[Vision2020] Constitutional Ban on Gay Marriage

[Douglas]

Visionaries,

Donovan asks, "how can one person swear to be monogamist to more than one 
person? Is this not an important part of marriage?" This is the point. We 
*used* to think so. But then, we *used* to think that marriage involved a 
man and a woman. Why do we retain what we retain and why do we jettison 
what we jettison? By what standard?

And multiple partners is not necessarily the same thing as polygamy. You 
could also have polyandry, or multiple homosexual partners. And if the 
whole business is consensual, on what basis do you deny them a licence down 
at the county courthouse? On what basis do you intervene in the PRIVATE 
SEXUAL LIVES of this cute little seventeen-some?

Donovan raises a host of practical questions, which obviously need to be 
anticipated in those handy-dandy-all-purpose private secular contracts 
we've been talking about so much lately. That's all marriage is, right? A 
matter of practical law? Such conundra would provide a good deal of work 
for attorneys and so on, but I am sure we can get the bugs worked out. 
After all, our primary concern should be to get the government OUT OF THE 
BEDROOM. I am astonished that Ralph and Donovan are still interested, after 
all these years of enlightenment, in trying to impose their own arbitrary 
code of ethics on the private sexual practices of consenting adults who 
don't agree with them. This is astonishing. I am, as they say, boggled. But 
I will try hard to compose myself.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson