The Supreme Court is scheduled to soon take up cases that may make same-sex marriage the law of the land. I fear that the justices may find themselves behind the curve, as they say. “How so?” you ask. Well, I have just become aware of a movement that supports the idea of polyamory. This epiphany results from an article by Lisa Miller that appeared in The Washington Post on Friday. Polyamory, according to Miller, is the “practice of loving and relating intimately to more than one person at a time.” Proponents of this “life style,” from the realm of radical chicdom, believe that people polyandrous should have the right to have their union(s), whatever that means, blessed by a minister. Can recognition by state and federal government be far behind? Should not the U.S. Supreme Court declare that anybody may marry anybody in any number whenever they choose? Let’s just be done with it. Think of the money that will be saved in legal fees and social unrest that will be avoided.
Now there is the question of intergenerational polyamory. You know if my grandson married my wife, he’d be his own grandpa. Consummation of the marriage is a topic that probably is best left uninvestigated. A genealogist would go absolutely nuts trying to draw a pedigree, but no matter, all advances in civilizations have their costs. But, could this be a way to avoid death taxes over multiple generations? There’s something that might make the idea of polyamory palatable to even conservative Republicans. What about Social Security survivor benefits? One might be able to organize a polyandrous multiple-generation relationship that guaranteed perpetual payouts. Then, of course, we could go real weird and advocate for polyspecies marriage. You know I love my dog, despite the fact that he craps on my lawn and licks his private parts even when there is company in the house. But why not have church and government affirm our loving relationship?
East MontpelierMORE IN Letters
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- MEDIA GALLERY