Recently the California Supreme Court upheld the legality of Proposition 8 which amended the California Constitution to read that "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." However, there are one or two caveats to the court's ruling.
First, the legal status of the current 18,000 same-sex marriages will remain unchanged. Second, there is no mention of whether or not same-sex marriages performed out of state would be recognized. This ruling did nothing to silence the homosexual activists, rather it served to make them protest louder, and not just against the political powers. Protests were also staged at various religious venues such as the Latter Day Saints Church, aka the Mormons, who were one of many religious groups to support Proposition 8. While the ruling in California is somewhat hopeful, it may amount to a finger in a collapsing dam holding back the flood of societal change that could soon wash over our land.

The fact is the result of society accepting the concept that a same-sex marriage is even possible is the death knell of marriage itself. Once the definition of marriage is broadened to include anything other than the union of a man and a woman, the door has been opened to literally define marriage in any way one wishes. There have already been examples of just what I am talking about with the recent advocation of the "triad" marriage. This is a 'marriage' between three people of any gender combination. According to Abby Ellin in thedailybeast.com, "triads...demand that all three parties have full relationships, including sexual, with each other." This is not some kind of open marriage or swinger's arrangement. Citing one of the parties involved in seeking a "triad" marriage, Ellin writes that the woman named Sasha states "I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand and live together and openly proclaim our relationship...(and) also to have those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that."

In the same article, examples are given of triads, quads and even “quints”, which would be five in a continuous committed relationship. As one might imagine, there are some creative agreements and arrangements out there to try and facilitate this. One couple who counsels people who live in these relationships “offer tips for creating agreements among them, 'User Time Limited Agreements Where Needed' (i.e. two weeks, two months and so on) and 'Check in Periodically, Renegotiate if Needed.' “

A particularly intriguing example given in the article is that of three men, Doug Carr, Robert Hill, and Paul Wilson, who formed a committed 'triad' 29 years ago. “They would like to marry legally,” Ellin writes. She also notes that “Despite the fact that they are also 'Dad, Daddy, and Pappa' to the 4-year old quadruplets Carr sired with a lesbian couple, they actually see themselves as quite traditional.”

These relatively newer marriage-like arrangements come equipped with large advocacy groups. Perhaps the largest is simply known as The Polyamory Society. On their website they have a twelve part mission statement. Number 1 is “To Support, Defend and Promote the Social Institution of Polyamory.” Numbers 5 and 6 are particularly interesting. They state that it is also the mission of the society “To Support Accurate Representation and Preservation of Polyamory as a Relationship Style for Future Generations”, and “To Assist in the Creation of Polyamory Relationship Contractual Agreements.” The final statement, number 12, states that the mission is “To Sponsor and Support a Polyamory Family Day to Celebrate and Publicize our Lovestyle.”

Can anyone doubt that these people are as serious as a heart attack here? The more accepted same-sex marriage as a concept becomes, the more other relationship groups will want in on the action. And who's to stop them? What possible logical or legal argument could be mustered that has any chance of stopping them? Any perversion of “relationship” presently known to man, and probably a few that haven't been invented yet, will be claiming they deserve to be deemed a “marriage” and to claim all the rights and legal benefits that go along with it, including raising children and publicly displaying themselves as legitimate families in front of everyone else's children. At the moment it is only generally socially acceptable for these relationships to be limited to adults in whatever numbers may be imagined. How long before the definition of 'adult' begins to include younger and younger ages of males and females? If 18 is legal, why not 17? Why not 16 or 15? Or 14, 13 or even 12 for that matter? The North American Man Boy Love Association, or NAMBLA provides us a very pertinent example of this. They strongly advocate lowering the age of consent to numbers such as just were mentioned. In fact, on NAMBLA's website is featured a “letter from a twelve year old” espousing the great benefits he has received being loved by his “man-friend” and how the “gay liberation” movement should embrace (pun intended) those like himself who believe in man-boy love. There is also no doubt that NAMBLA, despite protestations from the homosexual activists, perceives a strong connection to the “gay liberation” movement. A cursory glance at the NAMBLA website shows this to be true.

The conclusion of these small examples is that marriage will cease to exist on any kind of meaningful level. When any and every relationship can be deemed as a marriage, it follows that the meaning of “marriage” has been lost. When something can mean anything it really means nothing at all.

What does the end of marriage mean for our world? One of the consequences will likely be that the “act” of marriage will simply cease to exist as a sacred institution. At least for now, marriage is generally seen as more than a simple contract. For the most part, people would agree that marriage is a covenant agreement between the man, woman and God. Vows are taken in strictly civil ceremonies, to be sure, but not in numbers comparable to vows taken in religious ceremonies. Should we continue down this road toward the end of marriage, many religious institutions will stop doing marriage ceremonies altogether. The acceptance of same-sex marriages and beyond in law will serve to put enormous pressure on churches to conduct these alternative “weddings” or face civil penalties of some kind. If any religious institution would insist that they will only conduct traditional weddings, they will be accused of illegal discrimination. The only legal recourse for these kind of institutions is to cease performing any weddings at all. Other institutions that give in to the pressure and begin to perform the plethora of different weddings for various kinds, numbers, sexes, ages and perhaps species as well will quickly find that trying to make all those different kinds of ceremonies “sacred” is laughable.

A second, subsequent consequence will be the virtual disappearance of “marriages” at all. The unions of the future might be called marriages, but they would not resemble in the least what the 5,000 plus year old definition of marriage has been. In fact, these concocted coupling (and more) arrangements will lack any definition at all! They will resemble so many different things that they will resemble nothing at all. One thing the majority of them will have in common is some form of sexual expression. Another is that all of these relationships will be so fluid as to defy any commitment beyond the satisfaction of the moment. Combine these factors extended to the totality of society and one can virtually ensure chaos as the result.

That is the likely end of the path on which we are currently treading. I fear that nothing short of a revolutionary change of heart, dare I say a miraculous intervention in our hearts, can keep these dogs at bay. If that's the case then folks, we all better start praying for one soon.