One question to the New Jersey Supreme Court and all other same-sex marriage proponents:
As a matter of principle, why should polygamists not be afforded the same “right” that same-sex couples claim when it comes to marriage?
If same-sex couples believe they have a “right” to marriage, then why not, as a matter of principle, shouldn’t polygamists? I have never had anyone make a logical argument that same-sex marriage is a “right” and at the same time not argue that two consenting adult polygamists do not share the same “right”.
The plaintiffs in the NJ case didn’t want go there. Plaintiffs “concede that the State can insist on the binary nature of marriage, limiting marriage to one per person at any given time”. The plaintiffs, recognizing the question surely would come up, obviously didn’t want this corollary. However, remarkably the dissenting NJ Supreme Court justices think the majority “defined the right too narrowly”. The majority justices stated that if the minority justices’ opinion prevailed “…it would eviscerate any logic behind the State’s authority to forbid incestuous and polygamous marriages”. I could not agree more, but I also believe that the majority opinion has the same repercussion.
Though the plaintiffs don’t want to address the consequences of the NJ Supreme Court, the rest of society may very well have to in the future.
“Times have changed”, NJ Supreme Court declared yesterday is an observation best left for the people and their chosen representatives to decide.