General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The gay marriage decision has put us in uncharted waters with regard to polygamy [View all]justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)That's where your own argument falls flat--as does your belief that the current ruling means marriage is a fundamental right that includes polygamous people. The ruling included a class of people who were actively being discriminated against based on genetics. The majority of homosexuals are genetically homosexual. Under the Equal Protection Clause, denying LGBT people the same rights as heterosexuals is against the law because we are a class of people with genetic traits that can't be changed--i.e., like skin color.
Therefore, SCOTUS allowed another group of people to be included in the current definition of marriage (Webster's needs to work on this definition but here it is):
(1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
*emphasis mine
See that, marriage is defined as a union of ONE person to another PERSON--meaning, the LGBT community did not ask the government or SCOTUS or the public to change current marriage laws. We only asked that we be included under the current marriage laws, that's a huge difference in what you propose with plural marriages or that the marriage equality ruling in some ways states that poly marriages are a "right" guaranteed by the Equal Protection Clause.
If you want anyone to take you seriously about poly marriage rights, then stop flogging this right-wing talking point that gay-marriage = polygamous marriage because it just doesn't, unless you can prove to me and the world that a bent towards polygamy is an inborn trait that can't be changed. Otherwise it's a straw man argument that confuses the real issue, which is changing the entire legal system around marriage and the definition to include polygamy (which, again, is NOT what gay marriage proponents fought to do, they fought for inclusion to already written laws).