Not that I was terribly original, of course, but I have made the argument that once one insisted on a "right" to gay "marriage," there appears no reasonable barrier to polygamy--or, for that matter, incestuous unions (the latter, especially, since we long since gave up--as a society--on the intrinsic link between marriage and procreation).
"Oh, how silly!" "You're just being alarmist!" came the responses.
Well, those folks who cannot abide not being "cutting edge" have -- shall we say -- "come out of the closet" on this one.
Here is a statement issued in -- where else? -- San Francisco. Found on its laundry-list are:
* "a new vision for securing governmental and private institutional recognition of diverse kinds of partnerships, households, kinship relationships and families." (Emphasis added.)
* "(Same-sex marriage) is a limited goal..." admitted the author of the statement.
* The statement lists relationships and households that would not benefit from marriage, including senior citizens living together, people in polyamorous relationships, single-parent families, extended families and gay or lesbian couples who raise children with other couples, among others. (Emphasis added.)
"But I'm sure they're just fringy wackos"--well, that goes without saying; but they appear to be from the "mainstream" of fringy wackoism, as it were: Current and former leaders of national gay rights organizations, such as the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, signed the 25-page statement, along with the likes of scholar Cornel West, Ms. Magazine founder Gloria Steinem, essayist Barbara Ehrenreich and novelist Armistead Maupin.
After all, it is to such luminaries that Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to turn for "Deep Thoughts," when contemplating the Constitution bores him.
Biretta tip: The Cafeteria is Closed.
(* I suppose one could say, "hey--it's not polygamy but polyamory!" Okay--you got me.)