Marriage Equality Amendment

I once found this blog where someone was proposing a "Marriage Equality Amendment.”

The simple text of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

The right to marry shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex or sexual orientation.

We are definitely in favor of lifting restrictions that prevent someone from marrying someone of the same gender. But this amendment would still leave on the books numerous laws that prevent full marriage equality. The people on whose behalf I am blogging would not only still be prevented from having their marriages recognized, but many could be imprisoned for openly living as married. Prejudice against one is prejudice against all.

A better wording for the amendment would be:

The right to marry or to personal consortium shall not be abridged or denied by the United States or any state on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, ancestry, consanguinity, affinity, or number of participants.

Haven’t we progressed to this point? Why prevent consenting adults from loving each other?

[This entry bumped up because it is as relevant as ever.]

Why Polyamory Will Gain Acceptance Faster

It’s not going to take as long for polyamorists to get our freedoms, including the freedom to marry, as it is taking (monogamist) gays and lesbians.

First, I need to have a bit of clarification here. Polyamory has always been around with some public awareness, whatever forms it has taken or whichever labels have been applied, especially if we go with the broad term ethical nonmonogamy instead.

What I mean is that in the US, as well as many other countries, there was a sustained period of trying to force everyone, or at least everyone but the elite, into heterosexual, gender-roled, married monogamy with spouses that were “acceptable” by class, race, religion, etc. Those deemed not suitable for marriage were often kept out of public life in general. For example, people with certain disabilities were expected to stay home or be institutionalized so as to not cause discomfort to people who would be uneasy around them. That oppression is in the process of being dismantled. We are ending the prosecutions, the persecutions, the stigmatizing, and everything else that makes it so people go into hiding (or hiding an important part of who they are) because of who they are and who they love.

Polyamorists haven't had a "Stonewall" moment. Many people cite the Stonewall Riots of 1969 as the start of gay and lesbian people fighting back against such persecution. It has been 44 years and same-gender couples are still barred from legally marrying in most US states and LGBT people still need employment protections (ENDA). But the momentum is rapidly building, especially with the recent Supreme Court actions on DOMA and PropH8 and the death of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” for military service, and all of the public figures who are coming out in support of the same-gender freedom to marry. There have been so many advancements since 1969.

Note that earlier in the 1960s, the US adopted laws to protect racial minorities nationwide, and the Loving v. Virginia case struck down bans on the interracial freedom to marry, over a hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Women got the vote nationwide in 1920 and have made much progress, but are still on the journey.

So will polyamorists have to wait a couple of generations?

Happily, the answer is no. Here why:

Equality, Life, Liberty, and Happiness

Today is Independence Day in the US, considered our country's birthday. Connected to the day is the Declaration of Independence, which touts equality and notes that we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When the Declaration of Independence was written, equality was reserved for white, landowning, heterosexual, Christian males. Great strides have been made to extend equality to everyone else. As we know, equality just for some is not equality. In recent times, we have seen the death of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" for military service and we saw the burials of Prop H8 of at least part of DOMA, followed by many pro-equality court rulings ever since, now made even better with the Supreme Court ruling for the nationwide limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry.

More people are coming out of the closet, and more allies are coming out in support of equality. More people are getting married, and now we have more polyamorous and polygamous people speaking up for their rights.

But we’re still on our journey. Equality, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness are, in many places in the US, and at the national government level, still denied to LGBT people. Even more so, these rights are denied to the polyamorous and the consanguinamorous.

Let’s keep moving forward so that an adult, regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, or gender, is free to pursue love, sex, residence and marriage with any and all consenting adults, and not be denied liberty, employment, housing, or anything else.

This isn't just a philosophical thing or a principle. There are people, good people, who are hurt by ongoing discrimination, prejudice, and ignorance. There are people just being themselves, hurting nobody, and people who are in loving, healthy relationships who are being denied their rights, who have to hide who they are or their love for each other, who constantly endure people proclaiming that the love they share is sick or disgusting or makes them worthy of being subjected to abuse or death. There are teenagers who have simply behaved as normal teenagers with each other and haven't hurt anybody (including each other or themselves) who are being lied to and told that nobody else is like them and they are depraved. That's no way to have to live, it certainly isn't liberty, and it squashes the pursuit of happiness.

