The Invisible Asterisk

Sometimes, when someone writes (or says) that they support the freedom to marry or, marriage equality, or #Marriage4All, or “love is love” or something like “The sex lives of consenting adults is nobody else’s business.,” there is an invisible asterisk. You know, one of these ==> *

What might really be going on is this…

“Consenting adults should be free to marry each other.”*

*Unless you mean something I don’t like or think is disgusting, like polygamy, open marriage, or consensual adult incest.



I don’t do that. There is no asterisk in this statement…

I support the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

There is no asterisk after “adult.” An “adult” includes any person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

“Any and all” means “any and all”. If an adult woman can vote, be Secretary of State (or Prime Minister, which we don't have in the US), serve as a Governor, be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sign contracts, enlist in the military, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty (which we do have in many places in the US), and can consent to group sex with three cage fighters she just met, it seems to me an adult woman should also be free to have sex with and/or marry any consenting adult(s), even if that means another woman, or two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or a married man (not hidden from his existing spouse), or her sister, whether an adopted sister, stepsister, half sister, or full blood sister. All of this goes for men, too, of course.

This basic right means all adults having the same right to not marry at all, and to divorce, and to be free of domestic violence. The basic freedom of association should mean that adults can share the entirely of love, sex, residence, and marriaqe, or any of those without the others, and any civil union or domestic partnership that is offered. That’s a funny thing called… equality. There is no good reason to deny equality. Now is the time to get it done.
So, do you support full marriage equality, or marriage “equality”*?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity,terminology

Ally for Equality in New Zealand

Adam Bennett reports at nzherald.com about a political party's leader speaking up for equality.

New Act Leader Jamie Whyte is standing by his comments that incestuous relationships between consenting adults should not be illegal and says it would be "intellectually corrupt" of him not to be honest when asked such questions. 

In an article published on The Ruminator website, former philosophy lecturer Dr Whyte was asked whether the state should intervene if adult siblings wanted to marry each other.

Good for him.

Dr Whyte told the Herald his response was based on his belief that: "I don't think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here - consensual and adult".

We need more people to speak up for full marriage equality.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,consanguineous,marriage equality,New Zealand,politicians

Will Utah Make Legislative Baby Steps?

After a federal judge did what should have been a no-brainer to everyone and slapped down Utah's criminalization of polyfidelity and polyamorous cohabitation, a state legislator is trying to make baby steps in the law, as reported by Antone Clark at standard.net...

Rep. Jerry Anderson, R-Price, said House Bill 56 was inspired by a federal judge's ruling in December striking down part of the state's law banning polygamy, following legal action brought by the stars of a TV reality series "Sister Wives." The court ruling threw out the state's section of law prohibiting cohabitation, saying it violates the constitutional guarantee of due process and religious freedom.

Not to mention freedom of association, right to privacy, etc.

His bill is only 29 lines long, and essentially changes the definition of cohabitation and then points out under existing law, bigamy is a third-degree felony.

Bigamy shouldn't be a crime unless it involves fraud. An adult should be free to marry any & all consenting adults. If someone is married and they are marrying another, that shouldn't be hidden from current spouses. Absent that sort of deception, there's no reason for polyamorists to be denied their fundamental rights.

He said the state's existing bigamy definition forces many people into the shadows. He said thousands of schoolchildren list their fathers as unknown, to avoid dealing with the implications of being in violation of the law.

He said the state's existing definition of bigamy puts police officers in a tough position.

Exactly. Criminalization of consensual adult relationships is destructive, causing many unnecessary problems.

This is a baby step. Really, any US state needs relationship rights, including full marriage equality, for all.

UPDATE: The bill is "dead" as the lawmakers sit around waiting for further court action. Sigh.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,bigamy,freedom to marry,law,politicians,polyamory,polygamy,Sister Wives,Utah

The Invisible Asterisk

Sometimes, when someone writes (or says) that they support the freedom to marry or, marriage equality, or #Marriage4All, or “love is love” or something like “The sex lives of consenting adults is nobody else’s business.,” there is an invisible asterisk. You know, one of these ==> *

What might really be going on is this…

“Consenting adults should be free to marry each other.”*

*Unless you mean something I don’t like or think is disgusting, like polygamy, open marriage, or consensual adult incest.



