Wednesday, March 22, 2006

You Were Saying?

Thanks for the Memory to The LlamaButchers and Newsbusters.

Back in September of last year, I posted on a case in the Netherlands where a polygamous civil union was legalized. I argued that this was a logical extension of same sex marriage. As I said then, "the most commonly used and accepted arguments against limiting Marriage to heterosexual monogamy are just as valid as arguments against limiting Marriage to monogamy AT ALL." My point was and remains that once we establish that marriage is not solely a union between one man and one woman, we have undercut any argument that marriage be solely between only two individuals at all.

At the time, one of my readers -- I think I rememeber who, but am not certain *cough cough Smallholder cough cough* -- presented a couple of arguments against polygamy and in support of gay marriage that, while valid, are NOT the arguments that are commonly used. He further went on to argue, if I remember correctly, that polygamy would NOT become a "cause" the way gay marriage has, and would NOT become a popular cause celebrite the way gay marriage has.

Well, I suppose he's right, as long as you don't consider coverage on the Today Show and MSNBC/Newsweek, and sympathetic treatment in an HBO Series to be the beginning of a cause celebrite.

At the time I made the argument, I tried to keep my predictions pretty reasonable. I didn't make any wild predictions like, say, "Next, people will be marrying other species!" or anything absurd like that. But once you accept the argument that marriage is nothing more than an expression of love, the lid's off Pandora's box.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment