Now that so many places are enshrining into their laws a definition for the word “marriage” that bears no resemblance to what the institution of marriage actually is, an openly bigamist “family” who fled Utah is challenging Utah’s laws against bigamy.
And, if Adam and Steve can get married, then there is no logical argument against Adam and Eve, Betty, Patty, Jane, and Suzy. Or Adam and Steve and Betty and Jane and Bill and Patty and Jim and Suzy and Leo.
So while all they seek at present is a decriminalization of bigamy, the logical progression will take us toward the actual enshrinement in law of bigamist “marriages” and then why not polyamorist “marriages”?
Some will scream that bigamy and polyamory are not the same as the monogamous same-sex relationships, which is true by definition, but the legal argument is the same: my relationships are my business and there is no reason why my relationships as I deem them appropriate should not be recognized by the state as “marriages” with all rights and benefits accruing thereto.
Yes, yes, I’m being “intolerant.” But while you’re hurling the ad hominems, how ’bout an actual argument. Because if you don’t have an argument, then your response is illogical.