Eric Owens at The Daily Caller reports on Boston College Law School professor Kent Greenfield's admission that the arguments in the recent SCOTUS cases in favor of same-sex marriage can easily be employed to legitimize a host of other relationship types being included in the definition of marriage.
“The left is in this bind in part because our arguments for expanding the marriage right to same-sex couples have been so compelling,” Greenfield brags proudly. “Marriage, we’ve said, is about defining one’s own family and consecrating a union based on love. We’ve voiced these arguments in constitutional terms, using claims arising from the doctrines of ‘fundamental rights’ and equal protection.”
[…]
Greenfield then pops the question: under such a legal rubric, “why can’t people in polyamorous relationships claim that right as well?”
[…]
He observes that he frequently hears a couple answers “in private conversations with leaders in the marriage movement”—that’s presumably the gay marriage movement, not the traditional marriage movement. “The first is that there is no political energy behind a fight for incestuous or polygamous marriages. The second is that they would be fine if those restrictions fell as well but, in effect, ‘don’t quote me on that.’”
You can read more at The DC.
