It's interesting that someone mentioned gay marriage in the context of polygamy because the two seem to be linked in popular imagination. Legalize gay marriage, the story goes, and polygamists will want the same thing.

But these ideas come from quite different concepts of marriage. Polygamy as practiced by this Mormon splinter sect is a modern take on Old Testament-style patriarchy. (I don't see how you can avoid using the "P" word in this discussion since that's what this community is all about.) The husband in this community dominates his family absolutely; they are viewed as his property. He can have as many wives as he pleases, arbitrarily banish his excess sons, and marry off his daughters to other men. His wives and children have no say in the matter, or in practically any other area of their lives.

Same sex marriage, on the other hand, is an outgrowth of the modern idea that marriage is between two equal partners. (Most people think of marriage this way, even if the wife usually gets stuck with more than her share of the housework.) And who could be more equal than two partners of the same sex? From a human rights and gay rights perspective, if homosexual relationships are considered to be the equivalent of heterosexual relationships (that is, as relationships between equal partners), then denying gay or lesbian couples the benefits of marriage is unfair and inequitable.

The place where these incompatibles intersect is the libertarian end of the political spectrum. If marriage is viewed only as a legal contract, any marital arrangement entered into by consenting adults should be recognized. This would allow same sex marriages, polygamous marriages, and regular old marriages between a man and a woman.

Current marriage laws are based on the idea of equality marriage (laws that give the husband dominion over his wife and family being a thing of the past). I don't think that the courts will legalize polygamy from libertarian principles because the underlying legal philosophy just isn't there. And they aren't going to legalize it on Biblical principles ... well, at least not at the present time. Also, there's almost no public support for polygamy, while there is quite a bit of support for same sex marriage.

This pastor is guilty of the sin of pride, for believing that he knows this man's heart better than God. He's also guity of the sin of hatred, because he wouldn't mind if a gay man joined his church if he wasn't prejudiced against homosexuals. And he doesn't seem particularly repentant.

By his own logic, this pastor is unfit to join his own church.

Although the Grimms do have a version of Cinderella, the one most people are most familiar with is by the Frenchman Charles Perrault. A lot of different cultures have variants of this story, in fact. Our little Cinderella princesses are only one of many incarnations.

It's a far cry from the piety of Grimm's Cinderella to the materialism of Disney's, but each culture's story emphasizes the different female virtues it values. Then again, there are a lot of universal ideas here that every little girl can relate to: the transformation of lowly girl to special princess, the idea that goodness, hard work and virtue will be rewarded in the end, the triumph of the underdog over her tormentors, the transformative power of love ... and those wicked glass slippers.

First, we were told that a single woman over 35 has a better chance of being killed by terrorists than she does of landing a husband. Now, we're told that in the unlikely event that she does manage to find Mr. Right, their marriage is probably going to be crappy.

You ladies of a certain age may as well burn your copies of The Rules and cancel your online dating service subscriptions right now. The powers-that-be have declared that you're screwed in the romance department.

Conservative leaders complain about salacious TV shows to keep their followers whipped into a frenzy and conceal their true motives. Toning down sex and violence isn't their primary goal. What they really want is the power to censor any and all ideas that they disgree with. (Their current attack on PBS is exhibit A.) They've co-opted the old liberal bromide of "protect the children" as the thin edge of the wedge to gain control over the airwaves. First they will eliminate sexual references and certain types of violence. And then it will be open season on any show or network that does not conform to the narrow-minded ideology of the Christian Right or dares to criticize the corporation-state.

Declare victory, then go home.