It is coming. The same legal arguments that are used to justify homosexual marriage, can and will be used to justify polygamy and group marriage, and possibly incestuous marriages.
The fix is in regarding homosexual marriage. Last year’s cases on the subject revealed that five out of nine Supreme Court justices are in favor of homosexual marriage. It’s a matter of time as to when they decide to impose it on all 50 states.
And then shortly after that happens, those in favor of polygamy and group marriage and “triads” will come out of the woodwork, and demand their equal rights, based on the same legal arguments used to push homosexual marriage.
In other words, marriage will be meaningless.
Today is effectively a green light for triads, groups, etc., because anything less than defense of heterosexual monogamous marriage is tantamount to a green light.
SCOTUS has sent the signal to the Courts of Appeal - rule in favor of homosexuals, or else we’ll take the case and reverse you. Typical judicial MO - let the Circuit Courts do the dirty work.
“The same legal arguments ... will be used to justify polygamy and group marriage, and possibly incestuous marriages.”
My position is that this issue is driven primarily from 2 positions - (1) money / financial benefits; (2) using the government to force acceptance of homo behavior as normal so as to destroy the shackles of morality.
Using the left’s “logic”, you are right - polygamy would be a natural next expansion of marriage. However, I think the left would change its “logic” and use deception to say that “marriage” has always been defined as “between TWO (and only two) PEOPLE”, and then claim history and stare decisis to uphold polygamy as illegal. Most people including the enlightened left - are not conditioned to accept or handle polygamy in their own lives, so it would be a long time, if ever, that this would become the norm. Society should destruct before this ever becomes the new norm for marriage.
The question of incestuous “marriage” might appear before polygamy. After all, why should it not be legal for an elder parent, incapable of sexual performance/reproduction, not marry one of his/her children in order to pass some financial benefits (pension) to support a “child” ?
As “intelligent” as the judiciary believes they are, the euphoria of the moment, the judicial fiat of imposing a re-definition of marriage has no basis in law. From a societal perspective, we are here because of a predictable social evolution from the loss of common morality over the past 50 years, a loss in the belief in God, and the loss of the natural understanding as to history, meaning and purpose of marriage - to protect the most fundamental unit of civilization - wife, husband, children.
Pray for yourself, your family, and your country.