I've often  thought Ricochet should have a plan that limits the number of comments per day to help enforce moderation. Don't stay away too long Katie.

At least 3x/week driving up Geary I pass a group a senior citizens from a (quite tony) nearby Episcopalian retirement community urging me to honk in solidarity with the 99%. I think I'll print up a few dozen of these and pass them through the window next time I am stopped at a light.

And so Katie why not carry your argument to its logical extreme? Step-parents are bad? Why permit those types of marriages?

It's not the benefit for gays I am arguing for. It's for society. No one arguing for gay marriage is proposing any standard other than the one for straight marriage. You assume all kinds of effects not in evidence. Essentially positing that gay marriages are open and licentious.

This point id disingenuous. How on Earth can the State's licensing power "change" marriage. The argument resting on this thing is foolish. OF COURSE what we are really arguing about is approval of the act itself. The marriage license is just a symbol.

No one advocating for SSM is looking to discourage two married, heterosexual people from raising their own biological children.

Lighten up James. I was trying to make a joke in the midst of disagreement. KatieVS is a knowledgeable and articulate member.  But lately, she has had but one theme: SSM

5/10 - 5:56AM

5/11 - 5:14 AM

5/15: 6:34 AM

5/22 9:58AM

5/23 7:30AM

As a parent I find this premise incredibly difficult to accept. I continue to insist that there are so many skills required in good parenting that outweigh biological connection. In my own life I find the biologicial similarities (i.e. shared traits) with my children are often those aspects that make the parenting relationship more difficult and complicated.

Parenting well is a skill and the blanket notion that biological parentage gives one an advantage or special aptitude runs so counter to my personal experience that I look on the accepted evidence of "studies" with great suspicion.

Present.

KatieVS -- I actually agree with the statement in this article. The decline of the institution of marriage in this country is behind so much of our nation's problems.

We only disagree regarding the effect of SSM. I see it strengthening rather than denigrating the institution. I see the domestication of the homosexual relationship as a positive for society, not a negative.

We disagree about the importance and usefulness of sublimating homosexual urges. In this respect I am admittedly touchy-feely. I just don't see the effect of gays remaining closeted or suffering through heterosexual marriages as necessary  for the betterment of the social order.

If gays want to form unions, raise children, buy property, mow their lawns and pay the marriage tax penalty, I say we are all better for it.

Peace out.

I would respect Elizabeth Warren's claims to be 1/32nd Cherokee if she actually became an advocate for reforming these sorts of norms among her "people." If I were running Scott Brown's campaign, I would raise this issue as one of importance for the Senate given the Federal oversight of tribal lands. I would talk about how the left's celebration of separatism and non-integration has resulted in abject poverty, alcoholism and apparently this and challenge Ms. Warren about whether the policy of "protecting this class" for decades has actually helped.

I am being generous to call this disingenuous Mollie. You have that journalist's blindness to your own bias, obvious to everyone else.

We don't all have to agree but  this issue is divisive and redundant. After 200 comments from the post you promoted last week, to then launch another Monday morning is not only discouraging but destructive. 

My opponents tell me the anecdotal is to be eschewed. But for what it's worth I agree that prosecution of polygamy as a criminal act crosses the line. By all means prosecute in cases where child or spousal abuse is involved but if his clients are innocent of that as he claims, then I would agree that prosecution is misplaced.

But we were arguing about privileges to be granted by the state, and my point is that behaviors that are constructive to society are those to be officially encouraged through tax and other policies. All others can be ignored.

*sigh*

Your "research" is unconvincing. For data it refers to studies that do not apply and then suggests that the case for same sex unions is simply "obvious." The only real datas is has argues the case, but again unconvincingly, that same sex couples turn children gay.

But that too is a circular argument that bears further research. Even if the study is valid, which I doubt mightily, could it not simply be that a same-sex environment allows children to more easily express themselves in non gender-conforming ways.

So yes Katie, I find that my anecdotal evidence trumps your "research." And since we have already shown that ultimately this debate comes down to personal moral values, I would posit that my personal experience is all that my opinion requires.

Mollie, the links you sent me to on the pages of the New York Times support the impression I have of polygamy, which is that it isolates individuals from society and encourages coersion among underage girls. There are of course numerous cases of welfare fraud as well. I see nothing positive here. I see nothing that encourages domestication and the building of society. You and KatieVS and others are acribing arguments to me that I have not made.

And Tommy is right Mollie, you are using your position as editor to advance your beliefs. There is no news hook here. You might consider a post successful that draws 200 comments, but I believe you would be mistaken. SoCon fights on the front page however well-mannered persuade no one, emphasize rifts in the online Ricochet community and do damage to the branding of Ricochet.

As I have argued on these pages before. The reason that polygamy is not something that the State should endorse is that its practice leads to coersion and child abuse, not to mention social separatism and welfare fraud.

The State needs to be concerned with what is best for the greater good. In practice of course polygamy does exist as does free love and communal living and open marriages. But as none of these advance the cause of civil society they are not deserving of the State's endorsement for tax or other purposes.

It is the practice of same sex marriage that convinces me of its value and appropriate place in society. Some claim it is a recent phenomenon and they are right of course. But where I live there are grown adults that are the product of same sex families and "marriages" that have passed the test of raising teenagers. My understanding with the practice of polygamy is that its practice is vastly more troubled.

Societal norms will evolve as they will. But as for practices I believe the majority should embrace, the line is quite clear. Polygamy is a weak straw man for your view Mollie.

I'm struck both by your genuine sincerity Peter as well as that of the President. What a marvelous story. Thank you for sharing it with us.