Despite the liberal opinings that the logic used to justify homosexual marriage had no impact on the legitimizing of other types of unions, a British woman has married a dolphin after a "15 year courtship."
While she acknowledged the "wedding" had no legal bearing she did say it reflected her deep feelings toward the bottlenosed, 35-year-old object of her affection.
"It’s not a bad thing. It’s just something that we did because I love him, but not in the way that you love a man. It’s just a pure love that I have for this animal," she said.
This harkens back to Civil Unions Between Mother / Daughter, in which I argued that the logic used to include gays as an acceptable marraige partnership has no logical way to exclude other types of "loving relationships", including polygamy, polyamory, and beastiality. If it is merely a sign of love between beings, who are we to judge somone else’s love relationship if they all feel it is mutually beneficial?
The logical place to cut it off is at the male/female relationship, due to biological and sociological reasons. I think that The Weekly Standard, Reason, and the NRO agree. For a good read of both sides of this issue, check out the polygamy article at religioustolerance.org.