I don’t do that. There is no asterisk in this statement…

I support the rights of an adult to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, bullying, or discrimination.

There is no asterisk after “adult.” An “adult” includes any person, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion.

“Any and all” means “any and all”. If an adult woman can vote, be Secretary of State (or Prime Minister, which we don't have in the US), serve as a Governor, be a CEO of a Fortune 500 company, sign contracts, enlist in the military, operate heavy machinery, be sentenced to life in prison or the death penalty (which we do have in many places in the US), and can consent to group sex with three cage fighters she just met, it seems to me an adult woman should also be free to have sex with and/or marry any consenting adult(s), even if that means another woman, or two women, or two men, or a woman and a man, or a married man (not hidden from his existing spouse), or her sister, whether an adopted sister, stepsister, half sister, or full blood sister. All of this goes for men, too, of course.

This basic right means all adults having the same right to not marry at all, and to divorce, and to be free of domestic violence. The basic freedom of association should mean that adults can share the entirely of love, sex, residence, and marriaqe, or any of those without the others, and any civil union or domestic partnership that is offered. That’s a funny thing called… equality. There is no good reason to deny equality. Now is the time to get it done.
So, do you support full marriage equality, or marriage “equality”*?

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity,terminology

A Wave of Progress Across the US

While the US Supreme Court moved things forward earlier this year, it hasn't yet instituted a nationwide same-gender freedom to marry, let alone full marriage equality. Instead, progress is being made state-by-state, as the US is comprised of 50 states, plus territories/districts, plus some tribal governments. 14 states so far (plus Washington, D.C., the nation's capital) have the state-wide but limited same-gender freedom to marry, and the federal government will recognize those marriages.

Many more states are in play and should be gaining the limited same-gender freedom to marry soon. There have been very few road blocks lately, and the ones we've seen have been temporary. Popular opinion has been making progress, and more politicians have been announcing support.

People are seeing the happy couples and their families and friends enjoying their rights, and there doesn't seem to be any downside that has happened in any place where same-gender couples have been allowed to marry.

While I'd like to see the Supreme Court or Congress implement full marriage equality nationwide, states should continue to keep evolving instead of waiting for national leadership to catch up. It is time to do away with the archaic, bigoted, and harmful laws that remain on the books in so many places that trample on the rights of adults and deny equality. Each and every state should recognize that an adult, regardless of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, relationship orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.


There are American adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from exercising their fundamental right to marry or even just being together. If we really care about rights, children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage,if they want to marry.

Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, and as more states recognize the rights of more adults, it is easier for those people to relocate there.

Now is the time to push for the rights of ALL adults. The bigots are in retreat. There's no going back. We need to demand relationship rights for all, and we need to do so with solidarity.

In discussion after discussion, we fail to see a good reason why the freedom to marry should be extended to some, but not all adults. Get on the right side of history and support relationship rights for ALL adults! Here's how.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,law,marriage equality,politicians,solidarity,US

A Wave of Progress Across the US

While the US Supreme Court moved things forward earlier this year, it hasn't yet instituted a nationwide same-gender freedom to marry, let alone full marriage equality. Instead, progress is being made state-by-state, as the US is comprised of 50 states, plus territories/districts, plus some tribal governments. 14 states so far (plus Washington, D.C., the nation's capital) have the state-wide but limited same-gender freedom to marry, and the federal government will recognize those marriages.

Many more states are in play and should be gaining the limited same-gender freedom to marry soon. There have been very few road blocks lately, and the ones we've seen have been temporary. Popular opinion has been making progress, and more politicians have been announcing support.

People are seeing the happy couples and their families and friends enjoying their rights, and there doesn't seem to be any downside that has happened in any place where same-gender couples have been allowed to marry.

While I'd like to see the Supreme Court or Congress implement full marriage equality nationwide, states should continue to keep evolving instead of waiting for national leadership to catch up. It is time to do away with the archaic, bigoted, and harmful laws that remain on the books in so many places that trample on the rights of adults and deny equality. Each and every state should recognize that an adult, regardless of gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, relationship orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage (or any of those without the others) with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.


There are American adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from exercising their fundamental right to marry or even just being together. If we really care about rights, children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage,if they want to marry.

Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, and as more states recognize the rights of more adults, it is easier for those people to relocate there.

Now is the time to push for the rights of ALL adults. The bigots are in retreat. There's no going back. We need to demand relationship rights for all, and we need to do so with solidarity.

In discussion after discussion, we fail to see a good reason why the freedom to marry should be extended to some, but not all adults. Get on the right side of history and support relationship rights for ALL adults! Here's how.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,law,marriage equality,politicians,solidarity,US

Harvey Milk Day

May 22 is Harvey Milk Day. In California, the day was established in 2009 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Milk was a politician who became the first openly gay person to be elected to public office in California when he won a seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Milk served almost 11 months in office,  passing an important gay rights ordinance for the city. On November 27, 1978, Milk and Mayor George Moscone were assassinated by Dan White, another city supervisor.

We don't make progress in the fight for civil rights without courageous and motivated people like Harvey Milk.

Read more »

Posted in: California,LGBT,politicians

Democrat US Senators, Uruguay Evolve Towards Equality

The good news just keeps coming. Individual Democrats in the US Senate have been announcing, one after the other, that they support marriage equality, or at least the limited same-gender freedom to marry. now the country of Uruguay is poised to adopt the limited same-gender freedom to marry. We continue to make progress in the right direction. Keep evolving, Senators!

Here's what I suggest as an announcement in support of full marriage equality...

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

It is important to remember that, in the US (and much of this applies in other countries as well)...

1. There are adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying or even just being together. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As US Supreme Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As Court precedent states, consensual sex is part of the liberty protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. As Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

5. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

6. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

7. A legislation or a Court ruling recognizing relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is notequality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.


8. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out. The Court can end the uncertainties and inconsistencies, and end the hateful, destructive, confusing, costly state-by-state fights that often pit older generations against younger generations, by putting the US on the right side of history sooner rather than later and recognizing relationship rights for all adults. More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. Utah criminalizespolyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry. Some states allow first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allow them to marry with restrictions, some states ban this freedom to marry entirely, and a couple of states even criminalize sex between first cousins. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.

9. Full marriage equality will end inequalities and confusion in immigration policies.

10. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, their human resources departments will not have to deal with state-by-state conflicts, and employees will be free to move (temporarily or permanently) from one location to another without facing different restrictions on their relationships.

11. Government employees, including the men and women serving in our military, will not have to face different restrictions on their relationships from place to place.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Elected officials and the US Supreme Court should protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,Latin America,law,politicians,USA

Democrat US Senators, Uruguay Evolve Towards Equality

The good news just keeps coming. Individual Democrats in the US Senate have been announcing, one after the other, that they support marriage equality, or at least the limited same-gender freedom to marry. now the country of Uruguay is poised to adopt the limited same-gender freedom to marry. We continue to make progress in the right direction. Keep evolving, Senators!

Here's what I suggest as an announcement in support of full marriage equality...

An adult, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, race, or religion, should be free to share love, sex, residence, and marriage with any and all consenting adults, without prosecution, harassment, or discrimination.

It is important to remember that, in the US (and much of this applies in other countries as well)...

1. There are adults, and in some cases their children, suffering right now because of discriminatory laws preventing them from marrying or even just being together. If we really care about children, equality, stability, security, and valuing family, we will let people decide for themselves what kind of relationships they will have, including marriage, if they want to marry.

2. As US Supreme Court precedent states, marriage is a fundamental civil right.

3. As Court precedent states, consensual sex is part of the liberty protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. As Court precedent states, when the government intrudes on choices concerning family living arrangements, the usual deference to the legislature is inappropriate, and the Court must examine carefully the importance of the governmental interests advanced and the extent to which they are served by the challenged regulation.

5. Freedom of association for consenting adults is a basic Constitutional right. Just as there is no good reason to ban interracial relationships or marriage, there is no good reason to ban same-gender relationships or marriages, polyamorous relationships or polygamous marriages, or consanguinamorous relationships or consanguineous marriages. There is no good reason to limit marriage to narrowly exogamous heterosexual couples.

6. Freedom of religion is a basic Constitutional right. One group’s religion should not deny the rights of other consenting adults to be together or marry. Conversely, some religions recognize or promote marriages currently banned under laws in most or all fifty states, depending on the marriages.

