I thought “Marriage Rights” applied to only one or two groups.
Can't happen here. /sarc
Well, once you change the legal definition of a marriage from one man - one woman into one man-one man, one-woman -one woman, all you have left to do is to change “one” to “more than one” and legalize a marriage to yourself.
Yep. Homosexuality-—>Transgender-—>Polygamy-—>Whatever’s next.
The Globe and Mail newspaper editorialized on this case that polygamy should be outlawed because it is an offense to human dignity. While I agree its a very weak argument once you allow same sex unions. Once this case is overthrown the Muslim horde will soon emerge from the shadows and it will be pretty much anything goes.
Marriage means anything now.
This is exactly what I’ve told people lawyers would do.
Next will be making it legal to marry an animal, and by default, making it legal to have sex with animals.
Welcome to the slippery slope.
I told my wife that we would owe a big apology to the Mormons if the definition of marriage would change.
Can’t imagine wanting more than one wife. Imagine the honeydo list.
Unless someone has been living in a shell, he or she would have to be aware of the infamous Hugh Hefner and his harem of “wives”/girlfriends who live together at the Playboy mansion.
His lifestyle is glamorized on tv. Hugh and his harem have appeared on Larry King and other programs to laud his lifestyle.
Our culture/society not only permits, but glorifies such lifestyle. Hugh loves it. He says why buy the cow, when you can get milk from 1/2 dozen cows for free?
I’ve always thought the best way to shut down “gay marriage” activists would be to form a “polygamist activist group” that would start demanding the same thing on the grounds you could not have one without the other.