Opponents of same-sex marriage resist it because it amounts to redefining marriage, but also because it will invite future redefinitions. If we embrace same-sex marriage, they argue, society will have surrendered any reasonable grounds on which to continue forbidding polygamy, for example.
In truth, proponents of same-sex marriage have never offered a very good response to this concern. This problem was highlighted at the Supreme Court last week in oral argument over Californiaís Proposition 8, the state constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman.
Surprisingly, the polygamy problem that same-sex marriage presents was raised by an Obama appointee, the liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Sotomayor interrupted the presentation of anti-Prop 8 litigator Theodore Olson to pose the following question: If marriage is a fundamental right in the way proponents of same-sex marriage contend,ďwhat state restrictions could ever exist,Ē for example,ďwith respect to the number of people ... that could get married?Ē
In response, Olson tried to set up a clear distinction between same-sex marriage and polygamy, suggesting that the kinds of governmental interests that justify a prohibition of polygamy are irrelevant in the case of same-sex marriage.
no where in the court cases was polygamy included or even discussed. it was not included. i'm not going to project and guess why or why not.
what we can discuss is what is really pertinent to the Prop 8 case - what is documented via court documents to be a consideration. that's the topic of this thread - the judge's findings in the Prop 8 trial.
if you want to discuss polygamy - then show us where in the court documents that it's discussed, included or mentioned. specifically.