• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

A senior politician in Scotland is warning that if the government decides that “love” is the only factor in marriage, allowing homosexual “marriage,” then polygamy would inevitably follow.

The comments from Elaine Smith, deputy presiding officer in the Scottish Parliament, echo the thoughts of others including a justice on the Supreme Court of California as well as former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey, who both have said the campaign for homosexual unions can’t help but lead to multiple partners being recognized.

It was in a report in the Scotsman that Smith said redefining marriage could cause problems for society.

Scotland is facing a proposal to legitimize same-sex “marriages” as early as 2015.

But Smith said, “Whilst the government has said that it has no intention of allowing polygamous marriages as part of this legislation which changes the essential nature of marriage, it has not explained in any detail and with research analysis its reasons for taking that position.

“Further, if the government is sincere about its support for ‘equal love’ then it appears to have a contradiction on its hands,” she said.

There would be no “logical reason” for not allowing polygamous arrangements if the redefinition of marriage is based only on “love,” she said.

The issue also has been the subject of political and social arguments in England and Canada, as well as across the United States where the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and refused to review a decision by a homosexual judge in California that homosexuals there must be given marriage rights.

In a recent column, WND Founder and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah raised the issue of marriage rights for polygamists and others.

“So why is one ‘lifestyle’ affirmed by the popular culture, the political class and the judiciary and the other is ignored – even to the point of jailing those who dare to practice it? This is not a rhetorical question. I really want an answer from someone who believes the right, just, moral course of action is to redefine marriage as an institution between any two people, regardless of their sex. It’s a question that deserves an answer as we march, without thought, into a brave new world of sexual revolution, casting aside 6,000 years of human tradition inspired by God’s law and an institution that has formed the cornerstone of civilization,” he said.

WND also recently reported on the reaction from advocates for multiple partners following the U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

“We polyamorists are grateful to our brothers and sisters for blazing the marriage equality trail,” Anita Wagner Illig told U.S. News and World Report.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey predicted what appears to be developing.

The London Daily Mail reported Carey told Prime Minister David Cameron that an “equal marriage” proposal would have further consequences.

Carey pointed out some British lawmakers are recognizing that if they permit same-sex marriage, there would be no reason to bar two sisters from being married or multiple-partner arrangements.

A California Supreme Court justice, Marvin Baxter, issued a similar warning when his court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage in 2008.

Voters later that year overruled the decision, adopting a state constitutional amendment, Proposition 8, that defined marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman. But a homosexual federal judge, Vaughn Walker, struck down Proposition 8 in 2010.

Baxter dissented from the majority 2008 opinion that created same-sex marriage for a short time in the state, arguing the consequences of the decision were not thought out.

He wrote: “The bans on incestuous and polygamous marriages are ancient and deeprooted, and, as the majority suggests, they are supported by strong considerations of social policy. … Our society abhors such relationships, and the notion that our laws could not forever prohibit them seems preposterous.

“Yet here, the majority overturns, in abrupt fashion, an initiative statute confirming the equally deeprooted assumption that marriage is a union of partners of the opposite sex. The majority does so by relying on its own assessment of contemporary community values, and by inserting in our Constitution an expanded definition of the right to marry that contravenes express statutory law.”

His warning?

“Who can say that, in 10, 15 or 20 years, an activist court might not rely on the majority’s analysis to conclude, on the basis of a perceived evolution in community values, that the laws prohibiting polygamous and incestuous marriages were no longer constitutionally justified?”

Carey’s warning was nearly the same.

“Once we let go of the exclusivity of a one-man, one-woman relationship with procreation linking the generations, they why stop there?” he said. “If it is about love and commitment, then it is entirely logical to extend marriage to two sisters bringing up children together. If it is merely about love and commitment, then there is nothing illogical about multiple relationships, such as two women and one man.”

Brazil, which started out by expanding marriage to same-sex duos nearly a decade ago, allowed three people in a polygamous relationship to have a civil union.

Officials with the Christian Institute discussed Smith’s comments, noting that Smith referenced the Netherlands, where after adoption of homosexual “marriage,” there came arrangements “for three or more people to be in a civil union.”

WND also reported recently when a controversial BBC radio investigation concluded monogamy is out of date and “multiple partners” is the coming norm.

With many Western nations abandoning the biblical concept of marriage, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, BBC Radio 4 host Jo Fidgen questioned whether there still is room for sexual fidelity in a “society where choice is everything,” the U.K.’s Christian Institute reported.

According to the institute, the BBC program “neglects to examine the effects of polyamorous relationships on children and the show’s presenter said she didn’t want to ‘get into a debate about what’s best for society or whether we are genetically programmed to have one partner or many.’”

Fidgen said in the report: “We don’t see any contradiction in loving more than one friend. No one asks us to only love one of our children. Why shouldn’t it be any different with romantic love.”

 

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.