It seems that those who championed the redefinition of marriage to make gender arbitrary are now starting to get exactly what they said wouldn’t happen, the old slippery slope to polygamy. It is of course the logical conclusion of their position, and with a recent court ruling on polygamy in Utah the conclusion is coming to fruition. You can find the details in this WSJ article titled, “America’s Polygamous Future.”

I can’t tell you how many articles and blogs I’ve read over the last several years where someone who was arguing for redefining marriage to include people of the same gender argued just as strongly against polygamy. Their problem is that it simply can’t be had both ways.

People on my side of the debate believe marriage isn’t open to redefinition; that it has always existed for one reason and that is because children are fruit of the sexual union of a man and a woman. The state’s only interest in marriage is that parents of these children are held responsible for supporting and raising them. Marriage has never existed so that people’s romantic attachment could be affirmed by the state. The position is absurd on its face.

But those who want to redefine marriage throw around the terms “fair” and “justice” and “bigot” and “hatred” all to demonize and stigmatize anyone who dares disagree with them, like a certain reality show TV star named Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty fame. In this world either you believe that homosexuality is morally good or at worst neutral and every bit the same as heterosexuality or you will be trounced out of polite society by the totalitarian PC police. A&E sure takes their marching orders from them, and in so doing declares me a bigot, including all Bible believing Christians, be they Catholic or Protestant, and we can include Bible believing Jews as well.

So my question: since marriage is now obviously a malleable social institution, is it not unfair and unjust to outlaw polygamy? By what principal would anyone be able to say polygamy should be outlawed? What makes two so special that marriage should be limited to that number? If marriage is open to definition I dare anyone who supports same gender marriage to prove otherwise? And pragmatic reasons, like those given in the Journal article simply won’t do. If someone says they receive happiness in multiple partner marriages who is anyone to say different. That would be arbitrary and wrong.

So welcome to the strange new world of marriage in the 21st Century; round and round it goes and where it stops nobody knows!