I wrote this back in 2006, somewhat sarcastically (or so I thought), as I postulated on where legalizing same-sex marriage would take us:
But we haven't gotten to the bottom of the slippery slope yet; that dark place where we are simply sloshing around in the mud, wallowing in our own decadence - but we are on the way there. May I now make the case for polygamy?
The pro-gay marriage crowd will say, "If two people love each other, regardles of their sex, shouldn't they be allowed to be married? If two men or two women wish to marry, isn't denying them that right based on the sexual gender of the two partners discrimination?"
OK, fine then. The sex of the partners is now ruled as irrelevant - only love between two consenting adults matters.
Now, if the gender of the couple is irrelevant, why shouldn't other factors of the marriage compact be irrelevant as well? Why does it have to be "TWO consenting adults"? If a man and two women are in love, why should they be denied the opportunity to marry as a threesome? If the sex of the partners is now irrelevant, cannot one make the case that the number of people involved in the marriage compact are irrelevant as well?
Well, I was right about one thing - we hadn't reach the bottom of the slippery slope yet, and we were on the way to a societal decadence not seen since the Roman Empire, just before the fall.
Welcome to America, 2011 - just before the fall. And as for polygamy - well, I suppose even my mind wasn't dark enough to fathom where the slippery slope would bottom out. While this New Hampshire bill, on it's surface, is set to redefine marriage as between strictly a man and a women, where it takes the concept of "civil unions" is even more disturbing:
The bill — HB 437, sponsored by Rep. David Bates — would also expand the state’s civil-union law to any two unmarried adults, even if they’re related.
Expanding civil unions to more of a reciprocal beneficiaries contract instead of eliminating them drew ire from opponents to HB 437, but Bates said it only makes sense.
“If we’re going to create a legal status for individuals with rights and responsibilities for the special relationship they have, there’s no good reason to make that exclusive to homosexuals,” Bates countered. “We’ve heard for years how it’s none of the state’s business what people do in their own homes and how we have to get the government out of people’s bedrooms. That’s exactly what this legislation does. We created a civil- union status where there does not need to be any expectation of a sexual relationship. It’s more similar to a limited-liability corporation, where people enter into partnerships for a variety of relationships all the time. This bill doesn’t encourage incest any more than an LLC law.”
I love the fact that proponents of gay marriage are opposed to expanded civil unions - is it because, as Bates suggests, they want a right strictly limited to homosexuals? Or are they enraged because Bates' bill blows the cover off the gay marriage scam - that is simply codifying behavior that is unnatural, more of a benign sexual perversion between consenting adults than a legitimate "alternative lifestyle"?
But the fact is that the prior legalization of gay marriage in New Hampshire have brought us to this point - were we must basically legalize incest in order to fend off the desecration of a holy sacrament.
Which, ultimately, has always been the goal of liberalism. Destroy the gods and the higher values, and replace them with leftist mores and fealty to a bureaucratic government.
And they might, in fact, be succeeding.