Let’s give polygamy a chance

In late May, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and secretary of state came out in favor of same-sex marriage. Here are his comments, taken from a story on the Huffington Post Web site: “I have no problem with [gay marriage]. As I’ve thought about gay marriage, I know a lot of friends who are individually gay but are in partnerships with loved ones, and they are as stable a family as my family is, and they raise children. And so I don’t see any reason not to say that they should be able to get married.”

You’ve got to love a guy who distinguishes those who are “individually gay” from those who are collectively gay. Powell came out for gay marriage soon after President Obama did, which might make some wonder whether Powell is still smitten with Illinois’ most prominent former state senator.

In 2008, Powell endorsed Obama for president. Part of his motivation might have been a desire to see America elect its first black president. I had that same desire, except I was hoping Powell, not Obama, would be that president. Or former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Or insert-name-of-black-person-other-than-Obama-here.

Powell’s support for his gay friends is admirable, as would be his support for the gay rights movement, but that movement no longer exists.

I’m using language that those in what was the gay rights movement use, so they really can’t complain. The movement is no longer about the rights of gays and lesbians.

No, by their own admission, and through their own language, supporters of what was the gay rights movement now support the movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual rights. Those poor souls who thought they were only supporting the gay rights movement must come to the sobering realization that the goal posts have been moved on them.

Now the expanded definition of the movement poses quite a problem with the push for what has been called “marriage equality,” doesn’t it? Bisexuals are defined as men and women who enjoy having sex with members of either gender.

If we’re to be a nation that promotes true marriage equality, we have to accommodate bisexuals, don’t we? Now if a bisexual man or woman decides he or she wants a husband and a wife, we have to accommodate them, don’t we?

And that brings the “p” word everybody’s been trying to avoid in this debate: polygamy.

Promote, endorse or legalize gay marriage, opponents insist, and you open the door for the legalization of polygamy.

I’m sure proponents of gay marriage will cry foul, as they usually do when opponents of gay marriage bring up that dreaded “p” word. But this is one 800-pound gorilla in the room that can’t be ignored.

If, as some judges have claimed, gay marriage is protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, just why doesn’t that apply to some guy who wants to have two, three or 17 wives? Aren’t those who are willing to enter into polygamous relationships protected by the 14th Amendment?

And, since those in the gay and lesbian rights movement were so kind as to redefine it to include bisexuals, transsexuals and transgender people, there’s no getting around that question of bisexuals who want a spouse of each gender, either.

Examiner Columnist Gregory Kane is a Pulitzer-nominated news and opinion journalist who has covered people and politics from Baltimore to the Sudan.