The Marriage Equity Train

"We love each other. We want to be committed to each other. We want to be a family."

That's it. That defines "marriage" to a growing number of people. Where does it go? Like a runaway train on a 6% downgrade, about anywhere it wants.

Look under "strange marriages" and you'll find a host of entries. One site lists a woman that married the Eiffel Tower, a man that married himself, a Swedish woman who has been married to the Berlin Wall for 30 years, a Japanese man who married a character from a Nintendo game, a man who married a pillow, a woman who married a snake, and a woman who married her ex-boyfriend. "Wait!" you say. "What's so strange about that one?" He was dead.

From Ripley's Believe It or Not you'll find a German man who married his cat and two greyhounds who got married complete with bridal dress and wedding cake.

At globalvisas.com there is a list of marriages for which visas would not likely be granted. There is the church organist who married a fairground ride, a Hindu fellow that married a stray dog to make up for stoning two dogs, a Sudanese man who married a goat, and a cutting-edge British postal worker who married a sheep ... you know, because why shouldn't he engage in inter-species marriage?

Another site lists multiple people who married themselves, a woman who married a dolphin, and a Michigan telemarketer who married his silicon sex doll.

So what? Funny? I suppose. Sure. But what looks like "strange" and "humorous" becomes ominous if the current trend continues. The "current trend" is "Marriage equity means that anyone should be able to marry if they love each other" without any regard for what "marriage" means. ABC News did a story a couple of years ago about "the next generation after the gay and transgender communities". Who is that? The polyamorists. With the theft of "marriage" (obviously my phrase, not theirs) in six states (at the time of the story), they "say their cause should be next." Polygamy, polyamory, incest, where does it stop? If indeed "We love each other. We want to be committed to each other. We want to be a family" is the standard by which we will be operating, limiting that to two of any gender will be a bit difficult and narrow-minded, won't it? Finding a reasonable basis on which to say "Two people are okay, but more are not" or "It's alright if two people of the same gender want to marry, but a woman marrying a dolphin is crazy" gets a bit difficult. But, you go ahead with your plans. You go ahead and assure us it won't make any difference if we redefine marriage. You go ahead and speak in terms of "marriage equity". Since I've already taken my stand at the historical, traditional, even biblical starting point, it will be interesting -- sad, painful, destructive, sure, but interesting -- to see how bizarre this will get when the train's wheels jump the tracks on its way down this long descent.