I'll be in Chicago that week but can't wait to hear how it goes. I want details on what KP is like.

Come on! I have been a skeptic on this issue for a good 9 months!

Love this one.

Spent a long time on the Coase Theorem in school so I can't wait to listen to this. Thanks for the heads up.

Another great person to follow if you're interested in this discussion is Judge Jim Gray. He went from being an active supporter of the War on Drugs to a prominent opponent. You can hear him talk about why here:

There is no "libertarian position," per se. Some believe the state should not be in any way involved. Others support the "marriage equality" movement. And so on and so forth.

I tend to be much less interested in what the government says about marriage except insofar as it affects social norms. So when I read about how prominent "marriage equality" advocate Dan Savage wants to rethink the norms of monogamy and fidelity or when I read that Manny Pacquiao is banned from a mall because he supports traditional marriage, I like to explore what that means.

Particularly since the mainstream media narrative is that only bigots oppose "marriage equality" and there will be zero negative repercussions to redefining marriage to include same-sex unions.

I know some people here oppose redefining marriage to include same sex couples and some believe that there is no limiting principle for denying marriage equality to polygamous unions, but has anyone who supports redefining marriage to include same sex couples come up with a limiting principle for denying marriage equality to polygamous groupings?

Classic Kinsey gaffe, yes.

I'm sorry, but what, exactly, is disingenous about what I wrote? You don't believe we should have discussed the Public Discourse essay published today. That's fine, although you are discussing it.

I imagine I'll keep posting and commenting about marriage law and you'll keep posting and commenting on it as well. It's a feature, not a bug! Let's just enjoy the discussion and be open to learning from one another.

MFR, my actual views on so many topics are so radical that I've learned to be somewhat humble about it. I don't think many people are here at Ricochet to go over topics such as "should the police be privatized?" or "what would America look like without public roads?"

I'm also honest enough to know that the real debate is not over whether to privatize marriage but, rather, whether the state redefines it to include same-sex couples. So I'm interested in provoking people to think about all the things the media willfully leave out of that discussion -- how it will change social norms, what other family arrangements will be sanctioned by the state as equal to trad marriage, religious liberty implications, etc.

I have yet to write even a post arguing that the state should not prefer one family arrangement over another, so you're actually wrong about me abusing my position. I tend to find arguments about marriage law interesting, and have found that those who argue that the state should limit marriage to a heterosexual union are much more persuasive than those who argue that it should be redefined to include same-sex couples but not, for instance, polygamous arrangements. So you're wrong that these debates persuade no one.

Finally, I certainly hope you're not arguing that we all have to agree on something as fundamental as marriage law, much less in the direction of redefining it to include same-sex unions, in order to be part of Ricochet. That would be silly.

Ding ding ding! You got it. And (c) plays into why these paramilitary raids are happening every day in towns and cities across the country. It reminds me of the slideshow that Radley Balko put together that showed a dozen or 20 pictures of domestic paramilitary units and foreign paramilitary units and you were supposed to try to figure out which were which. It was difficult. Is the the type of policing, the type of relationship with police that we think is ideal?

Including this Jonathon Turley op-ed?

The case of the Browns, for whom I am lead counsel, is a clear example of unacceptable government intrusion. The family has not been accused of child abuse or other crime, in almost a year of being under criminal investigation. With such allegations stripped away, the only thing remaining is a family that does not look like those of other Utah citizens. The question is whether that is enough to declare them criminals.

While widely disliked, if not despised, polygamy is just one form among the many types of plural relationships in our society. It is widely accepted that a person can have multiple partners and have children with such partners. But the minute that person expresses a spiritual commitment and “cohabits” with those partners, it is considered a crime.

One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under Lawrence.

Did you know that my view on marriage law is that the state should not favor one family arrangement over another? I get the feeling you don't actually know my view.

I'm still curious what limiting principle you propose for denying marriage equality to non-couple units.

This story makes me feel better about the Cardinals losing last night. Seems downright insignificant, in fact. Glad for Scott that he had that homer.

For those who think that marriage equality for all families is a "straw man," I'd suggest reading some of these recent stories in the New York Times about the battle to bring marriage equality to all who form families based on love, regardless of number.

And, Trace, if the practice of polygamy as demonstrated in those articles is accurate, it should convince you of its value and appropriate place in society. These people could not be creating happier, healthier homes if the NYT reporting is to be believed.