuals, but the institution of family means this principle doesn’t always apply.

      1. Again, excellent reply. You beat me to the punch on these as I am a day late to this thread. The family courts are the greatest issue with polygamous marriage from a practical standpoint.

    2. You have a right to marry whoever you want. You don’t have a right to claim more than one romantic partner on your tax return.

  31. Opposing polygamy isn’t going to set any mainstream Mormons against her.

    But there is a libertarian case to be made against polygamy, namely: To a first approximation, only members of two groups have ever tried to practice polygamy in the US. Muslims, and Mormons of the now-unsanctioned sort known as jack-Mormons. And both groups report abusive treatment of women more often than the national average.

    I would not forbid poly groups from living together. But I would have states refrain from recognizing their marriages.

  32. I Start Business Online with USA Countries.Please…. Read More.

  33. The alphabet soup activists’ criticism here is very similar to their criticism of Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, where he was accused of “comparing” gay sex with bestiality. True, he was comparing the two in a way, but with the clear implication that bestiality was much worse. “Compare” and “equate” are not synonyms, and people who treat them as such are either ignorant or being deliberately obtuse. It’s probably a little of both in these cases.

  34. The irony that heterosexual polygamy has been widely practiced in history, whereas same-sex marriage is entirely new on the scene.

    Since when is it unlibertarian to suggest that something we think should be legal is also “bad and wrong”? And since when did libertarians adopt the progressive notion that any SCOTUS case was rightly decided using sound legal reasoning if your side happens to favor the outcome?

    1. That’s not true. Gay marriage has been practices for thousands of years, including in ancient Rome and among Native Americans.

      1. I wouldn’t take the Emperor Nero dressing up as a bride as an illustration of what was acceptable, and I doubt same-sex couples want to appeal to Graeco-Roman institutionalized pederasty for historical precedent. I’m not sure which Native American groups you’re referring to, but ironically, same-sex marriage is still not recognized on many Indian reservations.

  35. I’m a gay man who agrees with most of Graham’s votes. Does that make me homophobic too?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.