In some places, laws against polygamy and consanguineous intimacy would have to be repealed, overruled, or superseded, just as some places have done with laws against sodomy, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, cohabitation, etc. - and I argue in favor of that in that people have right to engage in these things and receive equal treatment from their government and larger society and protection against certain forms of oppression.
As long as a locality has a justice of the peace or some other agent authorized to perform legally binding marriage ceremonies who will do so without discrimination, I do not argue that any ordained clergy with conscientious objections should be required to perform ceremonies without discrimination unless said clergy is receiving government funds or is employed by the government.
The global definition of marriage should be as follows:*
The uniting of consenting individuals in a witnessed ceremony.
In other words, marriage should involve only these requirements:*
1. The participants shall have consented to the marriage.
2. The participants shall undergo a witnessed marriage ceremony.
I represent a biological brother, sister, and mother who are seeking marriage equality. They are all above the age of consent where they reside. Bigotry, hatred, discrimination, ignorance, intolerance, fear, and resistance to change are the forces preventing from being able to have a public marriage. As it stands now, in many places. they could be prosecuted for crimes if it could be proven to a court that they had simply expressed their love for each other in certain ways, even in the privacy of their own home.
I do not advocate anyone engage in activity that is currently illegal in their jurisdiction; I do advocate changing or repealing any law that prevents the freedom of association, love, and full marriage equality. I do not believe anyone should have to move away from home to be legally free to express the fullness of their love. Perhaps this blog can help bring enlightenment and understanding, and as a result, equality.
Comments are welcome, especially from open minded and positive spirits.
I know this blog is sparse right now, but I hope to build it as I go along.
*UPDATE: I have removed the word "unmarried" from the definition, and thus I also removed the third requirement previously listed here. This was due to a reconsideration I made after I began this blog per the challenge of others. The change means that I support being able to marry someone who is already married, rather than forcing any previous marriages to be dissolved into a new marriage when an additional person is added. That would be just one option, but people should have the options of marrying someone who is already married, and to do so without necessarily marrying anyone else, such as that person's other spouse, unless that is what they all want. If an existing spouse does not consent to the new marriage, they should be free to divorce the spouse who is taking on a new spouse.