When asked by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday about the homosexual marriage decision made by the Supreme Court on whether or not this could lead to polygamy or polyamory, once again Ted Olsen slithers away from directly answering the question: “What about three people marrying or varieties of arrangements?”
Yes, and I think with respect to the Chief Justice, I think the Chief Justice is wrong. He bought into a red herring. There are reasons why the States and the Federal Government might prohibit relationships, marriage relationships in multiple persons, the rights of children and what happens when the marriage breaks up but the test is, what does the State have in its interest to prohibit the conduct that’s being considered. The States that were involved in the case that was decided Friday could not come up with any good reasons why to prohibit a person to marry the person of the same sex, the person that they loved. Well, they came up with “well, its against traditional marriage”. Well, that’s like saying separate schools were a tradition. Or restrictions on marriage between people of different backgrounds was a tradition. You can’t explain something by saying its always the way we’ve done it.
Such a whiff. And with all due respect to Wallace, I was asking this question years ago when “civil unions” was the end goal, according to the gay activists back in 2007 as we had Ron Tunning, Laconia Democrat Chair and gay activist, on our Meet The New Press radio show to talk about civil unions. He tried mightily to convince us “Oh no, we just want civil unions” but I did go to that same question of “if the limitation of which sexes can marry no longer applies, why is two a limiting factor? If you get away from the Biblical limitation of man and wife, what is so special about the number two?” Ron Tunning went ballistic as in “how DARE you ask me that question!” knowing that this was an area they wanted to prohibit. Pat Hynes wrote at the time:
One line of argument I did not pursue in the interview, but which my co-host Skip Murphy did pursue, was the so-called slippery slope argument: If this is okay now, what next? Ron’s answer was, essentially: Screw you, I’ve got mine. If the polygamists want marital rights, let ‘em form a lobby group and make it happen.
Further thoughts back then in 2007 where my main conclusion were:
Notice two things:
- Although there was a proclamation that all should be treated equally (and assumed, alike), the refusal to allow other groups of other than heterosexual or homosexual identity to have those same rights.
- The claim that only those that demonstrate and advocate for themselves deserve to obtain civil rights.
If only it had been as Tunning said – doing it with lobbyists. Instead, they used the courts to “legislate from the bench” instead of how the American Way used to operate – persuading people who would be or are legislators, debate the issue, and pass legislation. At least here in NH that happened – a la Obamacare, however, with Democrat supermajorities in the House and Senate and a Democrat Governor).
So Ted Olsen wouldn’t say it but notice that every single argument he used in spearheading this decision for same sex marriage can be used for extending it to multiples:
- States and the Federal Government having prohibitions against multiples? Used to be the same for same sex marriages, too.
- “could not come up with any good reasons why to prohibit a person to marry the person of the same sex” – well, I can’t see ANY argument to argue that two is the limiting number other than a Biblically oriented argument and that just got blown up by the Supreme Court
The others he used (e.g., interracial) go further in demolishing his “anti-answering” that it wouldn’t be possible as well. So, what it comes down to is that the guy who just delivered gay marriage has that barn door locked by a single thread.
Which means that once that thread has been cut (or blown away by a breeze), there is no meaning left in the word “marriage” – there are no arguments that can be made that would prevent ANYone’s special sense of reality to define marriage anyway they want. And when that happens, the whole idea of marriage, especially that which used to be “its for the children” has been destroyed because now it will be about any adult that wants anything they want so they can feel good about themselves.
Until they don’t. Because when marriage is everything for anyone for any reason, it can also be “no longer marriage” for any reason whatever.