They need to know they are not alone, and there's nothing wrong with them.

We need independence from hate and ignorance. So let's keep evolving America, and encourage other countries to do the same.

Memorial Day Holiday

It is Memorial Day Weekend in the USA. Monday is a day that fallen military personnel are honored and remembered.

Some of our fallen were LGBT, some were poly. Some were consanguinamorous. Until somewhat recently, none of them could be open about who they were or who they loved without dire consequences; only some of our LGBT military personnel have been able to come out thanks to the end of DADT. Yet along with the rest of their military brothers and sisters, they fought for freedom.

So please let freedom ring.

Someone should be able to serve no matter their sexual orientation or their relationships with consenting adults. And they should be able to have their marriages legalized, and certainly not punished for their relationship.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the US, Monday is a holiday, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. He was a giant in the fight for civil rights.



Many decades after he was assassinated, the fight for civil rights continues.

History is on our side. All consenting adults will be free to exercise their rights to share love, sex, residence, and marriage.

Are like those who kept trying to keep some people second-class citizens, or are you like the people who marched with King?

Veterans Day

Today is the Veterans Day holiday in the US.

Fortunately, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which prevented LGBT people who are open about their orientation from serving in the military, died a long-overdue death, and is cold and buried. A LGBT-friendly President serves in the White House. The Supreme Court, while not doing everything it could, has brought about the national limited monogamous same-gender freedom to marry. Binational LGBT couples are better off. Polyamory is out of the closet and the polyamorous freedom to marry is gaining support.

I can’t help but think of the men and women who risked their lives (and those who gave them) and endured so many things in service to their country, who weren’t and haven’t been free to be who they really are and share their lives openly with the person or persons they love.

Other problematic laws and policies remain, and, of course, the polyamorous and consanguinamorous still endure the the threat of prosecution, persecution, or discrimination. We're also facing a new Administration that may try to roll back rights.

Shouldn’t someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves more than one woman, or his long lost sister? Shouldn’t a woman who served be free to marry both of the women she loves?

Let’s thank our veterans, especially those who are still being treated as second class citizens.

Happy Halloween!

Is it true what I've heard, that outside the US Halloween is no big deal? Halloween is October 31 and it is celebrated widely and diversely here in the US.

Do you have any special plans for Halloween? Have you do anything fun or interesting this year at a Halloween party or event?

Here in the states, the stores depend on Halloween to sell a lot of merchandise. There are parties, costume contests, what amounts to theatre in front of (and inside, sometimes) the homes of people as they try to scare or entertain neighbors and strangers with things ranging from silly to sexy, spooky to gory. In some places, kids (and often parents) in costumes go from door to door collecting candy or other treats.

Many amusement parks, ranging from small to the largest, do special entertainment in the weeks leading up to Halloween, and this is a favorite time of the year for movie studios to release horror movies, and for broadcasters to show ones from years past.

For some, there are religious or spiritual aspects to the day, and it might be called by other names.

Some interesting things can happen when people are having fun at costume parties, or cuddled up together watching scary movies.

So, as always, feel free to comment or share your stories.

Gay Marriage and Incest in the US

This entry is superseded by this more recent one. I'll keep this entry around for historical perspective.



*************************
Gay marriage (or same-sex marriage, or most accurately same-gender marriage) and incest (consensual, not talking about rape or molestation) are usually two different things.

In the US, the bigotry against marriage equality currently extends to preventing first cousins from marrying in a little over half of the states. As of this updated [March 2, 2015] writing, bigotry still prevents any same-gender couples from marrying in all but twelve states and Washington, D.C. (although five more states are under court decisions to allow same-gender couples to marry, but those decisions are currently on hold pending appeals.) There are twenty-two states (including Arizona, Maine, Minnesota, and Illinois, which have very limiting restrictions) and D.C. that allow first cousins to marry and also have the same-gender freedom to marry. If you consider cousin marriage incestuous, then those are the places where gay marriage and incestuous marriage have an overlap, as same-gender first cousins can marry.

There are a few states with laws against consensual sex between first cousins, including North and South Dakota, Utah, Texas, Nevada, Kentucky, and Mississippi. Conversely, about half of US states will marry (heterosexual) first cousins into legally monogamous marriages, and the states that neither marry nor criminalize will generally allow first cousins to be together without marriage.

