One of the two houses in New South Wales, a state in Australia that includes Sydney, has passed a motion to change the Marriage Act to include unions between same sex couples.
The debate took an interesting twist, veering from what has been the common argument here in this country; namely, one that stems from the religious perspective that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Period.
Several lawmakers in that country complained that legalizing gay marriage would open the door to polygamy.
It’s an argument I’ve never heard. The thinking goes something like this: Tampering with the traditional concept of marriage in any way places the institution on the edge of a “slippery slope,” which one lawmaker cited “has manifested itself overseas in some jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been allowed.”
Overseas? Is he talking about us? Last I read, the only countries where it’s legal to be married to more than one person, are Muslim, and most of them are in Africa. But I did find out, unbeknownst to me, that Pennsylvania is one of the few states where polygamy is banned but it’s not in our constitution. Most states have that spelled out in their constitutions.
As for the most populated state in Australia, now that the motion has passed one house, it’s onto the other for consideration, threat of polygamy notwithstanding.