I've been seeing both sides of the debate when it comes to polygamy. The anti-gay marriage crowd asked a fair question - if the definition of marriage can change from one man/woman to man/man or woman/woman, on what grounds can polygamy be denied given it is involving consenting adults.
The pro gay-marriage crowd (playing damage control a bit) would dismiss the question or simply state polgamy is not in big demand. But either response was deflecting from the question.
Last night, after about four IPAs, I actually figured it out.
When marriage is denied to gays, it is denying a person something than another person has a legal right to.
But in making polygamy illegal, it is discriminating against everyone - including gays, straights, men and women. Therefore, in a skewed way, there is no one excluded from the anti-polygamy law because it is forbidden to all.
Okay, it sounds good. But what about the old argument that marriage was not forbidden to gays before the SCOTUS ruled. They could still marry. Marriage to another same sex couple was forbidden to all, everyone regardless of orientation. No one could marry someone of their own gender, no matter what or throw in any caveat. One could say under the old system, all it did was treat men as men and women as women, with marriage allowed to only one man and one woman.
Personally, I have said this until I am blue in the face. Get government out of marriage. Only those who want to get married and are of consenting age, let them marry whom ever they want and how many they want. Let the people actually involved decide, not government.