There are some states that do not criminalize consensual incest between closer relatives than cousins, but they will not marry those lovers. Most US states still have laws against consensual incest (consanguinamory), and in most of them, people do continue to be prosecuted for simply loving each other.

Laws against gay sex have been struck down by the Supreme Court. So, gay sex is legal nationwide, consanguinamory isn’t.

Mixed-gender consanguinamory (such as brother-sister sex) involves sex between consenting adults of who are closely related.*

Gay marriage is a commitment between consenting adults of the same gender.

Those are usually not the same things.

What they do have in common: 1. They are between consenting adults. 2. They don’t hurt anybody. 3. Both have been subject to discrimination and being banned by the sex-negative busybodies who like to interfere in the love lives of others. 4. There is no rational reason, consistently applied to other relationships, as to why either of these are banned where they are banned.  5. Gays and lesbians do not choose their orientation and people do not choose the parents to whom they are born.

Otherwise, they are two entirely different freedoms to marry. I support both freedoms to marry, and others, because I support relationship rights for all and full marriage equality.

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Don't like it? Then don't do it. (That’s a good, easy response to bigots that doesn't throw anyone under the bus.)

Different people have different likes and dislikes, different biases and prejudices than others. Some LGBT people are in consanguinamorous relationships. Other LGBT people are supportive, some neutral, and some disgusted by the idea. Just like everyone else. But nobody's disgust should interfere in another's life.

Consenting adults may do things with each other that might disgust a majority of other consenting adults, but that disgust of others should not prevent the consenting adults from having their sex or love lives. Each of us should stand up for the relationship rights of all consenting adults. Gay sex may disgust someone. Heterosexual sex may disgust another. BDSM may disgust someone else. Interracial sex may disgust someone else. Polyamory may disgust one person. Consanguinamory may disgust another. So what? The disgusted person doesn’t have to do it, but should recognize that other adults should be free to have orientations, feelings, and relationships they may not understand, and free to express their sexual desires with, and affections for, other consenting adults in the ways they want.


I was originally inspired to write this by the comments by Nick Cassavetes and the reactions to it.

By the way, I consulted Wikipedia for this info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage_law_in_the_United_States_by_state
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States
...so, if you are personally dealing with the issues involved, I recommend a good lawyer as a reliable source of information.

*Some places include adoptive or step relations under the criminalization of incest, even though there is no biological relation between the participants.

Senator Feinstein Introduces (Limited) Respect For Marriage Act

I'm bumping up this argument from March 2011 because I'm hearing that the RFMA is being given another push...


US Senator Dianne Feinstein (California) has introduced a bill for a limited Respect For Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA, the Denial of Marriage Act. The bill, if it becomes law without any other changes in law, would simply remove at least a portion of the unconstitutional DOMA so that same-sex marriages created in states or countries that currently recognize them would be recognized by the US government. Currenty, no same-sex marriages are.

Reading the language of the bill, it appears to me that it is possible that if one state were to gain the polygamous freedom to marry or the consanguineous freedom to marry (or, do the right thing and institute full marriage equality), the US government would recognize those marriages, too.

The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA and restore the rights of all lawfully married couples – including tens of thousands of same-sex couples – to receive the benefits of marriage under federal law.

Under current law, legally married, same-sex couples cannot take advantage of federal protections available to every other married couple in this country. These couples cannot:

File joint federal income taxes and claim certain deductions;

Receive spousal benefits under Social Security;

Take unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act when a loved one falls seriously ill;

Obtain the protections of the estate tax when one spouse passes and wants to leave his or her possessions to another.

And this is important to note…

Joining Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) are co-sponsors: Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Dan Inouye (D-Hawaii), and Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii).

It’s a good start, but I call on these Senators to make history for equality and propose the Marriage Equality Amendment.

Polyamorists React to Court Decision on DOMA

First and foremost, I join with many others in congratulating everyone in the US who will be able to marry the person they love and have that marriage be recognized under federal law, due to the Supreme Court decision on DOMA. Enjoy, all you newlyweds!

As readers of my blog are well aware, we have a long way to go on relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults, but progress is better than no progress.

The court decision has resulted in much discussion in polyamory and polgamy circles, and by journalists who cover them.

