- The article gives no legal justifications, except for yours: gay marriage being legalized will mean that the logical end of the slippery slope will be realized and, thus, polygamy will be legalized. But there are other problems with the article:
1) This was a Canadian article, and there are distinctions between Canadian and American law (obviously), and the author talks nothing as to the scrutiny the Canadian courts give to various rights.

2) The article sites to an ex Justice of the Supreme Court:

“Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, the former Supreme Court justice, remains confident the drawbridge is firmly up. “Marriage is a union of two people, period,” she said in Quebec the other day. But it used to be a union of one man and one woman, period. And, if that period got kicked down the page to accommodate a comma and a subordinate clause, why shouldn’t it get kicked again? If the sex of the participants is no longer relevant, why should the number be?”

- The author then goes on to theorize that because Canada has taken a step to redefining marriage it will of course lead to Polygamy. He states no legal justifications, Canadian or otherwise, but does exactly as you have been doing: Merely stating conclusions without any legal justifications. His justification is that Gay marriage would be the first step toward polygamy, and because gay marriage has come to Canada, polygamy is next. That is completely circular and lacks reasons for why polygamy would be next. Polygamy is not the same as same-sex marriage (I think we all agree there is a difference between marrying multiple people and marrying one other person).

3) Then he goes on to site that there are already Polygamists marriages recognized in Scotland, which isn’t Canada, and which hasn’t recognized gay marriage, or partnerships for that matter (http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/legalgaymarriag.htm).

So, somehow analogizing to a country that has recognized some forms of polygamy, but not gay marriage means that gay marriage will lead to polygamy in Canada. How can B be the cause of A if A came first? Talking about Scotland having polygamy, and then stating that gay marriage would lead to polygamy in Canada only makes sense if Scotland recognized same-sex marriage first. But, again, they don’t recognize any sort of same-sex marriage or civil unions.

4) Then he goes on to state:

“[Canadian] objection to polygamy rests on the great wobbling blancmange of “Canadian values.” Polygamy is supposedly incompatible with “da Canadian value,” as M Chrétien used to call it. But surely da Canadian value is that we have no values. We value all values. To do otherwise would be profoundly un-Canadian.”

Somehow recognizing gay marriage means that all Canadian values have dissolved. That is a straw man argument. Because one thing is incorporated into a values system does not mean that all values will be incorporated. Especially when gay marriage is, in a numbers sense, the same as straight marriage: There are only 2 people getting married, the only change is the sex. The amount of people getting married is separate and distinct from the sex of the people getting married. Same sex marriage certainly takes you a little further down the “slippery slope,” but that doesn’t mean the law can’t prevent it from going all the way down to Polygamy. If anything, the American system of evaluating rights (levels of scrutiny regarding discriminatory laws) only prove that the system is well-adapted at creating distinctions and preventing the slippery slope. It isn’t black and white, the law is highly nuanced, and constitutional interpretation proves that out.

5) He sites one proponent of polygamy in Canada, who seems to indicate toward allowing Muslims to have polygamy in order to get more of them to immigrate. But again, this isn’t Canada, and American law has disallowed polygamy, even if it is based on religious beliefs, which throws that Canadian pro-polygamy activists argument out. Also, because someone is pro-polygamy and giving a reason for it, doesn’t mean that polygamy will be found legitimate by the court system.

6) There is a Canadian case going on in which a man has been charged with Polygamy — he also happens to be Mormon and has connections to the FLDS church. The defendant isn’t arguing that polygamy should be legal because same-sex marriage is legal, but, on religious grounds. So, even if allowed in Canada, that distinct issue has been settled here: Polygamy is disallowed, even when based on religious beliefs.

7) Same-sex marriage and Polygamy are not the same thing. The two are separate and distinct, and nowhere in the article does the author give a legal theory as to why polygamy and same-sex marriage in Canada should be congruent. Never mind the fact that Canadian constitutional law and interpretation is not the same as the United States.

Again, Canadian law is not the law of the United States, so it really doesn’t matter what Canada does, although I don’t think they will allow polygamy, and unlike Canada our prohibition on polygamy is pretty straight forward, and has nothing to do with the sex of the individuals. Here is a list of cases in which polygamists have failed repeatedly: http://coramnonjudice.blogspot.com/2009/03/review-of-polygamy-in-court-cases.html

To think the court would overturn all of that because the gender of marriage is disrupted, even though the gender has nothing to do with the number, is a bit, no a lot, of a stretch. No decisions of the court (federal or state) have come remotely close to legalizing polygamy.

You might argue that none of those cases existed in the age of same sex marriage. That is correct, but in 2007 a case was brought after the Court recognized homosexual rights in 2003 (Lawrence v. Texas). The defendant argued that because the Court recognized the rights of homosexuals, that they should also legalize Polygamy. The Cout denied cert., and, if anything, this extrmely supports my point that the rights of homosexuals and polygamists are NOT analogous: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/163128/united_states_supreme_court_declines.html?cat=17

This would be more evidence, on top of the large amount of cases rejecting polygamy over the past 150 or so years, that supports why I think I am right and you are wrong. You provide no such evidence to the contrary, and the only bit of evidence in American law linking polygamy to homosexuality (the paragraph above) supports what I have been saying.

So, if you would like to continue this please provide me with some actual evidence. Some actual legal theories linking homosexuality and polygamy and why same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy in the United States. If anything it seems the great weight of precedence stands in the way of your theory, and basing my argument on this evidence is not disingenuous, if anything it is very intellectually honest.