If 'Love is Love' - Why can only two marry and not three or four?
 |
| English: The United States Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, in 2009. Top row (left to right): Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Bottom row (left to right): Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Associate Justice Antonin G. Scalia, and Associate Justice Clarence Thomas. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Australian Christian Lobby Managing Director Lyle Shelton said it was not “illogical and offensive” to point out that so called “marriage equality” should logically apply to other forms of love.
“If Senator Wong thinks it is offensive and illogical to discuss poly relationships in the context of the marriage debate, she should tell that to the UK Greens Leader Natalie Bennett.
Asked by the UK polyamorous community if they too could have ‘marriage equality’, the Australian-born Ms Bennett said she was willing to consider this.
Since last week’s US Supreme Court decision, a Montana trio has applied for a marriage license.
They would be within their rights to if love is love, highlighted Chief Justice John Roberts who raised this very point In his US Supreme Court dissenting judgement1.
Here in Australia, there are those calling for legal recognition of their polyamorous relationships.
“Instead of trying to shut down debate by claiming offence, proponents of changing the definition of marriage should allow free debate about where ‘marriage equality’ logic leads,” Mr Shelton said.
“Based on the ‘love is love’ logic of those seeking to redefine marriage, there is no reason to deny other loving relationships legal marriage.”