At Radical Poly Agenda, this was the initial posting reacting to the decision.

SCOTUS Gives Victories on Marriage

The Supreme Court of the United States has given victories on marriage, although just about the weakest possible. They issued decisions on the federal DOMA, which denied equal treatment to same-gender marriages under federal law, and California's Proposition 8 (Prop H8). DOMA is dead! In the PropH8 case, they decided those defending the discrimination didn't have standing to defend it.

The basic gist is that progress was made, but the Court did not recognize that there is a right for an adult to marry any and all consenting adults, or even that a gay or lesbian person has a right to the limited same-gender freedom to marry.

So, congratulations to all who will now have their marriage treated equally under federal law & to Californians who will again have the  freedom to marry the person they love. But we must remember there are still many people in many states who are denied their right to marry the person or persons they love.

We will keep fighting to make sure all adults have relationship rights, including full marriage equality, sooner rather than later.

US Supreme Court Should Make Bold Move For Equality

The US Supreme Court has heard arguments about both DOMA and Prop H8 and could issue a ruling any day now. DOMA denies same-gender marriages recognition at the national level and has been very problematic, including for members of the US military and immigrants. Prop H8 took away the same-gender freedom to marry in California. Cases about both laws had been making their way through the courts and are now at the Supreme Court. There are many possible outcomes, some seen as more likely than others. It is possible that the Court could end up ruling next month, in June, to strike down DOMA so that same-gender marriages granted in states that currently have them will be recognized by the federal government, and letting lower court decisions striking down Prop H8 stand, so that California will again have the limited same-gender freedom to marry. It is also possible the Court may rule in a way that brings about the limited same-gender freedom to marry nationwide.

We want the US Supreme Court to make the best possible ruling, which is to recognize relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults nationwide.

The Court should rule that…

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

There are many reasons why the Court should do this.

Casting Call For Polyandrous Woman

An ad was placed at realitywanted.com...

Casting Call Information
City: Any City
State: National

Casting for women who live a polyandrous lifestyle. Seeking only those in serious relationships or with families. Preferably those who can recognize and comment on the social, economic, and political influence of they're lifestyle.

I am thinking of a few women who might be good for this.

I am cautiously optimistic that someone is going to put together a good documentary or series featuring polyandrous families. Polyandry needs to be depicted more, with honesty. People need to know it is an option and that there are people living in such relationships. On the other hand, even "reality" shows are edited for the sake of getting audience attention. This could be good, or it could be bad. If the producers think it is to their benefit, they may portray polyandry in general in a negative light or any given person in the show in a negative light. Also, this form of fame can bring many challenges and complications.

If the producers handle things well, this could be a very good thing for polyamorous people and relationship rights in general, including full marriage equality.

Another Ally For the Polygamous Freedom to Marry

Professor Mark Goldfeder makes a compelling case for the polygamous freedom to marry. He wrote on "Polygamy and DOMA" at sltrib.com...

The plural marriage movement is real. An estimated 50,000 to 150,000 polygamous families already live in America, from the well-publicized Muslims and Mormons to the African and Vietnamese immigrants keeping up their cultural ways. From modern feminists looking for a better work/life balance, to family traditionalists, who maintain that any marriage is better than none in the fight against the rising tide of single parents, cohabitation, and divorce.

Over 500,000 others identify as polyamorous, and engage in "ethical non-monogamy" — loving, committed, concurrent, consensual relationships with multiple partners.

I think that estimate is on the extremely low side. Many polyamorous people have never been part of any survey or polyamory group and may not even be out.

Experts say that 30 to 60 percent of married people in the U.S. will commit adultery over the course of their ‘exclusive, dyadic relationships,’ producing a form of de facto polygamy.

While that certainly means the relationships are not monogamous, in most cases it probably can't be called polygamy or polyamory, which are terms that imply all involved have agreed to the relationships.

Thousands of others will actually marry a second, sometimes even a third person, albeit after a legal divorce from their original spouse.

Yes. Very few people are truly monogamous over the course of their lifetime.

While some believe that plural marriage could lead to harm against women, regulation would protect them.

Gender inequality under the law harms women, not polygamy. A woman should have just as much right to marry multiple spouses as a man.

