President Obama's acceptance of same-sex marriage logically applies to polygamous relationships.

President Obama appointed Chai Feldblum to be a commissioner on the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) in March 2010; the Senate confirmed her appointment in December 2010.  Her term expires July 1, 2013.

In November 2009, an American Thinker article described Feldblum as:

... perhaps the nation's leading LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights activist. A graduate of Harvard Law School, once Legislative Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), she's now Professor of Law at Georgetown University. She's also a self-avowed lesbian.

In Feldblum's paper, "The Right to Define One's Own Concept of Existence: What Lawrence Can Mean for Intersex and Transgender People," published in The Georgetown Journal of Gender And The Law (Vol. VII, Number 2, Symposium 2006), she defined her views.

My own view ... is that government often appropriately legislates on a shared social vision of morality and that changing the public's moral assessment of same-sex sexual activity is thus key to achieving true equality for LGBT people. For some time, I have articulated this view as a requirement that the public must come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equivalent - that is, the public must believe that both straight sex and gay sex encompass equivalent moral "goods" ... that there is nothing inherently immoral or wrong with two people of the same gender engaging in sexual conduct. That belief of moral neutrality must then be coupled with an affirmation that government has an obligation to advance what I term "statements of moral understanding". Four of those statements are the following: it is good for human beings in society to feel safe, to feel happy, to experience and give care, and to live a life of authenticity.

In her article "Gay is Good: The Moral Case for Marriage Equality and More," printed in the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 139 (2005), Feldblum wrote:

[A]ll of us are harmed, as members of a society seeking a common good, when society fails to acknowledge the wide array of non-marital intimate social structures that we as humans have ingeniously constructed to negotiate and make sense of the world. ... It is precisely because such an interdependent framework helps sustain an individual's sense of self and stability that the state has a moral responsibility to support such frameworks. But why should the state support just marriage partners - and not other intimate partnerships that equally support the development of the self?

Obama's recent support for same-sex marriage essentially accepts Feldblum's argument.

Since Progressives strive to continually progress, the question is: what's next on their marriage agenda?

We need look no farther than the document entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage, A New Strategic Vision for All Our Families & Relationships, July 26, 2006," initially signed by over 300 LGBT activists, including Feldblum. It states:

To have our government define as 'legitimate families' only those households with couples in conjugal relationships does a tremendous disservice to the many other ways in which people actually construct their families, kinship networks, households, and relationships. For example, who among us seriously will argue that the following kinds of households are less socially, economically, and spiritually worthy?

[The ten "kinds of households" listed include "blended families" and "single parent households," plus:]

Committed, loving households in which there is more than one conjugal partner.

So, the same basic LGBT arguments in favor of same-sex marriage also seem to apply to multiple-partner relationships.  Therefore, should "our government" also legitimize polygamous nuptials?

If Bill & Tom, or Jane & Judy, represent a relationship "morally equivalent" to a traditional, one-man-one-woman heterosexual marriage, then what can Progressives find fundamentally objectionable about a Bill, Tom, and Jane marriage?  Or, one where Jane, Judy, Jim & Dan engage in a government-sanctioned marriage arrangement where an "interdependent framework helps sustain an individual's sense of self and stability"?         

If, as Feldblum wrote, "the public must come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality as morally equivalent," then mustn't we, the public, eventually come to view homosexuality and heterosexuality existing within one "loving household," involving three or more persons, as "morally equivalent" to the traditional heterosexual relationship?

If we accept Feldblum's argument -- as the president did -- the key question is not "Why should we accept polygamous marriage?," but "Why shouldn't we?"

That's an absurd extrapolation, you say.  Really?

For Progressives, the old Nike ad slogan applies: There is no finish line.

Presidential and state-level government approval of same-sex marriage is not the Progressives' finish line.