[AveMaria]

[....Polygamy and bigamy aren't just illegal because they're immoral. They are illegal because it (unfairly, in my opinion) allows 30, 40, or 50 year old men to enslave 13 year old girls as one of their "wives".....]

1. Does that mean that you wouldn't object to polygamy, if it involved a 50 year old man, and five women in their twenties (i.e. Clinton's fantasy world)? If privacy is a constitutional right, then on what basis would you object to a polygamist living with five wives who are all consenting adults?

2. If a 60 year old man decided to marry his 30 year old daughter, then on what basis can society object to that marriage, if the right to privacy is absolute?

Rick Santorum was making the same point I am raising on those two issues. Our laws have to reflect our values, and community standards have to be observed. Changing the Texas law is the responsibility of the state legislature, not the courts.

[Buckeye Bomber]

1) Polygamy never applies to men and women, only to men. Equal protection under the law pretty much knocks that one down.

2) Society has a vested interest in preventing deformed or genetically weak children as much as possible. Incestual intercourse and marriage must then be stopped.

There is no societal interest in regulating the private bedroom behavior of homosexuals. I once again ask, why is non-procreative sex between heterosexuals less immoral than that between homosexuals? Honestly, if marriage is so fragile that a few gay people shacking up will destroy it, what good is it anyway? Marriage, as a contract, needs to be self-enforcing to survive. I believe that the marriages that survive are the ones that are self-enforcing.