7. A legislation or a Court ruling recognizing relationship rights and full marriage equality for all adults will provide what the Constitution requires: equal protection, rather than a piecemeal approach of this freedom to marry or that form of civil union. Equality just for some, or in some aspects but not others, or in this state but not that state, is notequality. The Constitutional principles of equal protection, freedom of association, freedom of religion, and the right to privacy, along with basic fairness, rational reflection, and compassion, necessitate that the US government ensure the rights of all adults.


8. The momentum within the US, neighboring countries, and the modern world is for marriage equality. Full marriage equality is inevitable, as even many opponents of equality admit. So it is pointless to drag the fight out. The Court can end the uncertainties and inconsistencies, and end the hateful, destructive, confusing, costly state-by-state fights that often pit older generations against younger generations, by putting the US on the right side of history sooner rather than later and recognizing relationship rights for all adults. More and more US states are adopting the limited same-gender freedom to marry. Many others have domestic partnerships or civil unions. Utah criminalizespolyamory while other states allow polyamory but do not protect polyamorists and deny the polygamous and polyamorous freedom to marry. Some states allow first cousins to marry monogamously without restriction, other states allow them to marry with restrictions, some states ban this freedom to marry entirely, and a couple of states even criminalize sex between first cousins. Some states allowing any adults who are closer relatives their sexual rights with each other while other states ban those rights.

9. Full marriage equality will end inequalities and confusion in immigration policies.

10. Recognizing relationships rights, including full marriage equality, for all adults is good for business, as many businesses have publicly stated. Their employees will no longer be treated as second-class citizens, their human resources departments will not have to deal with state-by-state conflicts, and employees will be free to move (temporarily or permanently) from one location to another without facing different restrictions on their relationships.

11. Government employees, including the men and women serving in our military, will not have to face different restrictions on their relationships from place to place.

Nobody should fear being arrested and imprisoned for having a consensual relationship with other adults.

Nobody should be denied the freedom to marry other consenting adults.

There are people who love each other, who have been living as spouses, even have children together, who are denied their rights, who need and want full marriage equality.

Let’s get on the right side of history sooner rather than later, and put the hate, bigotry, and bullying behind us. Elected officials and the US Supreme Court should protect the rights of all adults in all states.

Read more »

Posted in: allies,freedom to marry,Latin America,law,politicians,USA

The Same-Sex, Polygamous, and Consanguineous Freedom to Marry

There have been a lot of bus sightings lately here in the US. Prejudiced politicians, talking heads, and some ministers try to scare people by saying that if we allow people to have their basic right to same-gender marriage, then soon a man will be able to be married to several female slaves, some of them little girls, and it will all be perfectly legal.

Instead of challenging these bigots by presenting the dichotomy between consenting adults sharing love and coercion and child abuse, all too many people throw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus. Specifically, some LGBT rights and same-gender freedom to marry journalists and bloggers disavow the polygamous or consanguineous freedom to marry. In doing so, through throw some LGBT people under the bus, too, as there are some LGBT people who are polyamorous and/or cosanguinamorous. This should not happen, nor should hetero nonconsanguineous poly people fail to stand up for the same-gender or consanguineous freedom to marry, nor should hetero consanguineous couples fail to stand up for the same-gender or polygamous freedom to marry.

True, most same-sex marriages have nothing to do with polygamy, or consanguinamory ("incest"). These freedoms are not all the same freedoms, but they are all part of full marriage equality.

We need solidarity, because equality just for some is not equality.

Stand up to the bigots by asking them, "What is wrong with letting consenting adults love and marry each other?" If they appeal to their personal feelings or religious beliefs, politely assure them they are entitled to pursue the marriages they want, but not to impose their personal dislikes or religion on everyone else.

Read more »

Posted in: marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity

The Same-Sex, Polygamous, and Consanguineous Freedom to Marry

There have been a lot of bus sightings lately here in the US. Prejudiced politicians, talking heads, and some ministers try to scare people by saying that if we allow people to have their basic right to same-gender marriage, then soon a man will be able to be married to several female slaves, some of them little girls, and it will all be perfectly legal.

