Homosexual advocates have long said that the redefinition of marriage will not lead to polygamous unions. Supporters of marriage between one man and one woman have disagreed. Well, recent efforts both at home and abroad seem to demonstrate that the supporters of traditional marriage are right.
Two recent stories, one from California and the other from Brazil, highlight the slippery slope of so-called same-sex "marriage." Both show that opening the door to homosexual unions and so-called same-sex "marriage," clearly paves the way for other alternative unions tomorrow.
On Monday, the California State Assembly approved legislation SB1476 allowing judges the ability to declare more than two parents for a child. The legislation applies equally to men and women, heterosexual and homosexual. Proposed by State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), the bill passed with Democrats in favor and Republicans opposed.
"We live in a world today where courts face the diverse circumstances that have reshaped California families," said Leno. "It is critical that judges have the ability to recognize the roles of all parents."
"This smacks of the state redefining parenthood," Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) told the Associated Press. "What's next? Are we going to parent by committee?"
Meanwhile, in Brazil, despite the Constitution's definition of marriage between a man and a woman, the country's first civil union between three partners has been registered. A Brazilian court earlier allowed homosexuals to marry under a "stable union" status.
Two women and a man living together in Tupã, in the northwestern region of Sao Paulo state, sought to publicly declare their status in order to guarantee their rights. The declaration was made three months ago, but became public this week. Notary, Claudia do Nascimento Domingues explained that there appeared to be no legal impediment to the union.
''We are only recognising what has always existed," said Domingues. "We are not inventing anything."
"We have to respect the private nature of relationships and learn to live in this pluralistic society recognizing different desires," said the vice president for the the Brazilian Family Institute, which favors homosexual and polygamous unions.
"This confirms everything we've been saying about the consequences of same-sex 'marriage,' said Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage. "Commentators have tried to laugh, scoff, or dismiss this away. The question isn't a slippery slope argument. If marriage is simply based on the desires of adults and not the needs of children, and they view marriage as their right, there's a problem with our discourse. There is no right to redefine marriage. Once you embrace this new idea about marriage, the entire structure has to go away. These sorts of decisions make it clear that it's not scare-mongering to question the premises behind same-sex 'marriage.' Such unions lead to the consequences we see in California and Brazil, and that we've already seen happen in Canada."
"If you believe that the Constitution requires that a man be allowed to marry another man, or a woman be allowed to marry another woman, then why shouldn't a man be able to have four wives?" asks Brian Hausknect of CitizenLink. "That's what a federal lawsuit going on in Utah claims. A federal judge has refused to dismiss a Utah lawsuit (Brown v. Herbert) that claims that polygamy is a guaranteed privacy right under the U.S. Constitution. Either marriage means what it's always meant, or it will end up meaning whatever the next interest group wants it to mean."