What moral or legal ground could a government stand on to refuse to legalize polygamy?

As same-sex “marriage” became a cultural obsession in our country, polygamy advocates quietly stood in the shadows, waiting. They were waiting to see what the courts would do as they planned to take action in light of their decision. When the Supreme Court of the United States decided to create a constitutional right to same-sex “marriage” and legalize it, polygamy advocates rejoiced.

If the government decides that two men or two women have the right to be married, what possible legal or moral ground is there for the government to fall back on in refusing to legalize polygamy? That is the question that will soon be asked, and need to be answered.

The question is already being asked abroad.

In Italy, where same-sex “marriage” is legal, an Islamic leader is asking why the Italian government is refusing to acknowledge the “civil right” Muslims have to be in polygamous relationships. And he is using the very same arguments gay rights advocates used to seek the legalization of same-sex “marriage.”

Hamza Piccardo, the founder of the Union of Islamic Communities and Organisations (UCOII) in Italy, posted on Facebook that there is a civil right to polygamy. He further asserted that Italy would benefit from legalizing polygamy and the resultant births it would produce.

According to a recent post, Piccardo posted:

“When it comes to civil rights here, then polygamy is a civil right. Muslims do not agree with homosexual partnerships, and yet they have to accept a system that allows it. There is no reason why Italy should not accept polygamous marriages of consenting persons.”

The first thing that stands out to me is that there is no indication that Piccarod received any backlash for his comments against “homosexual partnerships.” This is interesting because anytime a Catholic or Christian utters a single word against homosexual relationships they are excoriated to the uttermost. Some have lost jobs. Some have been threatened. There is at times great backlash against a Christian or Catholic that stands on their religious convictions against homosexuality.

But, in stunning hypocrisy, the media and politicians alike often ignore the reality that Islam strictly forbids homosexuality and Muslims are absolutely opposed to it. No one reports on this reality. The violence against homosexuals in Muslim countries goes ignored. That hypocrisy shows that the movement to silence Christians on the issue of homosexuality is politically motivated, not motivated by ideals of equality or rights.

But the truth is that any government that legalizes and legitimizes homosexual relationships will have a hard time refusing to do so for polygamous ones. What ground is there to stand on? Is there a moral reason to refuse three or four consenting adults the freedom to “marry?” Is there a legal reason that can be applied to polygamy that does not exist for homosexuals?

In the wake of recent Supreme Court rulings legalizing same-sex “marriage” it is becoming clear that advocates for other groups, including polygamy, polyamory, and pedophilia are gearing up to challenge current laws. What is unclear is what legal recourse the government can stand on if they seek to refuse those groups their “constitutional rights.”

Opponents of polygamy say things like “Centuries of fighting for women’s rights can not simply be brushed aside.” But those arguments can be quickly brushed aside. No one is calling for forced polygamy, just as no one called for forced homosexual “marriage.” We are talking about “consenting adults.” These adults should have the right to make their own sexual decisions and the freedom to enjoy the benefits of the law in accordance with those decisions. See how good I am at making the case for polygamy using the same arguments homosexuals use.

Look, if you support same-sex “marriage” then you absolutely must support every other kind of relationship and the “right” of marriage for that relationship. You cannot backtrack on polygamy, polyamory, or even pedophilia because then you become the dreaded bigot that you accuse traditional marriage advocates of being. What is it to you if a man marries two or three women? How does it harm you if two men and three women enter into a union? You have no legal or moral recourse not to support every other kind of relationship and allowing those relationships to marry.

Even though this is taking place in Italy, you can be sure it will soon happen in the United States. Our government and Supreme Court have made it crystal clear that marriage is anything two (or three or four) people can imagine. As long as they claim to love one another, and have a constitutional right to equality, no other arguments matter. So you can take this to the bank, marriage redefinition is not over in America.

Once a society erodes the foundation of marriage, the man-woman dynamic, there is no foundation left to refuse further redefinition. In fact, there is no definition left as the term marriage is applied to more and more alternative unions it will lose meaning. Of course, this does not fundamentally change the true nature of marriage: a lifelong union of one man and one woman. No court or government can change the nature of marriage.