My wife and I listened to George Will, Barney Frank, Andrew Sullivan and some inane female Republican legislator debate this on 'This Week with Stuffy' today. Will was ready to agree with Sullivan and Frank's position but had this question for Frank: "Given the courts' positions that individuals are free to choose their own lifestyles, can you make a principled and unambiguous argument against polygamy?" Frank tried, but failed. Such an argument based outside of religious dogma would do much to advance the gay marriage cause.

Brooks makes a categorical error, he holds marriage sacred, but what power does the state have over the sacred?

Marriage is not properly a matter of public policy:

http://www.no-treason.com/comments.php?id=537_0_1_0_C

I agree with John Galt that it is tough to make a case for homosexual marriage and not intrinsically also make the case for polygamy, polyandry (one woman, several men), or polyamory (more than one of each). I also disagree with John T. Kennedy concerning the power of the state. Like it or not, marriage is a civil union. It is legal in all 50 states for two atheists to marry with no signature of a religious leader required on the marriage contract. It seems that the question boils down to whether the civil government can make a case that it is better for society that only monogamous heterosexual marriage be legal. As sort of a converse to John Galt's challenge I would like to see this argument made without the use of religious dogma.

Many historians actually beleive that one of the main reasons behind the Church's embracement of monogamy stems from the power struggle between civil and religious leadership. Originally the Church (primarily I am refering to Roman Catholicism) was attempting to wrest some control away from the ruling elite by controlling legal inheritance and limiting it to the first born son within monogamous wedlock, thereby taking away the elite's power to choose to which offspring wealth was given. As a handy side effect increasing the scope of the sin adultry was a great money raiser during the Renaissance when you could literally buy a forgiveness chit on your way to the brothel. But mainly it added to the Church's power over the masses as enforced monogamy was an equalling factor between the classes. Polygamy, for mostly economic reasons, was primarily a concept of the wealthy. The elites in turn over time learned the power of monogamous marriage as a means to extend power and control with marriages of financial convienence between elite families. And so it goes, because in reality there is as much social and political power embodied in monogamous marriage as religous power.