There is a greater loss here, than just traditional marriage. It is that the democratic process no longer means anything. Is there anyone who can doubt that the authors of and voters for the 14th Amendment in 1868 had no idea that it meant that same-sex marriage was now enshrined in the Constitution. (Had they known that, there would be no 14th Amendment.)

How did that become so? Judges declared it to be so, overruling, in many cases, the expressed result of the voters on a subject which had never been thought to be a matter of federal law.

In other words, there is no longer any limit on the power of the federal judiciary, the 9th and 10th Amendments have been superceded, and the next time an idea becomes popular among the lefty elite (guaranteed income? carbon tax? nationalize industry? sharia law?) the judges will say it’s in the Constitution, or at least in the “penumbras and enurbations.”

I’d like to wake up and say this was all a bad dream caused by re-reading a Tom Kratman novel, but alas, it’s all too real.

I’ve found that many libertarians are happy to have the state enforce morality, as long is it’s their morality. That is, they hate their chosen enemies more than they love their freedom.

In this Internet age, it should be possible to create “rape” marriage. According to Nancy Friday, many women have rape fantasies. So there is a dating service waiting to be born: women (and probably a few men) who want to be raped, and men (and if the activities of school teachers are to be believed,a few women) who want to rape. To be rape-married would place matched partners’ behaviors beyond the interest of Law.

Your experience with the gay community seems to be anomalous, see, for example, here (and the linked study): http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/

Also see the Mark Regnerus study of children raised in homosexual households: “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study”

(BTW, the Regnerus study pretty much is consistent with a large body of research indicating that compared to heterosexuals, homosexuals and homosexual couples have significantly higher rates of all sorts of relational and physical problems. And no, it’s not due to discrimination)

Once you reject the existence of a creator there can be no basis for unalienable, immutable, permanent rights. What the mob grants, the whim of the mob may later take away.

Steve57:

They’re approaching the logical conclusion: all relationships are corporate. Children are an asset and/or employees of the corporation headed by the parents or guardians. Abortion is a fiduciary act of liquidating unwanted or burdensome assets. They may also be terminated or expunged through reduction in force.

And the future of banking… womb banks (aka “surrogates”) and sperm depositors (aka “men”). The metaphor perfectly captures the degradation of human life to a commodity.

“A Pew poll done in September showed that 49% of Americans support same-sex marriage, down from 54% from a Pew poll done in February.

An outlier? Or are the lawsuits against bakers and florists having an impact on public opinion?”

Given that the much publicized “widespread support” for SSM never actually shows up on election day when people are given the chance to vote on the issue, I’m convinced that actually measuring public opinion was never the point of the polls.

Rather, it was to convince the courts that by imposing SSM on the electorate they were giving the people what they wanted.

The vital thing was to make sure SSM never again got on the ballot so the people couldn’t prove pollsters like Pew wrong.

“Plural marriage would unearth a Pandora’s box of concerns regarding children.”

You didn’t notice? I suppose with all that was going with our mad lemming-like rush toward the cliffs of cultural and societal suicide it’s understandable. Opening up Pandora’s box and dumping out the contents didn’t even register as a speed bump with most people.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/10/in-california-more-than-2-parents/

“After a convoluted case in which a lesbian couple and a biological father all claimed parental rights to a child made its way through the state’s courts, California has passed a law allowing children to have more than two legal parents…”

The problem of plural marriage and any concerns about child welfare have been solved, now that Heather can have three mommies and four daddies, or whatever.

An outlier? Or are the lawsuits against bakers and florists having an impact on public opinion?