We are not yet at the “marriage” with animals, but this novel concept that marriage (and actually: everything) is simply not what it is, but how one decides to define it is already bearing its first poisoned fruits.
As you can read here, a strange collection of people claiming to be a sort of, oh well, “extended family” (and in fact, “Mormon traditionalists” as it would appear) has now challenged the Utah bigamy law.
The author of the blog post, Tom Crowe, says it right:
…. if Adam and Steve can get married, then there is no logical argument against Adam and Eve, Betty, Patty, Jane, and Suzy. Or Adam and Steve and Betty and Jane and Bill and Patty and Jim and Suzy and Leo.
Or, I venture to add, between all the above mentioned and Fido; or between (among?) all the abovementioned where Steve and Betty (or Patty, or Jane, or Suzy; or all of them) are relatives; like siblings, say, or daughters of the same father.
Tom Crowe also notes that:
the legal argument is the same: my relationships are my business and there is no reason why my relationships as I deem them appropriate should not be recognized by the state as “marriages” with all rights and benefits accruing thereto
and in fact, I am at a loss to understand how those unspeakable people (like our streetworker, Mark Grisanti) who dare to be in favour of “not discriminating” against sodomites will justify in front of their electors their refusal (if any) to allow all other sort of abominations. Hey, are you not “discriminating” against them, then?
An evil genie has been let out of the bottle. The fight to get it back again starts now.