Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Take that, duo-normative diarchy!
First, a little mood music:
Carrying on…

Is there any reasoning used against polyamerous marriage that wasn’t used against same-sex marriage that was dismissed as “irrational animus”?
“The majority in Obergefell did not find the fact that the West, for at least two millennia, held a stable conception of marriage — a union between one man and one woman, open to procreation and the rearing of children — compelling grounds to reject the claims of the plaintiffs. Obergefell clearly conceives of marriage as a ‘right’ — civil, legal, and moral — to be extended to consenting claimants, with only passing regard for the existing strictures of the institution. Anthony Kennedy’s opinion uses a nebulous, inchoate definition of marriage predicated on poetic notions of ‘dignity’ and ‘love’ rather than the traditional, unbroken consensus of Western civilization. Why would the Court find the traditional restriction of marriage to a union between two persons a compelling reason to withhold the right to marry from three (or more) claimants?
“If ‘love,’ ‘dignity,’ and the pursuant tax advantages are the constitutive parts of marriage, on what grounds would Rauch or the courts withhold those ‘rights’ from polygamous unions?”
![]()









