bisexual and polygamy cases

All twentieth and twenty first century human rights cases owe their start to Brown v. the Board. Race and color cases led to ethnicy, alienage, sexuality and gender cases of the past 20-30 years and back again, to the founder of the feast, Brown v. the Board. Just as Catholic and Mormon and Jewish case law led the pack in the nineteenth century, see, e;.g., Reynolds v. United States, making polygamy illegal. In other words, the skunk at the garden party, i.e., the group on which we project our own fears, the projected scapegoat, makes the great law of the time.
Now, with gay rights, including marriage, almost assured de jure, with much to be done de facto, we will turn by the very nature of case law, to the polygamous and bisexual cases, just as from Brown, we went to color, alienage, ethnicity,nationality, gender and sexuality. It simply follows. Scalia saw the connectlion early on between polyggamy case law and homosexual case law. To him, this was the most hated thing he could imagine. I saw the same thing, before he did, and I applauded.

Now, consider the linkage between bisexual rights and polyggamy. With gender and sexual case law in place, i.e., no preference for male over female rights, both polygamy and bisexuality are linked and therefore acknowledged. That is, one man AND one women can choose to mate with male or female, polyganously or monogamously, at his/her choice. This will be the cutting edge of human rights for us all, in the coming decades. As was said as Utah faced statehood with a polygamist elected to the Senate, I think by Senator Albert Jeremiah Beveridge, the greatest biographer of John Marshall ever (and Lincoln, but Beveridge died befoe the last valumeJ): ” I’d rather be a polygamist who didn’t polyg than a monogamist who didn”t monog.” Horray!

I’ve been very sick for a long time and it’s good to have a brain once again ed firmage xoxo

  1. #1 by Nathan Erkkila on May 27, 2014 - 2:21 pm

    While I can see why polygamy can be seen as a personal choice and therefore respected, don’t you think it will cause problems like a shortage of available women?

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on May 27, 2014 - 6:48 pm

    It’s very good to hear from you again, Ed.

    • #3 by cav on May 28, 2014 - 7:37 am

      Ditto. Xoxos in return and enforced gay marriage to numerous spousi in the bargain.

  3. #4 by Larry Bergan on May 27, 2014 - 7:33 pm

    As I read it, this blog exists because of Ed Firmage. I’ve been stumbling around here for years, but I’ve had a few good posts too. I’ve never been trained in journalism, but I’m sure I’ve done better then some of the people who actually make money from that sort of thing.

    They can’t fire me, but they haven’t banned me yet either.

    In any case, I’m grateful.

  4. #5 by Anonymous on May 28, 2014 - 1:27 pm

    Pretty sure that the right to marry multiple farm animals of any gender can’t be far behind.

    • #6 by Nathan Erkkila on May 28, 2014 - 1:29 pm

      Slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy. Tell me. Do you think interracial marriage will eventually lead to bestiality?

      • #7 by cav on May 28, 2014 - 7:45 pm

        The slippery slope fallacy may well BE a fallacy, but purposefully lubing up a particular incline, then coaxing any number of the only partially informed populace to its edge, pushing them in (but not before emptying their billfolds (and retirement accounts)), providing them with an exhilarating, adrenalin filled meet-up with Gaia, the loan officer, S.W.A.T, or political incorrectness.

        Than’s no fallacy!

        For as long as there have been marriages there has been bestiality. Make of THAT what you will.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: