The ‘elephant in the room’ that proponents of same-sex “marriage” try their best to hide is that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will lay the foundation to legalizing marriage for polygamous relationships as well.

Earlier this year Pennsylvania Family Institute’s Randy Wenger was a guest on a PCN debate with Mark Segal, editor for the Philadelphia Gay News, discussing marriage in Pennsylvania. Segal was asked multiple times about polygamous relationships. His response: “I don’t believe in polygamy” & “I’m not willing to take [marriage] that far.”

It’s interesting to note that Segal did advocate during the debate for appreciating religious freedom to marry same-sex partners based on his Jewish belief. However, by Segal’s own rationale on religious freedom, those of certain Morman sects need to be given the right to marry their multiple wives under law.

It’s a double standard to want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples and to not be in favor of polygamous relationships as well – especially if your rationale for same-sex “marriage” is based on religious freedom.

Whether you believe in polygamy or not is irrelevant. The fact is that there are families in America in polygamous relationships. And some of these families are bringing court challenges seeking legal recognition of their union.

This fact has recently received national attention with the TLC series “Sister Wives.” The show has followed Kody Brown who is legally married to one woman but considers himself to be in a marital union with three other women. And a federal court in Utah just ruled in his case – Brown et al v. Herbert et al – that parts of the state’s polygamy laws are unconstitutional.

To date, court rulings involving same-sex “marriage” licenses base their conclusion on the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution. If the conclusion is that we deprive same-sex couples of life, liberty or property by denying marriage (and liberty “presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct” as stated in Lawrence v. Texas), what is there to deny the equal protection or due process of the law to a man marrying two women?

The beginning of marriage law and marriage licenses is rooted in the desire to help children be cared for by their mom & dad; rather than making them wards of the state. Especially with fathers being intrinsically less connected to their children, the design of marriage between a man and a woman has been the best way society encourages a father being there for his children.

Marriage licenses have historically not been authorized to polygamous relationships or any other relationship contrary to that of a man and a woman. It’s why Congress passed the Enabling Act, which outlined what Utah must do to achieve statehood – which included banning polygamy in their state constitution. Why? Because marriage between one man and one woman is the best foundation for a society.

Men and women are free to choose who they live with and have a relationship with. That freedom does not warrant redefining the public policy of marriage for all of society. And if we redefine public policy based on the religious freedom to marry whomever one wishes, then we also cannot decry the freedom to marry multiple spouses. You have to take redefining marriage as far as your fallacy takes you.