Replies

I wonder how many people realize that the laws and court rulings allowing homosexual “marriages” make polygamy a virtual certainty.

I agree with you, and I doubt that many do realize this. Although he was criticized for alarmism in his dissent in LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003), Justice Scalia saw this coming a mile away, just as he did in his earlier dissent in Romer, Governor of Colorado, et al. v. Evans et al. (94-1039), 517 U.S. 620 (1996). (See III, para. 9, et seq.). In LAWRENCE (which overturned the Supreme Court's earlier holding in Bowers v. Hardwick that laws against homosexual activity were Constitutional), Scalia wrote:

...... State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting “an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex” ([Scalia's underline] emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional “morals” offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. “The law,” it said, “is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed.” 478 U.S., at 196.2 (FK's bolded emphasis added).

I think Scalia accurately saw the snowball effect coming in that logically, if homosexual marriage is allowed to be forced by the courts then other unions would also have to be allowed using the same reasoning. The only way around this would be for a future liberal Court to further embarrass itself by throwing all manner of logic and reason out the window by artificially creating a carve-out for two people based on nothing. I think Scalia fears, as I do, that today's judicial activism has largely given up on even the pretense of reason and consistency in arriving at its desires by fiat. If Roe v. Wade can last this long on the utterly ridiculous standards of penumbras and emanations, then perhaps anything goes, no honorable justification required.