Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
LOL
I know you're being tongue-in-cheek, but to be specific, the precedent SSM set for polygamy is two-fold:
- Bending Societal Norms to accomodate a minority group
- Willingness to alter the definition of traditional marriage
Heterosexual (traditional) marriage really sets the precedent to allow both on a government policy level that features something as vague and overpowering as the Charter. Especially since traditional marriage boasts most of the "drawbacks" of both the "fringe" marriages, since adultery (no longer illegal), exploitation (only illegal in extreme cases), and sodomy (no longer illegal) can be found in a random traditional marriage sample.
|
In a sense, it is a shame that the interveners against same-sex marriage failed to realize that the true definition of marriage or relationships should be monogamy, not man-woman. It would have been a compromise, but it would have set a precedent that would have helped make the case against polygamy.
The failure of social conservative groups to compromise represents a tragic breakdown in dialogue in this country. It's the same with the abortion decision. The courts basically left it, gave it to the legislature, Mulroney tried to compromise and the "so-cons" rejected anything but absolute victory. Now we have a country with absolutely no statistical or otherwise abortion restriction or legislation.