Our good friend Brian B over at Memento Moron has accused your humble stable of villanous bloggers of being “lackluster.”
Your modest Smallholder is not chagrind. Perhaps the Maximum Leader has been lackluster, but I have been, well, silent.
Been in a bit of a funk for the last couple of months. My typically sunny disposition is starting to reassert itself, so I shall recommence my blogospheric ramblings by giving our friend Brian the thrasing he so thoroughly earned back in March. He tried to call me out with his post “You Were Saying,” wherein the brilliantly bombastic Brian broke balls over my previous dismissal of the slippery slope argument. Go read. I’ll wait.
Seriously. Go read. Shoo!
Back already?
Well, I would have responded earlier and I apologize for the delay, but my new wives Jaime, Evangeline and Alyssa were keeping me busy around the house.
As a matter of fact, I don’t “consider coverage on the Today Show and MSNBC/Newsweek, and sympathetic treatment in an HBO Series to be the beginning of a cause celebrite.”
I consider it to be infotainment designed to boost the ratings of the show. The firewall between newsroom and entertainment divisions has become paper thin. The entertainment focus of the nightly news has driven your elitist Smallholder to imbibe his news from the printed page.
I also don’t “accept the argument that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love.” My pro-gay marriage is based on constitutional equal protection and the knowledge that the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution requires states to recognize contracts concluded in other states, regardless of silly Protection of Marriage Acts and state constitutional revisions. Under the legal argument, limiting marriage to one partner is perfectly constitutional if everyone is limited.
I’d be pretty pissed off if we granted Mormons and Muslims exemptions to monogomy because that would unconsitutionally offer different rights to different groups.
Accepting gay marriage is simply following the Constitution as written. Since marriage as a single-partner institution already exists, one only has to open the door. Creating a right to polygamy would require the radical reconsideration of all the benefits and appurtenances of marriage*.
That said, from a strictly love point of view, I have no problem with anyone living with multiple partners. Live and let live are what I, and Mrs. Smallholder and Jaime and Evangeline and Alyssa always say.
* I gots no idea what appurtenances is, but it do sound fancy and all book-smart an’ stuff, don’t it?