Those who would argue against plural marriage have their work cut out for them. The Bible records at least 40 instances of the practice. Confucianism, Islam, Hinduism, and some forms of Mormonism also support it. While Catholicism bans it, other forms of Christianity are somewhat less opposed.

Plural marriage is legal in more than 150 countries, with an estimated 2 billion practitioners and 3 billion supporters. Anthropologists believe that it was the norm through most of human history, until the sixth century Christian influence of the Roman Emperor Justinian. As a North American value, plural marriage is older than monogamy. According to one study of Native American tribes, a full 84 percent of them practiced it.

Natural law arguments also fail. Biologists lately have discovered that in the animal kingdom, there is almost no such thing as monogamy.

There is no good reason to deny the polygamous freedom to marry. Let's stop quibbling over which adults get which relationship rights. More and more people are realizing that an adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. Full marriage equality will happen. Let's make it sooner rather than later.

Are You Watching Nat Geo's Polygamy USA?

Kaylee Hultgren writes at cablefax.com wrote about National Geographic Channel's new show, "Polygamy USA."  It looks at the Arizona community of Centennial Park

.

The series, produced by Part2 Pictures, gives an unprecedented look at the subculture of a polygamist community. That kind of access—and the ability to tell stories that are genuine, honest and accurate—initially attracted Nat Geo to the project.

The thing is, these sorts of communities are more accurately described by the religion to which everyone in the community is expected to claim is theirs. Yes, the community supports polygynous ("plural") marriages, but it is their common religion that is what defines them. There are polygamists and polyamorists living in just about every community in the US, it is just that in most places, the wider community support is not there, and discrimination can make life difficult.

The article explains that NatGeo has had series documenting other US subcultures, such as life inside prisons and Amish communities. To feature Centennial, trust had to be built.

April 19 is the National Day of Silence in US

GLSEN's National Day of Silence takes place Friday, April 19.

It's a day of silence, especially in schools, to bring awareness to the prejudice and inequality suffered by LGBT people. Along with all allies, I also think poly people and consanguinamorous people should participate. Everyone should have the freedom to be themselves without being bullied. Every adult should have the right to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with ANY and ALL consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination. LGBT, poly, and consanguinamorous students and faculty still have to deal with hateful policies and attacks, but with your help, that will continue to change.

Democrat US Senators, Uruguay Evolve Towards Equality

The good news just keeps coming. Individual Democrats in the US Senate have been announcing, one after the other, that they support marriage equality, or at least the limited same-gender freedom to marry. now the country of Uruguay is poised to adopt the limited same-gender freedom to marry. We continue to make progress in the right direction. Keep evolving, Senators!

Here's what I suggest as an announcement in support of full marriage equality...

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

It is important to remember that, in the US (and much of this applies in other countries as well)...

Equal Protection Under the Law

Matthew Galluzzo, lawyer for Columbia University professor David Epstein, who'd been criminally prosecuted over consensual adult incest, wrote to Yes But However and made the legal case [link may no longer be working] for striking down laws against consensual consanguineous sex, while still trying to hint at a personal disapproval of such sex.

Second, I am a criminal defense attorney and not a religious leader or political activist, and accordingly, my argument is a legal one, not a moral or political one. I have never argued that homosexuality is the moral equivalent of incest, nor would I. I have never argued that the two are somehow similar biologically, psychologically, or ethically…

The comparison between the two is purely a legal one, and the legal argument that I am making is not a novel one – in fact, no less a legal scholar than Justice Scalia has already made it. I suggest that you read his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, but I will summarize the case for you:

This is very, very important.

Perhaps you didn’t realize it, but up until 2003, homosexual sodomy was still illegal in Texas and a few other states. Mr. Lawrence was arrested in Texas after being caught in the act by police officers in his own home, and was convicted of a crime as a result! He challenged the constitutionality of the state ban on sodomy, and initially lost because the Supreme Court had previously upheld the constitutionality of a similar state-level ban on sodomy in Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986.

However, in 2003, the Supreme Court overturned its own recent decision in Bowers v. Hardwick and declared that Mr. Lawrence had a constitutional right to engage in sodomy in the privacy of his own home, and that public opinion about the morality of such conduct was no longer a valid basis to deny him that liberty.

This same reasoning can be applied to poly and consanguineous sex.

