Via Radley, I see that Stan Kurtz is weirdly claiming that it’s a “concession” for Cathy Young to acknowledge that arguments for gay marriage mostly work as well for recognizing polyamory. Except, with Radley, I’ve never heard of a libertarian (the audience Kurtz says he’s debated this with) who wouldn’t have included polyamorous groupings in the argument from the get go.

What’s really cute, though, is that Stan infers that she must have had him in mind when she wrote a piece on the subject in the March Reason. (Because, of course, the argument is original with him.) I say cute because it displays a phenomenal level of desperation to demonstrate that someone, anyone takes him seriously. Sometimes, Stan, you don’t get “refuted” because your opponents don’t have arguments. But sometimes you don’t get refuted because clowns are to laugh at, not argue with.