I know we are supposed to be focusing on fiscal issues but when an idea raises it’s hand and asks a question, sometimes….I just have to find an answer.
Question: If refusing to let one man "marry" another man violates his or their ‘civil rights’ then why is it not a violation of said same civil rights to then refuse to let one or both of them marry a second, third or forth man?
If marriage serves no other purpose than to provide a legally protected state contract based on sexual attraction, then how do you justify limiting the nature or number of attractions under the rubric of civil rights?
You should, based on this rights claim, be able to create "homosexual" marriage corporations, with harems of men all married to each other, pooling resources, sharing hospital visitation rights, all on the same insurance plan….probably an HMO…based strictly on the requirement that the state enforce shared legal rights, simply because you can’t control who you are attracted to.
So what’s the deal?
Note: I have advocated civil unions and same sex marriages performed by recognized churches. I do not support the political hijacking of marriage by the state with exception of for protection of minors, which in my mind is a state interest.
Image credit: Oak Park Jewelers
