As Groucho would say.
Ann Althouse points us to a lawsuit in Utah challenging the state's ban on polygamy. The suit is not asking to legalize polygamy, per say, but only saying that the state has no right to prosecute someone who is legally married to only one person, but, in fact, considers himself married to several women, "Mr. Brown has a civil marriage with only one of his wives; the rest are "sister wives," not formally wedded."
Professor Althouse comments:
I think the Lawrence-based argument for decriminalizing polygamy is much stronger than the Lawrence-based argument for requiring the government to give legal recognition to same-sex marriage. One is an argument demanding only that the government leave them alone as they pursue their "own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." The other is a demand that the government alter its treatment of its citizens, giving them access to to the benefits of having the official status as a married couple.
If each of us has the right to purshue his "own concept of existence," then we are free to choose to be slaves, no? On what grounds, other than an underlying idea of what it is to be human, can one justify the right of an individual to choose how he will live?
I am also reminded of the bit in Natural Right and History were Strauss discusses Max Weber: "Weber's own formulation of his categoric imperative was 'Follow thy demon' or 'Follow thy god or demon.' It would be unfair to complain that Weber forgot the possibility of evil demons." Basically the same idea as Bill Cosby's comments on cocaine. (at 3:50 or so).