We have covered the slippery slope that leads to polygamist marriage many times, long before the recent Supreme Court ruling:

Now there is a post-SCOTUS story about how Montana polygamist family applies for marriage license:

BILLINGS – 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.

Polygamy is illegal under Montana state law, and recognized as a misdemeanor offense.

“We just want to add legal legitimacy to an already happy, strong, loving family,” said Nathan.

KRTV.com | Great Falls, Montana:

Some supporters of same-sex marriage take great offense to using the same legal logic for polyamorous families. Like this Salon writer (via NewsBusters), Salon Writer Can’t Handle Polygamist Who Wants Same Marriage Rights As Gay Community

It appears the writers over at Salon have an interesting definition of “marriage equality.” Gay marriage proponent and radical feminist Mary Elizabeth Williams showed her true colors on the issue today by claiming “fringe groups”, like those who practice polygamy, should not have access to new freedoms detailed in the recent SCOTUS case which granted gay couples marriage recognition nationwide. …

Well, conservatives, here it is, just as you predicted. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria… And on cue, here comes Nathan Collier — a man who describes himself on Facebook as “an American, conservative, Constitutionalist, capitalist, (formerly) Christian, heterosexual middle aged white male of Southern heritage” — and his lovely two brides Victoria and Christine, asking for official recognition of their union. Coming soon: Cat ladies applying for marriage licenses! …

If you want to argue that polygamy and marriage equality are the same thing, well, they’re not. If you want respect for how consenting adults arrange their households, though, you’ve got it. That does not however mean that because one group that has fought for friggin’ decades for basic recognition and respect finally has achieved something, that every fringe group — and yeah, sister wife families, you are fringe — gets a piece of the action too.

Why all the hostility? Giving polyamorous clusters the right to marry doesn’t demean your marriage, does it? You don’t have to get divorced just because a threesome wants equality.

Don’t take my word for it. Recall the audio I’ve posted before of one of the leading intellectual founders of the same sex marriage movement, Professor Martha Nussbaum of the University of Chicago, who argued in 2009 that polygamy must be allowed for the same reasons as same-sex marriage, as we detailed in “Polygamy would have to be permitted”.

She went further, and would allow some incestuous relationships to be blessed by the state, but that’s a whole other thing.  From a prior post:

In the audio below, Nussbaum is questioned by a student whether he should be permitted to marry his parents, since there were valid estate and other tax reasons to do so.

Nussbaum then addressed several aspects of the slippery slope.  She rejected bestiality out of hand as lacking necessary consent.

Nussbaum stated, as to polygamy, there really was no justifiable state interest in banning the practice, particularly if past unequal gender roles were addressed by more modern polyamorous considerations:  “”Polygamy would have to be permitted.”

More inflamatory was her position on incest between siblings.  While willing to draw a bright line on parent-child incest because of the compelling state interest in fighting child abuse, Nussbaum nonetheless applied the deconstructive analysis to sibling incest and found the state interest to be marginal:

“But then when you get to brothers and sisters, well, you know, now we know so much about the genes, and we certain don’t forbid people with Tay-Sachs [garbled] to get married. So I feel that it’s just bad faith to forbid the brother and sister on these putative health grounds.  If one at one time states did think they had that interest, they don’t have that anymore.”

Don’t yell at me. I didn’t say it.

I can hear the chants now:

“We’re here. We’re polygamists. Get used to it”