Same-sex 'marriage' fallout? Polygamy and more

A ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court establishing a right to same-sex "marriage" would move the nation onto a slippery slope toward polygamy, child marriages and more, according to prominent conservative commentator Cal Thomas.

"[If] equal protection covers gays, lesbians, transgenders and the rest, what about the polygamists?" he asked in an interview on Fox News. "Some of their groups have already said that after same-sex marriage is approved, they want polygamy."

Others will join in as well, he said.

"And even further out, the adult-child marriages, people, men especially, who want to marry young boys or young girls, as occurs in some Muslim countries, by the way, they want their rights, too.

"Who's going to say 'no' and based on what?" he wondered.

His comments come as the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the definition of marriage. The case comes from the 6th U.S. Circuit, which ruled states' residents can define marriage for themselves.

The decision was challenged on the basis of "equal rights" and other grounds.

Thomas was asked about a recent ad published in the Washington Post and other newspapers in which prominent Christian and Jewish leaders warned that if the justices create same-sex "marriage," they will not honor that decision.

The statement by the leaders – who include Franklin Graham, James Dobson, Frank Pavone, Don Wildmon, Jerry Boykin, Alveda King and Alan Keyes – said: "We affirm that marriage, as existing solely between one man and one woman, precedes civil government. Though affirmed, fulfilled and elevated by faith, the truth that marriage can exist only between one man and one woman is not based solely on religion but on the Natural Law, written on the human heart.

"We implore this court to not step outside of its legitimate authority and unleash religious persecution and discrimination against people of faith. We will be forced to choose between the state and our conscience, which is informed by clear biblical and church doctrine and the natural created order."

Their conclusion?

"We will not honor any decision by the Supreme Court which will force us to violate a clear biblical understanding of marriage as solely the union of one man and one woman."

See the Thomas interview:

Thomas said, "I think there's legitimate concern about this … when you look at countries like England and Canada, which have passed laws under their various human rights acts prohibiting preachers from preaching about homosexuality and some of these other moral and social issues.

"And they can be fined and in some cases, in extreme cases, put in prison," he said. "Look even during the anti-slavery movement, even the pro-slavery in the south in the United States, the United States government didn't come in and try to keep pastors from preaching either for or against slavery.

"They let them have freedom of speech. You hear a lot from the left about the separation of church and state. A lot of evangelicals would be happy if the state got back on its side of the line," he said.

He warned that it could result in chaos.

"I think a lot of evangelical leaders are looking at this as inevitable, that the Supreme Court will in fact strike down laws restricting marriage to between men and women, but I think what the court has to do then if it's going to do this is say, OK, where is the line then?"

He said: "Where's the standard? If it's not the Constitution, if it's not scripture, where's the standard? You walk into the supermarket, there are pounds, there are quarts, there are standards by which you measure product and how much you're going to pay when you go out based on how many tomatoes you have and how much they weigh.

What is happening in America? Paul Kengor explains in "Takedown: From Communists to Progressives, How the Left has Sabotaged Family and Marriage."

"What if we did away with those?

"It would be totally chaotic. And so I think a lot of Americans want to know, especially those in the conservative, evangelical, Catholic church and orthodox Jewish friends, where is the line now? If you're going to repeal something that has been part of human history for thousands of years, what's the new standard? And according to whom?"

He was asked whether compromise is possible.

"I hope so. They can have the right now, civil ceremonies and churches that perform it. But the activists … want to come into the churches, they want to come into the synagogues, they want to demand in their Christian schools and pulpits and in their teaching in in their Bible study material that they legitimate this kind of thing.

"That violates conscience, and Thomas Jefferson spoke about that, that somebody who violates the religious conscience of a person, that that's tyranny."

The newspaper ad statement was signed by leaders of groups representing millions of Americans.

"We the undersigned have joined together to present our unified message and plea to the justices of the United States Supreme Court regarding the matter of marriage. We are Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christian pastors, clergy, lay leaders and Jewish leaders, who collectively represent millions of people in our specific churches, parishes, denominations, synagogues and media ministry outreaches."

They described anything other than biblical marriage as "an unjust law, as Martin Luther King Jr. described such laws in his letter from the Birmingham jail."

They said they will choose the Bible.

"On this choice, we must pledge obedience to our Creator. While there are many things we can endure, any attempt to redefine marriage is a line we cannot and will not cross."

They refer to DefendMarriage.org, where tens of thousands of Americans already have signed a related pledge.

The forecast of troubles from the fallout from same-sex "marriage" is not new. WND reported on the legal challenge to California's Proposition 8, an amendment that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

When the state Supreme Court there created same-sex "marriage," California Supreme Court Justice Marvin Baxter dissented.

He said: "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.

"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?" Baxter wrote.

Others have said the same thing. Elaine Smith, deputy presiding officer in the Scottish Parliament and former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey agree on the threat.

"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," Smith commented. "Further, if the government is sincere about its support for 'equal love' then it appears to have a contradiction on its hands."

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

In a 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.

After a previous court decision advocating homosexual marriage, pro-polygamy activists rejoiced.

"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.

It was Carey who also predicted what appears to be developing.

The London Daily Mail reported Carey, at the time, 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.

"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, has allowed three people in a polygamous relationship to have a civil union.

And across Europe, the polygamy movement is being driven by an influx of Muslims.

The Telegraph reported last year an estimated 20,000 polygamous Muslim marriages already exist in the U.K., despite being illegal.

"In 2010, London Mayor Boris Johnson's then 45-year-old ex-wife Allegra Mostyn-Owen married a Muslim man in secret. In an article for the Evening Standard she explained her approach to polygamy: 'I realize that I am unlikely to conceive children [at my age] so we agreed that, so long as he chooses a good partner, then I am happy to live together in an extended family,'" the report said.

A pro-Islam website, Islam Awareness, even provides instructions on how to facilitate or obtain polygamy where it remains illegal.

An imam from Germany, Ahmad Hulail of Frankfort, was quoted, saying: "With regard to the Muslim man who has a second wife, I believe – and Almighty Allah knows best – that he has to follow the channels of law in order to legalize his second marriage in the country he lives in. There are some Muslim brothers who did so through the legitimate channels. They submitted documents to the European countries they reside in to the effect that they have second wives according to the Islamic law and that the first wives agree to that; they also asserted that they would not give a privilege to one of the wives at the expense of the other. I know a Jordanian Muslim who managed to get residence for his two wives in a European country.

"If the attempts to legalize the second marriage fail, the person could document his (second) marriage in one of the Islamic centers, yet, his marriage then would not be regarded legitimate under the law of the country concerned. The problem he might face in the future is regarding getting birth certificates for the children from his second wife. But I think there are some flexible European laws concerning registering names of the children born even from illegitimate relationships.

"I advise the Muslims who live in the Western countries to demand their rights in that regard. Foreign non-Muslim minorities who live in the West managed to get approval to exercise their rights pursuant to their religious rituals, such as rights concerning slaughtering animals and burying their dead. Muslims can follow in the same footsteps to get legitimate approvals from the Western countries to exercise the rituals of their religion freely."