Bill Donohue comments on the application for a marriage license by Nathan Collier securing a legal union for him and his two Montana wives:
“It’s about marriage equality,” is how Nathan Collier put it. And why not? Who among the five justices who rendered the gay marriage decision could offer a principled rebuttal? They can’t cite tradition, because that obviously means nothing. They can’t cite the role that marriage plays in procreation, because that obviously means nothing.
Collier admitted that he was “inspired” by last week’s Supreme Court decision. Why shouldn’t he be? After all, in the mind of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority decision, there really is no such thing as society—all we are left with are fully atomized individuals who go about their day expressing their independence from social norms, bonds, and institutions.
The decision legalizing same-sex marriage offers no limiting principle, and that is exactly why Collier is seeking to legalize his polygamous union. Look for Tom, Dick, and Harry to apply next. After all, if Tom and Dick can marry, on what principled basis can Harry be excluded?
