Judge Posner's argument against polygamy also works against same-sex marriage

Polygamy has been a hot topic in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts argued in his dissent that most of Justice Kennedy's arguments apply just as strongly in favor of a right to plural marriage:

It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage. If “[t]here is dignity in the bond between two men or two women who seek to marry and in their autonomy to make such profound choices,” why would there be any less dignity in the bond between three people who, in exercising their autonomy, seek to make the profound choice to marry? If a same-sex couple has the constitutional right to marry because their children would otherwise “suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser,” why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to a family of three or more persons raising children? If not having the opportunity to marry “serves to disrespect and subordinate” gay and lesbian couples, why wouldn’t the same “imposition of this disability” serve to disrespect and subordinate people who find fulfillment in polyamorous relationships? 

(citations removed for clarity)

And the argument for a right to plural marriage isn't just a gotcha advanced by bitter conservatives. Leftist blogger Freddie deBoer and left-libertarian blogger Will Wilkinson both jumped on the bandwagon, arguing that there should be a right to plural marriage.

In typically idiosyncratic fashion, Judge Posner has come up with an argument that he thinks dispatches this plural marriage stuff:

[T]he chief justice ... suggests that if gay marriage is allowed, so must be polygamy. He ignores the fact that polygamy imposes real costs, by reducing the number of marriageable women. Suppose a society contains 100 men and 100 women, but the five wealthiest men have a total of 50 wives. That leaves 95 men to compete for only 50 marriageable women.

Posner's argument is that a policy that would create an excess of unmarried men imposes a real cost on society, and therefore is certainly not required. In other words, this is at least a rational basis for a ban on plural marriage.

I see a number of problems with this argument. From a legal perspective, it is essentially frivolous because it has nothing to do with the reasoning of Justice Kennedy's opinion, which is based on liberty and equality, not economics or utilitarianism.

But, more subtly, it could just as easily be used to construct a rational basis for a ban on same-sex marriage, at least if it's plausible that there would be more homosexual women than homosexual men. Consider Posner's society of 100 men and 100 women, but where 6% of the men and 10% of the women are gay. If same-sex marriage is allowed, the 6 gay men and the 10 gay women pair up. That leaves 94 straight men fighting over 90 "marriageable" straight women. We've got four extra, lonely men. This counts as a "real cost" in Judge Posner's world.

And, to the best of my understanding, it is in fact true that women are more likely to identify as LGBT:

The gap is even bigger if you just look at younger people, who have grown up in a society much more tolerant to homosexuality and thus might reasonably be expected to be more honest about, or even aware of, their sexual orientation:

If you do the math, you can construct an argument that permitting same-sex marriage could leave millions of American men with no potential spouse:

1) According to the 2010 census, there were approximately 41.6 million men and 41.3 million women between the ages of 20 and 39. (So you'll notice that we start with a problem.)

2) Using the more extreme figure of 8.3 percent LGBT females and 4.6 percent LGBT males, we are left with 37,872,000 million "marriageable" straight women for 39,686,000 straight men to fight over. That's 1,814,000 extra, "unmarriable" men -- over 4 percent of the prime-age male population!***

Thus, based on Judge Posner's reasoning, we have found the "real costs" of same-sex marriage, and constructed a rational basis to require that marriage remain a one-man, one-woman institution.

Just to be crystal clear, I don't actually think this hocus pocus is a good argument against same-sex marriage. But all the reasons that make it a bad argument against same-sex marriage make it an equally bad argument against plural marriage.

***Totally weird coincidence: there are about 2,000,000 American men in prison right now.

Chemical Weapons and the Platinum Coin

Reader(s)™ have lodged many complaints against the blog over the years, but the most recent complaints have been:

• Mr. Torvik seems to have gone AWOL; and
• Specifically, Mr. Torvik appears to have abandoned his promised 94-part series on the Trillion Dollar Platinum Coin.

All I can say, dear Reader(s)™, is that I hear you, and I am doing my best. To wit, today I give you Part 8 in the platinum coin series.

The impetus for today's post is the Supreme Court's decision in Bond v. United States. The facts are simple: British secret agent James Bond went rogue and stole a large cache of chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein in 2002 (yes, that's where they went). Over the next several years, he sold the chemicals to terrorists on the black market, eventually amassing enough money to purchase nearly 60% of all platinum known to exist. Then he attempted to use that platinum to create a one-trillion-dollar coin, which he intended to gift to the United States treasury, thus solving all our fiscal problems. It was kind of a Robin Hood thing. Yesterday, the Supreme Court put the kibosh on the whole scheme.

Judge Posner is unstoppable. He cannot be stopped.

I was thinking this morning about Samuel B. Kent, a former judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. He was famous for writing opinions and orders that took lawyers to task over the way they handled cases before him. For example, see this opinion which speculates that the submissions the judge received were done in crayon as a way of saying the lawyers on the case were stupid.

More Posner. Sort of.

I hope we are not turning into a blog about all things Posner.  That said, I recall a New Yorker article from several years ago that mentioned he likes cats or perhaps just the cat in his house.

Does Teaparty.org agree with the New York Times as to why Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare?

The Drudge Report noted on Friday that Michael Savage, the host of a conservative radio program, blames epilepsy medication for Chief Justice Robert's decision to vote to find Obamacare constitutional.  Apparently some epilepsy medications cause "cognitive problems."  Mr. Savage apparently believes that cognitive problems are the most likely explanation for Chief Justice Roberts's decision.

Teaparty.org has a link to Mr. Savage's broadcast where he makes the claim. It also has the text of the full quote:

Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying," Michael Savage said on his radio program this evening.

The site also links to a 2007 article that about Justice Roberts's epilepsy that ran in the New York Times. I was surprised that a conservative new media website was citing to an article by the "lamestream media" and suggesting that the New York Times knows what it is reporting about. Initially, I thought that if the a Tea Party website is linking to a New York Times article, then that article will discuss the cognitive problems caused by the epilepsy medication.

I am disappointed to report that the New York Times article does not mention cognitive problems.  In fact, the article does not report that the Chief Justice is even on epilepsy medication.  Instead, the article speculates that the Chief Justice might be on epilepsy medication because he has a couple seizures and the standard treatment for people who have two seizures is to get on the medication.  No one associated with treating the Chief Justice will talk about his treatment with members of the media. 

So, the answer to the question posed by my post is "no."