Sorry about the trackbacks. I was editing my personal blog post and the trackback URL never left that field on my site. I didn't mean to trackback 4 times.

Bush is talking out of his hat. The FMA, as presently worded, would also ban civil unions and "other legal arrangments" for same-sex couples.

Here is your proof: America and the concept of legal equality for all are mutually exclusive.

The activists brought the heat on themselves. When you have activist judges making up law and a mayor of a left-wing town ignoring laws, you have to expect something will happen.

You have to define marriage somewhere. The same arguments that gay-rights activists are using to try to get them rights are the same activists that polygamists have used.

I guess there is a fine line between activism and justifiable civil disobedience.

You have to define marriage somewhere? OK. But to discriminate against a segment of the population to prop up the religious beliefs of another segment? Bottom line: GLBT people ought to leave this vile country sooner rather than later. Obviously, except for our tax dollars and fashion tips, we are not wanted here. Let's start a Lavender Freedom Train to Canada!

"activist judges"...yet another chunk of coal fallen from the talk radio bag 'o cliches.

There's nothing wrong with activist judges. That's the thing that people forget. How else do issues get escalated through the system?

Issues get escalated through the system when there is sufficient public pressure. Otherwise, the system was wisely designed exactly NOT to speed things through.

Activist judges are the bane of society. They are the least democratic and answerable part of the system.

conservatives seemed to have no problem with judicial activism when bush was 'elected'.

ah, but that was probably 'jurisprudence'.

or something.

Mark, I believe it was most assuredly "something."

Please... let's keep this on target. This isn't about right vs. left. This is a specific issue in which not all people on the right agree with the president to be sure.

There's a biological term for marriage: pair bonding. I think "bonding" would be a reasonable term. You could even be more accepting than the religious right and recognize the religious ritual as establishing a bond. If polygamy really bothers you (why it would is beyond me) then usethe whole biological term.

That's very sharp P6 - we need a neutral term.

I am still trying to figure out what the big problem is with this beyond the religious prohibitions that aren't supposed to figure in our civil system anyway: separation of church and state remember? It's what we are demanding of the Islams, and rightly so, but this just doesn't make sense for a secular society. I guess it really is crap political grandstanding - no compassionate conservatism here.

Eric, this is why whenever Bush uses the word "sanctity" I just cringe.

it does make you wonder...would there be any different reactions to this if the president was saying that we need to protect the holiness of marriage?

What do you mean Mark? They are saying the same thing. Do you just mean that less people know what "sanctity" means?

yes, exactly.

you and others have said it before as well: the government doesn't have any business protecting the holiness of anything.

Mark, I wonder if Bush's back-room folk had anything to do with him using the word sanctity instead of something more obvious to a TON of people.

I think we should preserve the theopathy of marriage.

"Nobody is talking about allowing this kind of thing. So don't bring it up."

I'm curious, what's so inherently bad about polygamy?

It is inherently exploitative, bad for children, bad for society, and, ... oh yeah... EVIL

Sorry for not being precise, what about polygamy is inherently exploitative? Have you studied Tibetan societies that practice polyandry? What evidence do you have to suggest that it's inherently bad for children, society, pets, etc?

Who decided that polygamy is evil? Your morals? Some religion?

I'm not by any means a polygamist (I can bearly take care of the one gf i have), but I'm curious as to what facts everyone bases their hatred of polygamy on. I've yet to hear a sound argument that wasn't based on personal morals.

Gerrard, check out several of the comments on this post for some links and details supporting what I somewhat glibly stated here.

I'm about to head out, so I just quickly skimmed some of the contents on the other post, but I didn't see anything that includes a fact about why polyamory is inherently exploitative.

The only fact I saw (which I don't have time to research, so I'll take it at face value) described how it has been harmful to people in one town in Utah. Considering the fact that that comment described what sounds to my ears like borderline pedophilia, I'm not sure I buy the argument that the experience of some rogue Mormons is proof that polyandry in parts of Tibet is Evil.