"If We Let Gays Marry....

this is the next step on the slippery slope..."


As well it should be.

From the article:

"The fact [that] much of American legal culture is based on monogamy does not justify a ban on polygamy," their attorney, Brian Barnard, of Salt Lake City, wrote in a brief filed this month with the Denver-based appeals court.

Barnard argued that a 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a Texas law that prohibited sexual conduct between same-sex couples "provides individuals with protection from state intrusion as to intimate relationships."

The referred-to decision is Lawrence v. Texas. When the decision came down, the Holy Terrors shit enough bricks to build a pyramid. "This'll start a slippery slope," they said. "The next thing you know, consenting adults will start trying to do whatever they want!"

And they were right. Which is as it should be.

As for me, I have no interest in a second wife. (Two wives, two mothers-in-law. Thank you, but no.) But if consenting adults want to shack up in a "His and Hers and Hers" arrangement, it's none of my damn business.

For that matter, I don't think there's a problem with a "Hers and His and His" arrangement, either. Sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose.

IMHO, I'm afraid G. Lee Cook, D. Cook and J. Bronson won't get very far in their case. At least, not in this go-round. But there is hope.

I just find it funny and ironic that three people in Utah, (on of only three or four states still conservative enough to give Dubya positive approval ratings) are relying on a precedent that was favorable to homosexual conduct.

Talk about politics and strange bedfellows...