Instead of challenging these bigots by presenting the dichotomy between consenting adults sharing love and coercion and child abuse, all too many people throw polyamorous and consanguinamorous people under the bus. Specifically, some LGBT rights and same-gender freedom to marry journalists and bloggers disavow the polygamous or consanguineous freedom to marry. In doing so, through throw some LGBT people under the bus, too, as there are some LGBT people who are polyamorous and/or cosanguinamorous. This should not happen, nor should hetero nonconsanguineous poly people fail to stand up for the same-gender or consanguineous freedom to marry, nor should hetero consanguineous couples fail to stand up for the same-gender or polygamous freedom to marry.

True, most same-sex marriages have nothing to do with polygamy, or consanguinamory ("incest"). These freedoms are not all the same freedoms, but they are all part of full marriage equality.

We need solidarity, because equality just for some is not equality.

Stand up to the bigots by asking them, "What is wrong with letting consenting adults love and marry each other?" If they appeal to their personal feelings or religious beliefs, politely assure them they are entitled to pursue the marriages they want, but not to impose their personal dislikes or religion on everyone else.

Read more »

Posted in: marriage equality,politicians,prejudice,solidarity

Freedom to Marry Doesn't Always Mean Marriage Equality

[I'm bumping up this entry because Maryland finally has the limited same-gender freedom to marry and I see many reports about how it is "marriage equality." What you see below was originally posted on February 13, 2011. Again, Maryland now has the limited same-gender freedom to marry as of TODAY!]

Maryland is one of the US states currently debating the implementation of the freedom to same-sex marriage. Some people refer to this as marriage equality, as seen in this blog...

So, the Maryland Senate is discussing a bill for marriage equality.

Or here at this Patch article, "Councilman Testifies for Marriage Equality"...

"Right now, because marriage equality is already in effect just down the road in the District of Columbia, countless dollars are being diverted away from Maryland, to Washington D.C.'s hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, flourists [stet], caterers, tailors -- not to mention all the attorneys, accountants, financial planners, and others who provide services to couples after they are married. Right now, many of our businesses are losing a critical sector of clientele, and in the process, we are not preventing anyone who wants to get married from doing so. So many of our businesses are missing out on a tremendous opportunity, because of a legal roadblock that - years from now - will seem like an antiquated notion."

And believe it or not, you can also see an example of this at RationalSkepticism.org...

It looks like Maryland is going to be the next state to offer full marriage equality for its citizens.

I disagree with this phrasing. Full marriage equality would mean that all marriages are legal and recognized; that any adult can marry any consenting adult(s). It's not equality if it is only "equality for some." It will be great if Maryland will move towards full marriage equality by adding another freedom to marry; the same-sex freedom to marry. But I do make the distinction between a freedom to marry, such as the right to same-sex marriage or the right to consanguineous marriage, and when we will have all freedoms to marry; full marriage equality. Let's keep the momentum going!

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Maryland,media,politicians,terminology

Freedom to Marry Doesn't Always Mean Marriage Equality

[I'm bumping up this entry because Maryland finally has the limited same-gender freedom to marry and I see many reports about how it is "marriage equality." What you see below was originally posted on February 13, 2011. Again, Maryland now has the limited same-gender freedom to marry as of TODAY!]

Maryland is one of the US states currently debating the implementation of the freedom to same-sex marriage. Some people refer to this as marriage equality, as seen in this blog...

So, the Maryland Senate is discussing a bill for marriage equality.

Or here at this Patch article, "Councilman Testifies for Marriage Equality"...

"Right now, because marriage equality is already in effect just down the road in the District of Columbia, countless dollars are being diverted away from Maryland, to Washington D.C.'s hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, flourists [stet], caterers, tailors -- not to mention all the attorneys, accountants, financial planners, and others who provide services to couples after they are married. Right now, many of our businesses are losing a critical sector of clientele, and in the process, we are not preventing anyone who wants to get married from doing so. So many of our businesses are missing out on a tremendous opportunity, because of a legal roadblock that - years from now - will seem like an antiquated notion."

And believe it or not, you can also see an example of this at RationalSkepticism.org...

It looks like Maryland is going to be the next state to offer full marriage equality for its citizens.

