Remember Republican Senator Rick Santorum? He was the congressman who said that a SCOTUS decision overturning a state ban on sodomy would start us down the slippery slope. He took a lot of heat over these remarks.

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society?

Well, whaddaya know, he was right. The AP reports that Utah's ban on polygamy is being challenged.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Lawrence (sodomy) case, arguing that overturning the Texas law would open the door to challenges of Utah's polygamy ban.

Shurtleff said he believes Barnard's case is headed for the Supreme Court, and predicted the justices would uphold the polygamy ban.

He's probably right. The SCOTUS doesn't seem to have any problems with giving rulings based on social whims rather than the rule of law.

"We have a long line of cases saying that the institute of marriage is the bedrock of society. Therefore, states have a compelling interest in regulating and controlling marriage," he said.

Personally, I disagree with that notion. As long as all parties are consenting adults, what is the big deal? Also, it is precisely because marriage is the bedrock of society that states should NOT have the power to regulate and control it. Controlling... augh. Why should you need permission from the state to get married to anyone?

My personal libertarian beliefs aside, in light of the Lawrence v. Texas case, where the SCOTUS essentially ruled the Texans were too stupid to govern themselves, I don't understand under what legal argument the SCOTUS could use to NOT overturn polygamy. Unless of course they are going to finally recognize that issues like that are best left to state legislatures. That is a point I made months ago.