It would seem wrong for those that pushed for gay marriage to not support the polygamists. Let's see if they step up.
You'd likely find it pretty important if you, a family member or a good friend was gay. I'm very happy for my friends, some of whom are married and some who probably will soon. As for the polygamy, I'm surprised you didn't try the bestiality meme. Both are silly. It's a very good day in America. But I agree, let's tackle some other issues and leave this one behind.
Equal rights is a serious problem, m. Given the one really creative thing we did in our Constitution, its maybe the most serious problem an American can face or raise. That you don't see that is sad and troubling.
I don't know quite what you're talking about here, M, other than the fact that you really really really don't like liberals, but if 3 people want to get married how is that any skin off your ass, or mine?
in that one party isn't aware of what's going on and can't "agree" to a legally binding agreement.
Huh?
You do understand that it's possible to think something isn't immoral without also thinking that people have a Constitutional right to do it, right?
That's because you're an idiot. Marriage remains fundamentally a relationship between two people, a relationship which you can have with only one other person at any given time. All same-sex marriage does is remove restrictions on who (among other eligible people, of course) you can select as your One and Only.
That is true, although most polygamy revolves around an outdated view of what marriage is (one in which the female is placed under the legal power of the male).
Equal protection is an awfully strange thing to legitimately not care about. I can understand people who are opposed to same-sex marriage for religious reasons. But if you're not one of them, if you genuinely don't have a problem with same-sex marriage, then not caring about it at all kind of makes you an asshole.
The definition has been change from one man and woman to any two people so why can't it be changed again?
That's not what happened. You should read the actual opinion. Kennedy went, in detail, through the history of the courts' recognition of marriage as a fundamental right, as well as the development of the courts' understanding of equal protection for same-sex couples, and showed why the only logical conclusion is to stop denying this fundamental right to same-sex couples.
I agree with all that. I've already said about 120 times in this thread that I'm perfectly cool with legalizing poly relationships. I'm just pointing out that the slippery slope argument is dumb. Kennedy's opinion is tailored toward two-person relationships. If we decide polygamy is a fundamental right in the future, we'll need a new analysis, because Kennedy's won't work (well, most of it won't work; a few snippets might be applicable).
The legal issues are entirely different. Polygamists aren't being denied the right to marry whom they choose. They are being denied the right to use their religious convictions as a justification for violating generally applicable laws. If a polygamist wants to make a case on marriage, he's going to argue the First Amendment, and he's going to argue a RFRA, if his state has one. And they've been doing it (there are a couple of cases in the courts right now, in fact). So far, they haven't won.
