Same-sex marriage is not about homosexuality. It is about the re-definition of the conjugal view of marriage and the (un)intended consequences that are bound to follow.
In the words of a federal judge striking down California’s conjugal marriage law, “marriage is the name that society gives to the relationship that matters most between two adults”. Since the adoption of this revisionist view there has been a re-think on the issue of the illegality of multiple partners in a marriage.
After all, if we revise marriage in the words of the federal judge above, the next farcical question on the slippery slope is this: Why only two adults? This is no abstract thought experiment. A federal judge in Utah allowed a legal challenge to existing anti-bigamy laws as “violations of religious liberty and infringements of equality”.
Clearly recognising that they have no leg to stand on if they allow same-sex unions, a notable public figure in Brazil has called for the legal recognition of a trio as a civil union, saying: “The move reflected the fact that the idea of a ‘family’ had changed.”
Feminist Gloria Steinem, author Barbara Ehrenreich, and New York University Law Professor Kenji Yoshino have already begun agitating for the legal recognition of multiple-partner sexual relationships.
It is a simple fact of law that it can only regulate relationships with a clearly defined structure. One of the fallacies that has gained significant traction is the branding of any kind of distinction as discrimination. Distinction is not discrimination. Once you clearly distinguish what “A” is you automatically exclude “B-Z”.
The revisionist view strips marriage of any clearly defined structure and reduces the institution to shambles. One is therefore left to wonder what exactly it is we are recognizing and regulating because at this rate, marriage will eventually die the death of a thousand qualifications.
The point for our revisionist friends to consider is this: If as a matter of principle you insist that existing conjugal marriage laws discriminate against same-sex couples, then there is no way of showing that you yourself are not guilty of said discrimination if you do not accept and advocate for the legal recognition of polygynous, polyandrous, or polyamorous unions.
According to Newsweek there are over five hundred thousand such relationships in the United States. And surely you (bastion of tolerance that you are), would not be so “narrow-minded” and “bigoted” as to deny three or more consenting adults who love each other the “right to marry” without the obligation of exclusivity?
— Adrian Sobers