Well, that didn't take long

When Supreme Court Justice Anthony led the liberal wing of the court into "finding" that the Constitution, via the 14th Amendment, guarantees a right to gay marriage despite the fact that the Constitution mentions neither marriage nor homosexuality -- why should there be a right to gay marriage when there is no right to marriage? -- Chief Justice John Roberts, in his dissenting opinion, expressed some pretty serious skepticism about both the decision and the unintended consequences. Justice Roberts postulated that Kennedy's opinion made it inevitable that polygamists likewise would force courts to "find" a Constitutional right to polygamist marriage:

Although the majority randomly inserts the adjective “two” in various places, it offers no reason at all why the two-person element of the core definition of marriage may be preserved while the man-woman element may not. Indeed, from the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one. It is striking how much of the majority’s reasoning would apply with equal force to the claim of a fundamental right to plural marriage.

Lefties have argued for years that it is insulting to gays to suggest that gay marriage can even be equated with polygamy by reasonable people -- meaning, of course, that anyone suggesting otherwise is simply not reasonable. Personally, after reading Kennedy's opinion, I put the over-under at seven days as to when polygamists would start the process to claim that fundamental right to marriage guaranteed by the Constitution. I took the under.

I won, with two days to spare:

Given the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, a Lockwood family is now looking to solidify rights of its own.
We first told you about the Colliers in January of 2015 when the polygamist family appeared on an episode of the TLC show, "Sister Wives."

The polyamorous movement is a national push to allow marriage between multiple partners.

Nathan Collier and his two wives, Vicki and Christine, said Tuesday that they are simply looking for equality.Nathan is legally married to Vicki, but also wants to legally wed Christine.
On Tuesday, Nathan and Christine traveled to the Yellowstone County Courthouse to see if they would be awarded the right to marry under the Marriage Equality Act.

It took five days for polygamists to pursue that wonderful, special 14th-Amendment right to marry as they choose. These guys, ultimately, will win. Mrs. Wolves, when I brought this to her attention, said she had no problem with polygamy. My response was get ready for NAMBLA, animal lovers and God knows who else. They won't all win, but they'll all try.  And some of them will win. The article quoted above is about a polygamous family -- one man, multiple female wives -- but it references so-called polyamorous families, which apparently involved multiple males and multiple females. And let's not forget that polygamous families can include one woman and multiple men. Kennedy's opinion really provides no cogent argument against these arrangements (except maybe the animals and kids).

But even assuming the animal folks lose, at what point do we draw the line on kids, since states are no longer allowed to draw the line on the gender composition of the couple getting married? The age of consent varies from state to state -- with a federal Constitutional right to marry, folks wanting to marry children will, naturally, argue for the lowest available age. I don't know what that is, and I don't know that they won't try to play limbo with that age, anyway. How low can we go?

Get out the popcorn, people, this is going to get interesting. And the people celebrating gay marriage now are likely to wind up horrified by the Pandora's box they've opened. At least I hope they're horrified. On the other hand, since I believe their goal has nothing to do with gay marriage and actually is the destruction of societal norms and institutions so that they can write new ones more to their liking, then maybe they won't be horrified.

I guess the shoe really is on the other foot with this one

From New Zealand, we have a story that I find to be simply fucking hilarious. Oddly enough, gay marriage supporters do not:

Travis McIntosh and Matt McCormick will get married tomorrow, yet the matrimonial union has horrified gay rights groups.
Heterosexual best mates McIntosh and McCormick, who have known each other since the age of six, are getting married as winners of a competition run by The Edge radio station in New Zealand.

The two best friends won an expenses-paid trip to the 2015 Rugby World Cup in England. The catch is, they have to get married. Same-sex marriage recently became legal in New Zealand. Naturally, the groups that fought for that change in the law are pissed about this development:

Same-sex marriage became legal in New Zealand in August last year, yet gay groups have condemned the marriage of McIntosh and McCormick.
Otago University Students’ Association Queer Support co-ordinator Neill Ballantyne told theOtago Daily Times that the wedding was an “insult” as marriage equality was a “hard fought” battle for gay people.
“Something like this trivialises what we fought for,” he said.
The competition promoted the marriage of two men as something negative, “as something outrageous that you’d never consider”, Ballantyne said.
LegaliseLove Aotearoa Wellington co-chairman Joseph Habgood told the Otago Daily Times that the competition attacked the legitimacy of same-sex marriages.

I find it interesting that gay rights groups who fought for  the "right" to get married -- never once realizing that marriage is not a right -- completely failed to understand that they were fighting for the "right" for anyone to marry anyone. They argued successfully that to limit the definition of marriage to one man and one woman was discriminatory. Now they don't want to live with their victory. If a marriage of two men is legitimate, why is a marriage of two men who are best friends but have no desire to have sex with each other -- or any other man, for that matter -- an insult? Interesting that they want to say this "trivialises" gay marriage. How hard would they argue that gay marriage does nothing to "trivialise" traditional marriage? Fuck them -- they can't even spell "trivialize."

They llok like nice guys. I don't know why anyone would be uupset at what they're going:

They seem to be into the spirit of the occasion, after all:

These guys are willing to get "married" so they can go to the Rugby World Cup on somebody else's dime. That is probably a more legitimate reason than many other couples -- same sex or otherwise -- can put forward. The reason is not rooted in something as nebulous as "love." It certainly isn't a political statement. These guys want to go to the Rugby World Cup for free, and this is what they have to do to reach that goal. Given that the New Zealand Blacks -- only a matter of time before the politically correct crowd goes after them the way they are going after the Redskins -- are pretty fucking good, I can see why the boys might not consider this too much of a sacrifice for a chance to see their team win it all.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage. I really don't care who marries who. I care very much that the state is still involved. The original justification for state regulation of marriage was to make people get married in order to give birth to new taxpayers and, because the state made divorce difficult and expensive, to encourage two-parent families to stay together so that those new taxpayers would be supported by their still-married parents until they actually became taxpayers.

Once California fucked up that arrangement by creating no-fault divorce in the 1960s, thus enabling anybody to get divorced easily and relatively cheaply for pretty much any reason, the rationale for state involvement in marriage disappeared. The state no longer has an interest to defend, so why should they care who gets married. The act has been reduced to a simple religiious ceremony, with no need for state involvement. As it is, if you can find clery to marry you, boom, you're married.

If the Packers go to the Super Bowl and I could go to the game if I marry my best friend, I would -- even though we both would be committing bigamy. Fortunately, we now have a winning legal argument that trying to prohibit us from marrying is discriminatory. If marriage can't be limited by gender, why can it be limited by numbers? This is going to get really funky. Believe it.