Tuesday, January 5, 2010


I argue for marriage equality. By that I mean that society and all local, state, federal, and international laws, institutions, and programs should recognize any marriage registered by any persons without restrictions on the basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, or religion.

In some places, laws against polygamy and consanguineous intimacy would have to be repealed, overruled, or superseded, just as some places have done with laws against sodomy, interracial marriage, same-sex marriage, cohabitation, etc.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.
— — —


  1. After reading this my jaw is still on the floor in absolute AGREEMENT! I'm in search of more similar to this re; (so-called) tabooed life styles, beliefs etc...any in put on that ps "This is an awesome sight, my daughter turned me on to it. I am so sick & tired of people telling other people HOW, what, where, when, and who of there life to go anothers say.

  2. It' very comfortable to talk about full equality on this blog.
    In Italy we are neither able to recognize same-sex couples, I don't want to imagine the bigot reactions to incest and polygamy.

    1. would consider something that should not have a prejudice??? Something that is harmful. Something that is destructive. Something that "benefits" only one other: the abuser? No! Incest has no place in any discussion of equality

    2. Anonymous, this blog deals with consensual relationships, not abuse.


To prevent spam, comments will have to be approved, so your comment may not appear for several hours. Feedback is welcome, including disagreement. I only delete/reject/mark as spam: spam, vulgar or hateful attacks, repeated spouting of bigotry from the same person that does not add to the discussion, and the like. I will not reject comments based on disagreement, but if you don't think consenting adults should be free to love each other, then I do not consent to have you repeatedly spout hate on my blog without adding anything to the discourse.

If you want to write to me privately, then either contact me on Facebook, email me at fullmarriageequality at protonmail dot com, or tell me in your comment that you do NOT want it published. Otherwise, anything you write here is fair game to be used in a subsequent entry. If you want to be anonymous, that is fine.

IT IS OK TO TALK ABOUT SEX IN YOUR COMMENTS, BUT PLEASE CHOOSE YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY AS I WANT THIS BLOG TO BE AS "SAFE FOR WORK" AS POSSIBLE. If your comment includes graphic descriptions of activity involving minors, it's not going to get published.