"I Said It" Doesn't Make it So, Ann

Althouse, a lawprof at UW-Madison, commenting further on her campaign for 'gay marriage:'

....As you may remember, I said the solid basis for distinguishing gay marriage and polygamy is economic: those seeking gay marriage only want the same set of economic advantages that is available to heterosexual couples, but polygamous groups seek more than the traditional share.

Althouse seems to be ignoring the logic. While "A" does not necessarily lead to "B" it is true that the principles which allow "A" can (and in some cases, must) allow "B."

Of course the "economic equity" argument is also shaky, insofar as "economic remedies" are available through positive law.

But it is, as Gallagher remarks, NOT "economic equity" which is the core of the issue, or such remedies would have been pursued earlier and likely granted.

It's "blessing." And it is "blessing" of something (like polygamy, or polyandry,) which is contra naturam.

(By the way, Bill Tucker of the American Spectator has a short piece on the polygamy element of "Big Love," which ends with a ludicrous assertion.)