I disagree with this phrasing. Full marriage equality would mean that all marriages are legal and recognized; that any adult can marry any consenting adult(s). It's not equality if it is only "equality for some." It will be great if Maryland will move towards full marriage equality by adding another freedom to marry; the same-sex freedom to marry. But I do make the distinction between a freedom to marry, such as the right to same-sex marriage or the right to consanguineous marriage, and when we will have all freedoms to marry; full marriage equality. Let's keep the momentum going!

Read more »

Posted in: freedom to marry,law,marriage equality,Maryland,media,politicians,terminology

Good News in the US

I almost couldn't say it better than this from the Gay Marriage USA Facebook page:

Tonight was truly AWESOME! (1) The first president to support marriage equality, Barack Obama, was re-elected (2) We won marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Washington (3) Minnesota rejected a proposed ban on same-sex marriage and (4) Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay/lesbian person to win a US Senate position! We are moving FORWARD indeed.

I would only qualify that the limited same-gender freedom to marry, which is  what President Obama has publicly supported, is what won in most of the votes, although defeating the Minnesota constitutional amendment was also potentially good for poly people. It isn't really marriage equality unless every adult is free to marry any consenting adults (and have protections against discrimination) because equality "just for some" is not equality. There will be more freedom to marry in Maine, Maryland, and  Washington, but not full marriage equality.

It's definitely a victory and lots of progress! Congratulations to monogamist nonconsanguineous LBGT people! And congratulations to all Americans for progress!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,Maine,marriage equality,Maryland,Minnesota,politicians,same-sex,Washington State

Good News in the US

I almost couldn't say it better than this from the Gay Marriage USA Facebook page:

Tonight was truly AWESOME! (1) The first president to support marriage equality, Barack Obama, was re-elected (2) We won marriage equality in Maine, Maryland and Washington (3) Minnesota rejected a proposed ban on same-sex marriage and (4) Tammy Baldwin became the first openly gay/lesbian person to win a US Senate position! We are moving FORWARD indeed.

I would only qualify that the limited same-gender freedom to marry, which is  what President Obama has publicly supported, is what won in most of the votes, although defeating the Minnesota constitutional amendment was also potentially good for poly people. It isn't really marriage equality unless every adult is free to marry any consenting adults (and have protections against discrimination) because equality "just for some" is not equality. There will be more freedom to marry in Maine, Maryland, and  Washington, but not full marriage equality.

It's definitely a victory and lots of progress! Congratulations to monogamist nonconsanguineous LBGT people! And congratulations to all Americans for progress!

Read more »

Posted in: allies,boundaries,freedom to marry,lack of equality harms,Maine,marriage equality,Maryland,Minnesota,politicians,same-sex,Washington State

US Can Advance Freedom to Marry on Tuesday

Tuesday is Election Day here in the US. Not only are we voting on the President, but every seat of our House of Representatives will be subject to election, as well as about a third of our Senate. Some states will have other important office and ballot measures. Of special interest to this blog is that the limited same-gender freedom to marry can advance with votes in four states.

It is important that people vote...

"Yes" on Question 1 in Maine

"For" Question 6 in Maryland

"No" on "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman" in Minnesota

"Approve" Referendum 74 in Washington.

Not only will this help some same-gender couples living in those states, but it will sent an important message that we are moving towards nationwide full marriage equality sooner rather than later. None of these votes will provide full marriage equality, as there will still be many adults denied marriage rights in those states, still not allowed to marry the persons they love, but it is a step in the right direction.

The same can be said for President Obama, who has finally endorsed the limited same-gender freedom to marry. His opponent has been been regressive on this issue. We don't want to go back, we want to go FORWARD!

So if you are eligible, be sure to vote in those races, and vote for candidates for other offices who are friendliest to relationship rights for all adults.

Let's send a message that bigotry is dying out!

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,freedom to marry,help,law,LGBT,Maine,Maryland,Minnesota,politicians,same-sex,USA,Washington State

US Can Advance Freedom to Marry on Tuesday

Tuesday is Election Day here in the US. Not only are we voting on the President, but every seat of our House of Representatives will be subject to election, as well as about a third of our Senate. Some states will have other important office and ballot measures. Of special interest to this blog is that the limited same-gender freedom to marry can advance with votes in four states.

It is important that people vote...

"Yes" on Question 1 in Maine

"For" Question 6 in Maryland

"No" on "Recognition of marriage solely between one man and one woman" in Minnesota

"Approve" Referendum 74 in Washington.

Not only will this help some same-gender couples living in those states, but it will sent an important message that we are moving towards nationwide full marriage equality sooner rather than later. None of these votes will provide full marriage equality, as there will still be many adults denied marriage rights in those states, still not allowed to marry the persons they love, but it is a step in the right direction.

The same can be said for President Obama, who has finally endorsed the limited same-gender freedom to marry. His opponent has been been regressive on this issue. We don't want to go back, we want to go FORWARD!

So if you are eligible, be sure to vote in those races, and vote for candidates for other offices who are friendliest to relationship rights for all adults.

Let's send a message that bigotry is dying out!

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,freedom to marry,help,law,LGBT,Maine,Maryland,Minnesota,politicians,same-sex,USA,Washington State

Politician in Zimbabwe Prosecuted Under Incest Laws

In what appears to be a more pressing matter of child support, a politician in Zimbabwe is making headlines for having consanguinamorous relationships. Of course, the headlines focus on "incest." From zimdiaspora.com...

A ZIMBABWEAN politician Fidelis Mhashu, whose wife left for the United Kingdom in 2003 and never came back, says he ended up in an incestuous relationship with his two nieces due to loneliness.

Both cases resulted in the birth of four children.

Mr Mhashu who is also Chitungwiza North legislator and former Minister of National Housing and Social Amenities is now facing charges of engaging in incestuous relationship under Zimbabwe traditional court system in his home area of Mhondoro.

Consensual incest should not be a crime in the first place.

Mr Mhashu (70), who later dumped both women has confessed the unlawful unions, claiming that he had been driven to incest by his wife’s departure to Britain in 2003.

It would make sense that he would seek companionship, but who he found it with has nothing to do with anything else.

He said the women, one of whom has since died, had actu­ally become his wives.

Mhondoro’s Chief Chivero fined Mr Mhashu 15 head of cattle for the offences a fortnight ago. However, the former minister said he was appealing against that ruling because of the “excessive’’ fine.  The cattle are sup­posed to compensate the women’s families.

Hold on a minute while I check what year it is...

Mr Mhashu said although he had relationships with his two nieces, who were sisters, he had not forced or sexu­ally abused any of them as their family is now claiming.

“I was lonely when my wife and children left the country for the UK. I then requested for assistance from my nieces at family level, but, unfortu­nately we ended up falling in love. It is not true that I raped them.”

One of the women, who was 20 years old when she began the relation­ship with Mr Mhashu in 2008, last week accused the former minister of neglecting her and their two children.

“I have two surviving children with this man.

The other one is only seven weeks old and, unfortunately, I cannot breastfeed the child.

“We have no food and I am now relying on handouts from neighbours for survival.”

So this appears to be a child support issue. Making sure children are taken care of is more important than whether or not consenting adults had sex, right?

The brother said Mr Mhashu sought refuge at their family home in 2004 when he fled alleged political violence in Chitungwiza. At that time, he asked the late sister to be his private secretary.

“He came with nothing, but, as an uncle, we had to accommodate him. Within a few months we discovered that he was having an incestuous relation­ship with my older sister.

“We tried to talk to both of them, but all our advice fell on deaf ears. He would always plead with the elders to conceal the crime for fear of public embarrassment,” he said.

The sister, however, died in 2007.

“While my elder sister was hospitalised, he (Mhashu) requested my younger sister to assist him in caring for her. Soon after her death, we again dis­covered that he had begun a relationship with the younger one. We tried to warn him, but he would always plead with us promising to marry her, which he never did.’’

It appears what we have here, at worst, is a bitter fight over child support. I did not see in the articles about this whether these women are nieces through a brother or sister of Mhashu, or through his wife. I think the implication is that they are actual blood relatives of his. Of course I have no problem with any adults sharing sex and love, but I do have a problem with people who don't provide or make arrangements for their children.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,boundaries,children,consanguineous,family reaction,incest,law,politicians,prejudice,prosecution,uncle-niece,Zimbabwe

Kissing Cousins Are Hardly a Scandal

It appears that, like so many other times through history, someone's sex life and the incest stigma are once again being used by political opponents.

