So many predicted it, but it seemed absurd at the time...until now. Dissenters of same-sex marriage logically argued that if the definition of marriage is widened to two men or two women, what stops it from going to 3 people or more? If the argument is that everyone deserves the right to marry whomever they want, what stops legalized polygamy?
That's exactly the argument this Montana trio is making, as reported in this MSN article.
Nathan Collier is legally married to Victoria and informally married (i.e., not recognized by the state) to Christine. He says Christine "deserves legitimacy" and is inspired by last week's ruling to ask for it.
And according to the logic of SCOTUS, why shouldn't he? Anne Wilde, a polygamy advocate co-founder of Principle Voices, says, "We hope the Supreme Court decision will show the direction the nation is going. It's more liberal; it's more understanding about people forming the families the way they want."
The Supreme Court's decision on Friday did way more than just allow for same-sex couples to marry. They, in essence, obliterated any boundaries for the definition of marriage. It's no wonder this trio feels that if it's fair for a same-sex couple to marry, then it's fair for them as well.
The question now is how the Supreme Court will answer these cases. It's kind of like the dad that let his oldest have the candy after bedtime and now has to answer to all the other kids who want the same thing.
How do you think it will go? Do you think SCOTUS will be able to say "no" to polygamy after already giving a hearty "yes" to same-sex marriage? We would love to hear your thoughts! Thank you!