Seriously, to both Ken and Blake, a final word of thanks. You both presented articulate, well-argued positions that, while I do not agree with them, have the distinct merit of not simply being sloganeering or irrelevancies or ad hominems, which has seemed from where I sit to be the coin of the realm. Thanks again, gentlemen!

But Liberty is always limited by the harm it may do to others and there very well may be harm committed to society by granting state recognition to a polygamous marriage. But if it is we need to have proof of that harm. Arguments to tradition are as unconvincing in anti-polygamy (and partially undermined by tradition in that case) simply due to the fact that tradition is often unsubstantiated by reality.

For example Forensic Science is bunk. But we did not know that until DNA testing came along. Still a great many police forces and government institutions base convictions and justice on forensic science due to tradition. Just because they continue to use it does not make it a good science and its use to try to gain a conviction can undermine the case in court (for example, Casey Anthony).

Tradition has a way of obscuring truth. That’s not to say all traditions are inherently bad, just that when new evidence comes to light traditions should be reexamined critically & if they don’t stand up to muster they should be adjusted or changed to bring them in line with reality.

So if we allow state recognition of gay relationships and that proves to be not harmful to society (as evidence from Canada seems to say) than we ought to change our institution. & yes, that will make it much more difficult to oppose other forms of marriage, unless, of course, there is evidence (from say South Africa or Saudi Arabia) that polygamy is harmful to society at large.

Now I’m not an expert on society, but I do trust expert consciousness. From what I understand while both arguments are based on liberty and free will (the ability to peruse happiness we’re all inherently given due to our existence as human beings as laid out in the Deceleration of Independence and as codified in our Constitution) the big difference between Gay Marriage & Polygamy is that gay marriage will not be harmful to society but when it comes to Polygamy the jury’s still out.

Now should expert consensus (not just one or two voices in the wilderness) reach the conclusion that anti-polygamy positions are based on anti-Mormon or anti-Muslim or anti-African prejudice rather than on the actual harms that polygamous marriages do to society than I would be willing to support polygamy. As I understand it no group of reputable experts has reached such a conclusion & much more study is needed.

Hence pro-polygamy arguments are similar to pro-gay marriage arguments but only in the same way that pro-gay-marriage arguments are similar to pro-pornography or pro-no-fault-divorce arguments: Liberty! The individual planks that make the final decision plausible or implausible are decidedly different & unique to each issue, while the heart remains the same: Liberty!

It was always my assumption that the purpose of our Constitution was to ensure Liberty(!) and all of its trappings (wither repugnant to me or not) for future generations.

In all of its forms it is always about much more than the people kneeling at the alter or standing before the judge. Marriage entwines two groups in a legal relationship. In the past all law was God’s law so it took on religious trappings but it was always about securing alliances. The duke of wherever was to care about the fate of the prince of wherever because his daughter was a part of their family and vice-versa.

Even for us peasants marriage is about the joining of two people into one family and hence two families who would otherwise be unrelated are now related and vested in the success or failure of the other family. People may reject the idea that they are vested, but experience will show that a brother-in-law can bring ruin on a family as fast as a brother can (hence the need for prenuptial agreements).

This much became blatantly apparent to me recently as I attended the wedding of a cousin-in-law. My husbands’ family accepts me as a part of their family while my family does not accept my husband as a full member of my family. While this is not uncommon in any marriage, I think the failure of my family to accept my spouse into the family is due to their refusal to see our relationship as a marriage.

Similarly my in-laws eloped and there are still old timers who think they’re not married because they didn’t do it in a church & don’t think of their relationship as a marriage.

When one is accepted into a family one gains access to family privilege: nepotism, the ability to get loans from relatives at favorable rates, standing invitations to all family functions, amongst others. When people cohabit or have a civil union, none of these benefits are required or even implied or if they are extended they are extended on the contingency that they may be retracted at the will of the granting party.

I can distance myself from my brother’s cohabiting girlfriend by just saying they’re not married. Similarly if as a society we regulate gay relationships into civil unions or domestic partnerships we retain that difference from marriage & relive the family of the obligations implied in a joining.

Just as Republicans could hide behind Obama’s stance on gay marriage but now can’t, if the state regulates gay marriage people’s excuses for treating their children’s spouses as less than a full member of the family is placed on much more shaky ground.

Also, I would encourage you to strongly examine that fence (to continue the metaphor). Perhaps the reasons it has been put there are well understood but unpleasant. Our mind has a way of obscuring the unpleasant realities (according to a friend of mine who teaches English as a second language a lot of everyday Chinese don’t think their government is repressive, for example).

As well thought out and as principled as your arguments are all I hear is something akin to Orwell via Animal Farm: “We’re all equal but some are more equal.”

Regarding DADT, I was speaking about this: http://www.military.com/news/article/gay-ban-repeal-has-not-hurt-morale-military-leaders-say.html but I may have misread your comment as well. I apologize for putting words in your mouth.

Firstly, thanks for moderating this debate. You are truly an exemplar in the culture wars and if more people were willing to listen & reevaluate their arguments the sooner we can put the foolishness of social issues behind us and start living up to the full potential of our country’s founding promise: All people are equal and deserving of the liberty to live their life as they see fit (so long as it does not harm others).

Finally I still disagree with your definition of marriage, as I understand it.

In conclusion, I want to say that gay marriage will happen. 40 years from now, gay marriage will be as common-place as inter-racial marriage. And the people of that generation are going to view the people of today who are opposed to gay marriage? I think they will look back with the same incredulous disdain that the people of this generation look back at those who were opposed to inter-racial marriage 50 years ago.