California to welcome polygamists

Although much ink has been spilled over the California Supreme Court decision last month legalizing same-sex marriage, hardly a word has been said about one of its most pernicious and immediate effects: It legitimizes polygamy.

As progressive as we like to think ourselves, polygamy is generally considered beyond the pale. Just this week a self-described polygamist from Southern California was convicted of numerous counts of torture, willful injury to a child (he had 19), and other charges. And of course the highly publicized case of the Texas polygamy sect and the concern for the young women alleged to have been "married" to the older men in the sect.

California, however, has thrown the door to polygamy wide open. The state Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples must be allowed to marry. At present, California law recognizes domestic partnerships, affording the partners all the rights and privileges currently granted married couples, but does not mention civil unions.

Accordingly, same-sex couples who first obtain civil unions from, say, Vermont, will soon be allowed to travel to California and enter into marriage – either with or without their civil union partner. Thus, Arnold and Bill might be united in a Vermont civil union, but in California, Arnold may enter into marriage with Cullen, even while the civil union is still in effect. And before his "marriage," Cullen could have united in a civil union with Dan.

It gets worse. At the same time as these males are coupling, female same-sex couples could have been undertaking similar unions. Ellen may be in a civil union with Feona, and Feona could nonetheless marry Gigi. Gigi may have had a previously conferred civil union with Heidi.

As if all of that were not enough, under California law as twisted by the state Supreme Court, Heidi could marry Dan, and Ellen could marry Bill, thus completing a circle of "love" among eight individuals, four male and four female, all of whom would have arguable legal rights to all the property owned by any one of them – no matter what state the property is in.

If this isn't a recipe for disaster, then California is no longer the land of fruits and nuts.

Despite having been presented with this entirely plausible scenario, the Supreme Court refused to stay implementation of the ruling, apparently overcome with breathless anticipation of the June "weddings" already scheduled for June 17.

This case presents a paradigm of what can happen when judicial activists seek to implement an agenda rather than dispassionately declaring the law. Even if the court were to insist that same-sex marriages must be permitted, it could easily have delayed the date on which the ruling was to become effective. Such a modest measure would have allowed the legislature to investigate and consider all the myriad administrative details that must be addressed before clerks begin handing out marriage licenses like ice cream cones on a hot day at the park.

Although the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional two provisions of the California Family Code, it failed to address other provisions that continue to require that marriage be between one man and one woman. For example, Family Code section 420 requires that in a marriage ceremony, the parties recite that they take each other as "husband and wife." Again, Family Code section 301 setting forth the requirements for two individuals to consent to and consummate marriage, states: "An unmarried male of the age of 18 years or older, and an unmarried female of the age of 18 years or older" are capable of consenting to and consummating a marriage.

Not only does this hasty court opinion wreak havoc on the county clerks and family law code of California, it also brings a tidal wave of unwanted litigation and confusion to other states. California, unlike Massachusetts, has no residency requirement for those wishing to marry. So, couples from all over the country can fly in, marry and return to their home states in a matter of hours.

This detail led no less than 12 state attorneys general to write the court urging that it delay letting the opinion become operational so as to allow those states to prepare for the onslaught of attacks upon their own laws and regulations governing marriage.

Again, however, the court refused to interfere with the planned parties of the homosexual activists who have orchestrated this unnatural disaster. Absent a last-minute reprieve from the Court of Appeal, California is poised to open Pandora's Box, and the consequences will be felt in every corner of the country.