Family First are trying to imply that adding polygamy and polyamory (not actually the same, Bob, trying Googling them with SafeSearch turned off) to the marriage equality debate is just some natural, logical progression of the issue – and not a slightly really kinda earthshatteringly obvious dogwhistle to the pearl-clutchers of the nation.
I just wish they’d had Stephen Franks’ guts.
But to entertain their dystopian-horror scenario for a moment? Why not? What does the state’s recognition of marriage, and its granting of various benefits to married people, have to do with either the number of people in the relationship or the junk in their respective trunks?
I’ve seen, and been part of, any number of non-traditional family setups. Three-parent households where two people are the bio-parents and one bio-parent and the non-bio-parent are in a relationship. Solo mums living in flats where one or more flatmates share in the “parenting” duties of feeding, cleaning, school pickups.
Even if we accept Family Fascist’s assertions that families are there purely to raise the next generation (a statement obviously disproved by the fact we don’t live in the Republic of Gilead) the fact is that Mum And Dad Plus Two is by no means the only option these days.
And if the state definition of “marriage” only exists because of some nebulous value assigned to certain expense-sharing emotional pair-bonds … well then it’s fucking stupid and why not give it to BFFs who love their cats so much they don’t even need to whack them with rulers for backchatting?