Simple. One nationwide definition of marriage, prior to 2004. Monogamous union of husband and wife. Applied to ALL Americans. Everyone could have one spouse of the opposite sex. Now the OS requirement has been dropped in a few states, and the polygamists have their own reality show. Plus they have publicly supported SSM.<quoted text>
I still don't see how you can make the leap from 2 same-sex people being allowed to marry to the legalization of polygamy.
Think about it. Basic requirements. One must be of age, able to consent, not currently married, not a close blood relative of the other party, and is willing to accept someone one of the opposite sex as heir respective legal husband or wife. The OS requirement has been dropped, so what else is expendable? Age? No. Consent? No. That leaves number, and blood relation.You're trying to say that by changing any aspect to marriage means that all aspects to marriage must also be allowed to change.
To say that allowing same-gender couples to marry will lead to polygamy is like saying, "If we change the age at which people can begin to vote, then we'll have to allow non-residents to vote."
Just because one aspect of marriage (or voting) changes, does not mean that the doors fly open to every other possible change.
You continue to dodge the question. If marriage is no longer defined as the monogamous union of husband and wife, why does it matter if monogamy is maintained? Why does it matter who marries who, or doesn't marry who?As I've said here repeatedly, if others want to have their shot at changing the laws of marriage to include them, then they have access to the same processes that are required to have that done.
If polygamists decide to pursue having their marriages recognized by the government, they're going to have a hell of a time using any arguments that have been presented by proponents of same-sex marriage. NO case that has been argued before a judge with regards to same-sex marriage have included an argument to increase the number of spouses a person can have.
Ask the question: "If monogamous conjugal, husband and wife,marriage which is the foundation of a stable society in this country, is no longer the sole legal marital standard, and individuals are allowed to have the state sanction their consenting personal intimate sexual relationships as marriage, regardless of the number or nature of said relationship, why then, should polygamy be excluded?If you were an attorney arguing on behalf of polygamy, which parts of the same-sex marriage trials would you draw from to support your case?
Not quite sparky. Interracial marriage existed in various parts of the country, during various times, for example mid 19th century New York City, long before SSM was even conceived of. Besides, you're basing your claim on one elected official from that time period. Weak, Vee Vee.Finally, if you want to be historically accurate, it was during the Love v. Virginia trial--the one legalizing interracial marriage--that the Attorney General for Virginia warned that "polygamy" would result, should interracial marriage be legalized.
If you want to blame anyone for the future of polygamy, blame those who argued in favor of interracial marriage.