In the dissenting opinion, Scalia countered that as a result of this logic, there is a very valid argument to be made that there is now a constitutional right to engage in acts of consensual adult incest. That is the argument that I am now making on behalf of my client, and i explained that to both ABC News and the Huffington Post.

I hope his argument works.

If your counter-argument is that incest ought to be illegal because it is always coercive (and thus, the ban on it is necessary to advance a compelling state interest), then I ask you the following questions:

1) Should it be illegal for a 33 year old sister and a 34 year old brother to have sex with each other? Is that relationship really coercive?

Very good question, because of course it shouldn’t be illegal. Also, for people who claim that all parent-adult child sex is coercive, I want to know at what point the coercion shifts to the child, given that some aging parents exhibit increasing dependence on their child?

2) Should all coercive sex result in an arrest? If so, the police would need to start arresting bosses for having sex with their secretaries, rich older men for having sex with younger less-wealthy people, and so on, and so on. Fortunately for them, there is nothing in the New York penal law that makes “coercive” sex illegal in the absence of force.

John Romano indicates that he is his not on board with solidarity, but doesn’t refute Galluzzo’s points.

More States Allow First Cousins to Marry Than Gays

You may have seen this picture (now outdated.) It shows that (heterosexual, monogamous) first cousins can legally marry in more US states than (monogamous) same-sex partners. Now, 9 states and Washington, D.C. allow gays and lesbians to marry one partner, with restrictions. See this map for laws regarding consanguineous sex and marriage, and this map for laws regarding same-sex marriage. Marriage is regulated at the state level in the US, which is why different states have different laws, but there are federal (national) programs and policies that treat people differently based on marital status. Currently, DOMA (which I like to call the Denial of Marriage Act), a federal law, prevents federal programs from recognizing legal same-sex marriages, but in June 2013 the US Supreme Court will likely overturn it.

Another way federal law has intruded into the freedom to marry is a denial of the polygamous freedom to marry. IIRC, if was over a hundred years ago that the Supreme Court denied that freedom. (It wasn’t all that long ago the court denied the right to gay sex in private, but fortunately it has since overturned that ruling.)

It is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the same-sex freedom to marry, and it is ridiculous for any of the states to deny the consanguineous freedom to marry. We can see from the many states that allow first cousins to marry, and for the many countries that do so, that there is no problem with it. We can also see from the states that have the same-sex freedom to marry, as well as countries like our neighboring Canada, that there’s nothing wrong with letting people have that freedom.

Every US state should back full marriage equality. An adult should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any consenting adults. If a woman wants to marry her cousin, she should have that right, even if that cousin is female, even if that cousin is already married, if all involved consent. Let’s make it happen sooner rather than later, either through a victory at the Supreme Court or by getting a Marriage Equality Amendment. This is no mere philosophical matter. This is about real people who denied equality right now. There are people who have to move, or at least travel, if they want to get married. There are also adults who are in happy, healthy, lasting marriages (though not legally recognized) who can't even be open to others about their relationship without risking prosecution. Prosecution, for loving each other! Thankfully, most same-sex couples not longer have that problem, but not all same-sex couples.

When someone shares that picture with you, it perhaps a good comment would be, “That is terrible. EVERY state should allow gays, lesbians, AND first cousins to marry. An adult should be free to marry any consenting adults.” As always, feel free to link to this or any other entry here if you'd rather save yourself the time.

Kudos to Senator Claire McCaskill

US Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat, wrote this on her tumblr...

I have come to the conclusion that our government should not limit the right to marry based on who you love. While churches should never be required to conduct marriages outside of their religious beliefs, neither should the government tell people who they have a right to marry.

Thank you, Senator! I agree that an adult should be free to marry any and all consenting adults!

My views on this subject have changed over time, but as many of my gay and lesbian friends, colleagues and staff embrace long term committed relationships, I find myself unable to look them in the eye without honestly confronting this uncomfortable inequality. Supporting marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples is simply the right thing to do for our country, a country founded on the principals of liberty and equality. 

Please, Senator McCaskill, don't forget your polyamorous and consanguinamorous constituents, too. Equality "just for some" is not equality.

Tomorrow is the day the US Supreme Court takes up marriage. They should make a bold move for the rights of all adults.