Demands for legalization of polygamy would grow with acceptance of Gay Marriage
Image by anitakhart via FlickrIf the natural sexual complementarity of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are truly necessary elements of marriage.
But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny homosexuals their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?
Of these, the road to polygamy seems the best-paved—and it is the most difficult for homosexual “marriage” advocates to deny. If, as they claim, it is arbitrary and unjust to limit the gender of one’s marital part
Image via Wikipedianer, it is hard to explain why it would not be equally arbitrary and unjust to limit the number of marital partners.There are also two other reasons why same-sex “marriage” advocates have trouble refuting warnings of a slippery slope toward polygamy. The first is that there is far more precedent cross-culturally for polygamy as an accepted marital structure than there is for homosexual “marriage.” The second is that there is a genuine movement for polygamy or “polyamory” in some circles.
The San Francisco Chronicle’s religion writer did a feature on the “polyamory” movement in 2004. It even quoted Jasmine Walston, the president of “Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness,” as saying, “We’re where the gay rights movement was 30 years ago.” The story also quoted Barb Greve, a program associate with the Association of Unitarian Universalists’ Office of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Concerns in Boston. Greve, helpfully described as “a transgender person who likes to be called ‘he,’” said, “There are people who want to be in committed relationships—whether it’s heterosexual marriage, same-sex “marriage” or polyamory—and that should be acknowledged religiously and legally.”72
The “gay” oriented newspaper the Washington Blade has also featured this topic in a full-page article under the headline “Polygamy advocates buoyed by gay court wins.” It quotes Art Spitzer of the American Civil Liberties Union acknowledging, “Yes, I think [the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas] would give a lawyer a foothold to argue such a case. The general framework of that case, that states can’t make it a crime to engage in private consensual intimate relationships, is a strong argument.”73
This argument is already being pressed in the courts. Two convicted bigamists in Utah, Tom Green and Rodney Holm, have appealed to have their convictions overturned—citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lawrence case as precedent.74 And another attorney has filed suit challenging the refusal of the Salt Lake County clerk to grant a marriage license for G. Lee Cook to take a second wife.75
Make no mistake about it—if same-sex “marriage” is not stopped now, we will have the exact same debate about “plural” marriages only one generation from now.
