I just simply don't think it can possibly happen within the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this sentence. And probably for a very long time after that.
If polygamists retain their far-fringe status, and are mentally suspect (in the case of the women) and morally suspect (in the case of the men), they will never attract the consensus needed to do anything other avoid prosecution for a time. As it is, anyone can make any living arrangement they so desire, and if the "sister wives" after number one stay home and raise the brood, they can now legally be claimed as dependents of the man, who already gets a joint filing status with wife #1. As for Social Security benefits, by the time polygamists could put together a coalition to effectively petition the courts for a relief of their grievances, SS will be long gone broke.
Again, the court didn't approach their decision from the "public acceptance" angle, as a legislature would do. They asked, essentially, "Do homosexuals have the right to marry?" They decided in the affirmative.
How will they address this question when it comes to polygamy? I know the MA court had negative words about polygamy, but they probably will never see a case pertinent to the question. Of course, other courts will, and they might be as near-sighted as MA court--but more equitable--in dismantling marriage and dispensing new wedding rights.
I found another interesting lawsuit, filed this month, unrelated to the other case:
Convicted Polygamist Argues That Polygamy is 'Constitutional Right'
Jul 2, 2004 9:27 am US/MountainThe attorney for a former police officer convicted of bigamy and illegal sex with an underage girl has filed a brief with the Utah Supreme Court arguing that polygamy is a constitutional right.
Rodney Holm, a former police officer in the polygamous community of Hildale, was found guilty in August and sentenced to serve a year in jail.
In a 115-page brief, attorney Rodney Parker wrote that monogamy was the minority way of live worldwide, and that critics of polygamy overstate its problems.
``Current demographics, domestic relations law, and religious diversity all accommodate plural marriage,'' Parker wrote. ``Popular departure from traditional marriage has made our domestic laws on cohabitation and fornication anachronistic.''
Holm's conviction stemmed from his union with a third wife, Ruth Stubbs, who was 16 at the time of the plural marriage performed by leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Holm, who was 32 at the time, also is married to Stubbs' older sister, Suzie, and a second wife, Wendy.
In the brief, filed Wednesday, Parker argues that Mormon women have consistently voted to retain multiple marriage-- rejecting a common claim that it amounts to women's enslavement.
However, prosecutors contend that there is no constitutional right to have sex with a minor, and say polygamy can mean forced marriage and child spousal abuse.
Polygamy was part of the early beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but was abandoned more than a century ago. The Mormon church excommunicates those who advocate it.
Note the prosecution's argument is not against polygamy, itself, but against abuse in polygamy. It apparently doesn't dispute the notion of a constitutional right to practice polygamy when it lacks these characteristics.
I can't pretend to know how soon this will become legal, but I do know there's nothing in the way to stop a judge from "ruling on polygamy in the same vein as Lawrence vs. Texas."
And I suppose that the shoe fetish people can have the same thing said for them.
Well, now. Ain't that special.