If you get bored, go back and dig out the amicus brief that the state AG (who is still the same guy, and who is being remarkably silent about his old brief these days) filed ten years ago, arguing against what happened today (and arguing for the “permanent compromise” we were promised back then hahahaha) on the grounds that it was opening the door to all sorts of “alternative” practices – polygamy, polyandry, “group marriages,” and “marriage communities” (there actually *was* one of those in Putney back in the 1830s).

Funny to recall that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were both born and raised in Vermont; Smith’s original parish church is still standing right by Exit 2 of I-89. Seems like they’re getting their revenge for getting driven out all these years back over this issue….

Yep.

And I’m not just pulling that out of my hat.

Up in Canada, they crossed this general silliness divide a few years back. Two or three years ago, there was a judicial memo circulating inside the Ontario provincial government arguing that Ontario should move to legalize polygamy – on the grounds that this sort of expansion would make Ontario “more competitive” in attracting “talented immigrants” from cultures where polygamy is the norm.

When it leaked out there was a furor and it was quietly dropped…. for now.

Mark Steyn as usual once managed to sum things up in just a column title (let alone the column): “When the Imams Settle Brokeback Mountain.”

And of course in the UK, the courts have already ruled that welfare payments have to be made available to multi-spouse spouses at the going rate for individuals.

I won’t at all be surprised if somewhere in the next 5 – 10 years some court somewhere ordered the legalization of polygamy….

I’m sure most of us will be able to translate.

Do you need a Sponge-Bob band-aid for your tongue now? lol

What they’ll do is just run it as a “civil rights” violation meme.

Just ponder the legal remedies if someone refused to say rent an apartment to a mixed-race couple (which you’d think would be his right as a property owner, but we’ve passed that water under the bridge already).

One of the real obvious sadisms of the 1999/2000 “civil unions” (sic) legislation was that it was basically a “benefits” rule – e.g., that any employer that offered benefits to plain old traditional spouses had to also – by law – offer them to “CU partners.”

Since established churches have what you might call “secular commercial operations,” someone asked that the law be amended to allow religious organizations that would have a problem with this to be exempted – but that amendment was voted down with glee. The Catholic Church announced that it was going to ignore the “law” on this issue, and that if the state wanted to send the police to arrest the bishops, they were free to try it. For now, the kooks haven’t been able to bring themselves to send the police into churches and drag away Catholic clergy in handcuffs….

of course, I can imagine a more specifically defined scenario in which your answer would be possible, as we have seen same in Canada.

I have read a few comments on this diary about how the agenda is to force all the heterosexuals to recognize them as “married”. They want hearts and minds changed, and this law will not do this. This law will only stipulates that the government recognizes the same sex couples. It does not change anyone’s heart and mind.

---

Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

Hadn’t heard anything about that, what is it??

to take money from me when I don’t consent to it?

Rights are not about what a person wants…they are about what they are rightfully entitled to…and in our Country we recognize that those rights come from God.

And your logic is totally faulty…it would allow for anything to occur.

Using you logic how could you deny polygamist marriages, or even marriages between species, family members, inanimate objects that some rely on for sexual gratification….why not…afterall they aren’t hurting anyone and that is what they want…so who are you to deny them that “right”.

Now if you paid attention in school instead of playing on the computer you might have learned the difference between rights and wants.

for same sex marriage that I have ever read.

You have provided no authority for your arguments to stand on other than: they’re not being treated fairly (equally), it’s what they want, and they are in love.

Boo, hoo, cry me a river!

Your ideology is undermining the value system that made our country great and that has been in place for 200 years because you feel sympathetic to the plight two same sex people feeling shafted by society, when we have gravely serious problems facing this nation. All I can say is, wow, how naive can someone be.