We're rapidly approaching an election here in the US (actually, early voting is underway in some places), and in addition to the Presidential race and all of the Senate and House of Representative races, there are many, many other state and local offices subject to the election. It can get overwhelming and I especially feel sorry for people here who are not allowed to vote but have to endure so much noise.

An ongoing story out of Florida caught my attention. A week ago, Chris Joseph had a blog entry at browardpalmbeach.com with the headline "Marlene Ross, Boynton Beach Commissioner, Sent Nude Pictures to Cousin, Report Says."

My initial response: So what??? If an adult sends nude pictures to another adult, why is that anyone else's business, unless we're talking about criminal harassment? In addition, it should make no difference that the recipient was her cousin.

Boynton Beach Commissioner Marlene Ross reportedly sent her first cousin nude photos of herself on Facebook. This may have led to her being extorted to vote a certain way.

Wouldn't it have been better to have a headline about extortion allegations, then?

The State Attorney's Office concluded that no extortion was committed. But Ross panicking over the possibility of it reveals that she did, in fact, send some naughty pictures to her cousin.

So? I wonder what kind of sex life, if any, the people who have a problem with this have?

Joseph followed up with anther report about a website calling for her to step down...

"This is NOT about racy photos or an incestuous relationship," the web page reads.

But the page later says...

"Most recently, Ross violated common sense and nature's law by engaging in an inappropriate incestuous relationship with her first cousin, who also happens to be a convicted felon and a cocaine dealer."

What could possibly make the relationship inappropriate is if he is a convicted felon, depending on the felony. That he is her cousin does not make their relationship inappropriate.

None of this is to say I support Ross. I have no knowledge of her performance in her job. All I know about this is that it is ridiculous to criticize an adult for having a relationship with her cousin, or sending him pictures. There are many people in this country who have long, happy marriages with their first cousins, and the bigotry expressed by hateful and ignorant people needs to stop.

Read more »

Posted in: boundaries,consanguineous,cousins,Florida,incest,politicians,prejudice,stigma

A Perspective on Heterosexual Polygamy From Swaziland

Zakhele Dawson writes at the Times of Swaziland about polygamy, tying it in to recent local events...

If there’s one thing that can be said about Minister Hlobisile Ndlovu, it is that she is fearless in her opinions. Only days after being plastered all over the news after an altercation with her husband at OR Tambo airport in Johannesburg, she stood up in Parliament to declare that she preferred polygamous marriages to monogamous ones.

How many times have we heard that polygyny is not something any women choose?

Personally I do not see it as a question of morality but one of practicality. After all, what most western societies have forgotten is that they, too, were mostly polygamous once, in various ways. In fact, monogamy is officially practiced by a minority of cultures, although that minority includes the majority of the human population.

Interesting way of looking at it.

But polygamy, whether it is a family unit composed of one man and several wives (polygyny) or one woman and several husbands (polyandry – I just want to put on record how much I love Google), exists in societies for defined, practical reasons. I have lived in several countries around the world, both developed and undeveloped, and my observation is that polygamy is most often practiced in resource-scarce societies. It’s a way of sharing resources and responsibilities more effectively.

I suppose that depends on how one defines polygamy. Official, legally recognized marriages, perhaps. But open marriages, swinging, and polygamory are certainly found where wealth abounds, and there is polygyny among the wealthy in Arabia, no?

However, in countries where there is a large gap between the rich and the poor (in both monogamous and polygamous societies), the rich tend to operate polygamously, even if it is outside social sanction. 

Other people have noticed that, too.

The musings go into trust and jealousy. It is interesting, though I think the focus is limited and stereotypical, completely ignoring same-gender attraction and relationships and chalking up polygamy to accommodating temptation and baby making. There are people on polyamorous relationships for many reasons. Most of those relationships were not formed due to a lack of self-control.

I do see that polymorous and polygamous relationships can reduce the consumption footprint of the people involved, such as with sharing one home instead of several, and that can be beneficial for everyone.

Gender and sexual orientation equality under the law is essential. Building on those, the polygamous freedom to marry should be available to every adult, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. It is an important factor in full marriage equality.

Read more »

Posted in: Africa,freedom to marry,politicians,polygamy