1969er saidThe question is valid, and it's been brought up in another thread, although I can't spot it now.
I read a recent interview from a polygamist advocate who is preparing legal arguments following recent acceptance from the states. When they do so, it just might start to hurt the gay marriage movement in other states.
My personal view against polygamy marriage is that I can't see equality, which is how I view marriage (it's idealistic, I know). I've never personally known a successful three-or-moresome relationship. Maybe there are some. The practicing polygamists in ours and other countries are always 1 man and many women, usually submissive, and I can't stomach that scenario, even if they're willing.
I have to disagree with the premise that the polygamy & inscest arguement is merely just a canard of religious zealots. The simple problem is that the gay community is using the court system to force gay marriage. This unfortunately truly does open up the possibility of polygamy. If marriage is not between a man & a woman, then why would marriage between a man & another man be any less valid than a marriage with a man & 2 or 3 women? We can say that polygamists are immoral or that they are usually submissive or even repressive relationships. However, some of the same arguements can be used against gay marriage. Fairly or unfairly.
As a society, I don't believe that we should be using the courts to force anybody's views or agenda on anybody else. If we as a community want to have gay marriage, lobby your local governments, state governments, congressmen and/or senators to pass a gay marriage law. That will also mean that there will be people who will be against gay marriage that we will need to debate & eventually overcome. However, if we truly believe that gay marriage should be granted, we will have to defend it with superior eason and arguements.
Remember that if a judge grants gay marriage (and I believe that in both California & Connecticut, it was done through a 1 judge majority), it can be taken away just as easily. Passing a law would be much more of a substantive way to ensure gay marriage, and to have overall acceptance.