Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.


Polygamy wedding cake

Polygamists — You May Kiss the Brides!


Gay activists weren’t the only ones celebrating after last Friday’s marriage ruling.

Polygamists popped the cork on a little champagne of their own, as they wait their turn for nationwide acceptance under the court’s elastic definition of marriage. Like us, they knew that once the courts redefined marriage, Americans would have a legal foundation for almost any arrangement between consenting adults — a fact that polygamists are already testing.

Just four days after the Supreme Court’s decision, a Montana man drove up to the Yellowstone County Courthouse and applied for a marriage license for multiple wives. When the office turned him down, he said, what about marriage equality? “We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” Nathan Collier told reporters. “All we want is legal legitimacy…We just want to give our marriage and our family the legitimacy that it deserves.”

Sound familiar? It should.

This is exactly the same argument homosexuals made — and five justices ultimately endorsed. Of course, liberals never wanted to admit what was farther down the wedding aisle because they thought it would derail their own train. But privately, many knew that the two movement’s destinies were very much intertwined. In fact, they knew there was more historical and biological support for polygamy than two men getting married. Now, with “love” and “consent” as the only obstacles, proponents of group marriage can follow the LGBT playbook all the way to legitimacy.

Twelve years ago, Justice Antonin Scalia predicted exactly that in Lawrence v. Texas. With prophetic insight, he pointed to the threat to state laws “based on moral choices” against “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution… adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity.” Anyone being intellectually honest knew this was where liberals were pushing America. Of course, the media for years laughed off groups like FRC who warned that the Left’s goal isn’t same-sex “marriage” but any kind of marriage.

In the aftermath of last Friday, some liberals are finally doing us a favor by admitting it. We talked earlier this week about the Politico piece, “It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy,” in which Fredrik DeBoer predicts that group marriage will be normalized even faster. The Left is, DeBoer writes, “without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.”

Besides, he argues, “If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?” Of course, once the article started getting a lot of attention — and Americans started having second thoughts — Politico raced to downplay the argument. A day later they cranked out a rebuttal, “No, Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage.”

But who could possibly take them seriously? First, the Left said they just wanted to “live and let live.” Then, they said they just wanted benefits — not marriage. When liberals got marriage through the courts, they vowed not to force it on the states. After they forced it on the states, they said it wouldn’t lead to religious persecution. Now, when clerks are being threatened with jail time and Christians bakers are being fined $135,000, they claim there’s no slippery slope to polygamy.

But after a track record of such intentional deception, who could (or should) believe them?


Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on

Send this to a friend