For The Umpteenth Time - We Told You So!

Wasn't it obvious that redefining marriage as mere "union of two" would eventually lead to a question "why only two" - with a respective "human rights" challenge?

VANCOUVER, January 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Canada’s anti-polygamy law will likely be facing a legal challenge now that the leaders of the controversial polygamous sect in Bountiful, near Cranbrook, British Columbia, have been arrested. Winston Blackmore, the “bishop” of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and James Oler are facing criminal charges for practicing polygamy.
...
The two men are scheduled to make their first court appearance January 21. They are the first men to be charged with polygamy since the 1800s, even though police have known of the situation in Bountiful for more than 60 years.

Up until now law-enforcement officials have been hesitant to arrest practitioners of polygamy under fears that the law would not survive a challenge under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On at least two previous occasions the RCMP have recommended that arrests be made, but the Crown denied the recommendation, saying that the ban on polygamy would likely be struck down.

More >>>

And, as if that wasn't enough, the CBC/National has brought us a story about a couple of elderly sisters who wish to get registered as a "married" couple, so they could share their pensions and survivor benefits. They too claim discrimination - if two unrelated females can register their conjugal relationship as if it was a marriage and get all the benefits associated with it, how come two sisters can't do the same?

And what counter-arguments (beside those "bigoted", "narrow-minded", "religious" and "reactionary") could one come up with? What would he say to anyone asking him - why not? If the institution of marriage is merely a registrar of conjugal partners, irregardless of their gender - why can't siblings be registered as conjugal partners? And why should the registration be limited to only 2 partners at a time? After all - if, according to our "progressive" courts, a child can have more than 2 "legal parents", why can't a "marriage for civil purposes" include more than 2 partners?

Back during the marriage debate, we kept saying that this is exactly that would happen. Our arguments were ridiculed as "slippery slope alarmism". Now, when everything we were warning about is actually happening, are there many "tolerant" "open-minded" "progressives" out there ready to admit that they were wrong? Or are they already preparing to give in, picturing themselves in the front lines of a battle to "legalize" some other kind of "something-something-marriage"?