Almost two years ago Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was raked over the coals by the liberal media for his prediction that a decision by the Supreme Court declaring anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional would eventually lead to a push for, among other things, legalized polygamy. Others shared Santorum’s pessimism noting that, once marriage was expanded from its traditional “one man, one woman” definition, there’d be no legal grounds to defend against a legal challenge from would-be polygamists.

The general response from the left on this issue has been less than intellectually honest. Most of the time, supporters of gay marriage will simply dismiss people warning of legalized polygamy are fearmongering homophobes. When pressed, the explanations offered by even the most eloquent supporters of gay marriage as to why allowing it wouldn’t lead polygamy are, to say the least, less than convincing.

Andrew Sullivan’s explanation (as related by Charles Krauthammer in a 1996 issue of Time) is that, “homosexuality is a ‘state,’ while polygamy is merely ‘an activity.’ Homosexuality is ‘morally and psychologically’ superior to polygamy.”

Jonathan Rauch, probably the most convincing advocate of gay marriage, has an equally hard time rationally reconciling his support of gay marriage with opposite to polygamy. He argues that it would violate the principle of monogamy (chuckle) and then simply claims that, “It's a very dangerous, destabilizing situation.” He then arbitrarily declares, “It is not consistent with equal pursuit of happiness.”

Frankly, as an opponent of gay marriage, I find it very hard not to find the humour in all of this. When not blinded by their own personal prejudices, which are far more fundamental to their belief system than the bigotry of the loudest homophobe, even men like Sullivan and Rauch can see the truth- some things just ain’t right.

It goes without saying that, in the end, I think that Santorum is more likely to be proven right than any of the homosexual activists who swore up and down that gay marriage would never, never lead to the legalization of polygamy. This is a traditional pattern.

We forget just how much society has changed in a short period of time. I’m still a young man, but even I can remember a time when society wasn’t entirely inundated with gay propaganda and when the idea of gay marriage was dismissed, even by pro-gay people, as a bad joke. Years ago people who warned against various gay rights measures often claimed that, unless action was taken to stop the forward thrust of the gay movement, homosexual marriage would become legal. These were generally dismissed as the lunatic rantings of the kook fringe.

Of course, when the radical left screams that they’d “never” try something, they generally mean, “it’s coming up right next.”

The strongest evidence of this can be found in Canada where, less than two years after the first activist judge legalized gay marriage, the Federal Government has undertaken an urgent study of the potential legal and social policy ramifications of legalized polygamy. Read that carefully, for it contains an important hint: they don’t appear to be studying how they can stop its legalization; they’re studying how to accommodate it.

Mark Steyn likes to talk about how these things become inevitable once we, “start talking about polygamy in a nuts-and-bolts, incremental, legal-harmonisation, partners'-benefits, insurance-agent kind of a way.” He’s exactly right. Having accepted gay marriage (and, by most appearances, the majority of the Canadian public is willing to at least tolerate it), we’ve no sensible argument against polygamy, save our own gut instincts that it’s wrong. But, if we were listening to our gut instincts, we wouldn’t have let gay marriage be legalized in the first place.

In all likelihood, the left will role with the punches. This is especially true in Canada since there the primary people seeking legalized Polygamy are going to be members of The Religion of Peace™. Liberals will explain that they’re “personally opposed” to polygamy (just like they’re “personally opposed” to abortion, gay marriage, and so forth) but that, “we have to accept that this is a matter of minority rights.”

Frankly, as an act of protest, I think that we ought to attempt to construct massive “marriage chains” designed to make the work of the government in administering marriages and sorting out benefits simply impossible.

Think about it for a second. If we legalize polygamy I suspect that, at the very minimum, people will have to be allowed to have four spouses (since that’s what Sharia permits). In Islam and Mormonism it works because, of course, only men are permitted to marry multiple women. In the age of equality, we’d have to permit women to marry multiple men. The result could be humorous marital chaos.

For example: Man “A” marries Woman “B” who, in turn, is married to both Man “C” and Woman “D” who themselves are married to Men “E”, “F”, “G”, and “H.” Man “H” is, in turn, Married separately to both Man “A” and Woman “B.” Man “G” in addition to being married to both Man “C” and Woman “D” is married to Man “F.” Try processing those tax returns.