Opponents of gay marriage said it will lead to legalizing polygamy.
And it has.
From the Associated Press:
HELENA, Mont. (AP) — A Montana man said Wednesday that he was inspired by last week’s U.S. Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage to apply for a marriage license so that he can legally wed his second wife.
Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage. Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy — holding multiple marriage licenses — but Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied.
“It’s about marriage equality,” Collier told The Associated Press Wednesday. “You can’t have this without polygamy.”
County clerk officials initially denied Collier’s application, then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.
Yellowstone County chief civil litigator Kevin Gillen said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expected to send a formal response to Collier by next week.
“I think he deserves an answer,” Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.”LoveWins and all that claptrap. Heckuva job, Supreme Court.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how Bruce Jenner can be a girl, but Rachel Dolezal cannot be black.
But over at Politico, Jonathan Rauch is trying to explain away polygamy, "I am a gay marriage advocate. So why do I spend so much of my time arguing about polygamy? Opposing the legalization of plural marriage should not be my burden, because gay marriage and polygamy are opposites, not equivalents. By allowing high-status men to hoard wives at the expense of lower-status men, polygamy withdraws the opportunity to marry from people who now have it; same-sex marriage, by contrast, extends the opportunity to marry to people who now lack it. One of these things, as they say on Sesame Street, is not like the other. Yet this non sequitur just won't go away..."
19th century thinking, Jonathan.
First men don't "hoard" women. Women stopped being chattel more than a century ago. Second, what business is it of his? These people love one another, who is he to interfere? The same legal argument the Supremes bought applies to this.
Good luck stopping progress, Mugwumps.