My personal view of marriage is that it is an outdated institution and social concept. However, for those who still believe in it, it should be a private matter between the individuals involved, voluntary contracts according to whatever religious or cultural standards the participants in a marriage adhere to. While I am not theoretically opposed to gay marriage per se, I agree with those who argue that if you accept gay marriage, there is no particular obstacle to polygamy or marriage between close relatives. Not that I’m particularly opposed to that either. It’s a matter of indifference.
In 1996 Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party passed the Defense of Marriage Act protecting marriage between a woman and a man.
Protecting marriage has a long history in the United States. Mormons were considered criminal outlaws because they practiced white slavery, the sexual trafficking of girls, mystified under the euphemism ‘plural marriage.’ The Republican party of the day spoke of the abolition of ‘the twin pillars of barbarism, slavery and polygamy’ and had Utah on the list to conquer as soon as they finished with Dixie.
Age of consent laws were passed to prevent the sale of girls on open markets, something that was not at all uncommon in the seedier parts of cities like New Orleans and in many rough frontier towns.
The attacks on marriage the Democratic party forestalled with the Defense of Marriage Act were ‘mystified’ as well, using the rhetoric of ‘gay rights’ as a smokescreen for the agenda. While many self-identified ‘Queers’ were very vocal about their agenda to ‘demolish the institution of marriage’ while using ‘gay rights’ as an excuse, the Queers were little more than useful idiots in the grand scheme.