Back in May of last year, I posted the following in response to Obama announcing his endorsement of gay marriage:
Now that the Pres has come out and endorsed gay marriage, I have to ask him (and other liberals) - where does it end? What is your definition of marriage?
Marriage has been defined as the union between a man and a woman - period. There have been homosexual relationships throughout time, but they have never been recognized as marriage. The basis of this is both civil and religious.
So, Mr. Obama, according to you and your friends, what is the definition of marriage you wish us to use? Is it the recognized union of two people? If so, why?
If the legal definition of marraige can be expanded from a man and a woman to a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, why must it be limited to that?
If you do not allow for other unions to be recognized, then you are discriminating, aren't you?
How about polygamists? Having more than one wife or husband is illegal, and frowned upon by almost everyone in society. Why? If a man and a man can be wed, why not a man, a woman, and another woman? Or three men? Or six women and a man?
How about the man who is in love with his Japanese robot girlfriend and wants to marry 'her'?
How about the woman who is in love with her German Shepherd?
How about the man who wants to marry his sweetheart, who died 4 years ago?
How about the Jack-in-the-Box commercial guy who wants to marry some bacon?
How about the car nut who wants to marry his hotrod?
All of these sound silly, yes. But, to a vast majority of Americans, the idea of two women marrying sounds just as silly.
You may say I'm being silly and sarcastic. I am not. If you change the rule to meet the wishes of one group of minorities, then how can you say you won't change that same rule to meet the wishes of other minorities?
You watch - if somehow same sex marriage becomes the law of the land, someone else (polygamists probably) are going to be the next group to jump up and claim discrimination, demanding the right to exercise their wishes and have it recognized by the government. The government and society will have no legal or moral grounds to oppose them, given that the time tested definition of marriage has been thrown out the window.
In spite of all the grief I received for posting that, folks telling me I was just being sarcastic and un-realistic, I have been proven right. It has started.
U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups, based in Utah, on Friday handed down a decision that struck down most of Utah's anti-polygamy laws. The basis of the ruling was that such laws violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of religion.
Using that as a basis, any kook who wants to marry six women can claim not allowing him to do so violates his religion. Any woman who wants to marry her horse ... Any couple who want to add a motorcycle gang into their lives through marriage ... there is no end to what can be claimed is part of a 'religion'. Government has no business deciding what a religion is. By this court's standards, the government has no business deciding ANYTHING concerning the legal definition of marriage.
It is just starting ...