The “traditional definition of marriage” is really no definition at all, but is rather a clause stipulating who can entry into such a “union”. Marriage is defined by the rights and obligations that constitute such a union and as such the definition of marriage has changed constantly over the years. Man, I am glad I got that off my chest.

As for the clause itself, it too has changed over the years; it has become both more restrictive and boarder. The ability to marry a close relative is not what it used to be. Conversely, until relatively recently, at least with regards to the States, race was a limiting factor. (I should say that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is only traditional in Western sense; there are other traditions.)

The argument that same sex marriage is some sort of Pandora’s Box that if opened will lead to polygamy and worse puts the chart before the proverbial horse. The notion of same sex marriage is the natural outflow of societal struggle that intellectually speaking has already been won, viz., the normalization of homosexuality. If you look at the court decisions, it is this that forms the backdrop for their decisions. In this sense it is akin to what happened with interracial marriage in the States. Once the notion of the equality of races won out intellectually, it was just a matter of squaring this idea with the current “definition” of marriage and letting people of different races to marry.

With regards to polygamy, there is no such process by which legalizing it will square the legal system with greater societal norms. Indeed, opposition to polygamy seems to have found its voice by having people articulate and disseminate word of the horrors of the Bountiful experience.  In so far as this new found interest in horrors of Bountiful is a byproduct of the whole gay marriage debate, one could ironically say that gay marriage has made the polygamy less likely and not more.