Think of your typical workday — that is, if you’re a salaried employee performing some function in an office somewhere.  You’ve got your list of things to get done during the day, the week, the longer-term projects you need to make progress on.  You log onto your computer, check the e-mail that came in overnight, get a cup of coffee, get started — while also periodically checking your personal e-mail, perhaps, or making a personal phone call or two, or... Read more

Again, just a question. Right now discussions around polygamy are, for the most part, indirect discussions on whether Obergefell was decided correctly — whether its logic directly leads to polygamy or whether you can shore up your support for SSM by clearly differentiating between the two. So the question I have for my readers is this: If in a stealth legislation*, your state legalized polygamy tomorrow morning, would you: (A) Think it was a fine thing, sure to help many... Read more

ADDED:  Bonus hypothetical question below! This is that sort of post in which I think about things a little, and invite you to think with me. What is marriage, in our legal system, now, in the year 2015?  Discarding issues of children: 1) It provides a means of becoming mutual next-of-kin to someone not biologically related to you.  This has all manner of implications, most notably medical decision-making and visitation rights, as well as an inheritance presumption.  (Could this be adapted... Read more

A genuine, not rhetorical, question.  It’s worrisome, to put it mildly, but I need to do more reading.  In the meantime, what do you think? Read more

The text of the Supreme Court decision is available at this link. The two-sentence background is this:  by popular referendum, Arizona established a nonpartisan redistricting commission to determine congressional districts in a gerrymander-free manner, but the state legislature didn’t like having their power usurped, so they found a loophole — the statement in the Constitution that the Legislature, not a independent commission, has the authority — and they sued.  The Court, by the usual 5-4 margin, with Ginsburg writing the... Read more

Here’s the current debate (e.g., in comments to my post on polygamy): Progressives to traditionalists:  “Marriage is all about love, so its unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional to deny the opportunity to marry to same-sex couples.” Traditionalists to progressives:  “Your rationale for supporting same-sex marriage is clearly wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that it leaves no room for objecting to polygamy. ” “Does not!” “Does so!” etc. But this debate is based on two alternate understandings of marriage: For traditionalists,... Read more

(A super-quick, type-up-my-thoughts post before I start work. . .) The Economist went to press too soon to be able to report on the Obergefell decision, but in another way, their timing was pretty good, as they came out with a cover announcing:  “The right to die:  Why assisted suicide should be legal.”    The gist of their argument was this:  allowing assisted suicide would further the goal of greater liberty/autonomy, and the feared harms have either not come to... Read more

We don’t know. Now, Kennedy’s opinion appears to promise protection to religious groups, but look at what he said (as quoted by The Federalist): Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling... Read more

You know you want to talk about this. Given the logic of Kennedy’s opinion, and the fundamental statement that love triumphs all, and the state and social affirmation of that love that is state-recognized marriage must be extended to gay/lesbian pairs for this reason — well, there’s not a sentence that couldn’t be applied to groupings of three or more.  Well, except for the loneliness bit:  “the state alleviates your loneliness with a spouse, but once you’ve got a spouse... Read more

Is the following speculation too outlandish and Swiftian?  You tell me. . . ****************************** “What’s the matter with men?”  That’s the topic of no end of books and featured articles, particularly with respect to blue-collar men whose traditional path to respectability, manual labor that pays well due to its physical arduousness, is disappearing.  As The Economist says: Poorly educated men in rich countries have had difficulty coping with the enormous changes in the labour market and the home over the... Read more