Is that a valid argument against allowing multiple partners in a relationship, yes and no. Yes for those who see a need to remove the MANY inefficiencies we have in our system, but no for those who are looking for true lifestyle freedom in this country.

It is a slippery slope to say that it is absolutely inevitable that fringe groups would come out to demand their stance. It could happen, indeed. But it’s not absolutely 100% going to happen. (Not to mention a number of Fundamentalist Mormon groups are pushing for legalization of polygamy, and a few sparse requests for the legalization of bestiality as it is.)

One single note on bestiality before moving on: It is absurd to say that an animal incapable of speaking in human tongues, writing, or truly capable of following our normal legal procedures could in anyway be considered for a legal right to be united with a human. If you cannot sign papers, if you cannot in anyway communicate a legitimate desire to participate in a union, then it should not be able to count legally. A similar argument can be made for those who would want to marry minors. If they are not legally recognized as an adult, then they should not legally be able to sign off on a union.

It would require extremely little adaptation to our current uniting legal practices. The simplicity of property distribution is quite likable, and leads to a higher economic efficiency. These are sound arguments for implementation of a variation of current legal practices for two members of the same-sex, which I argued for because of the context of the article, which stressed the illegality of same-sex unions. This is the first step in truly allowing for human lifestyle acceptance, and as stated above would still require amendments and law changes in all 50 states. It ends a current crisis, and leaves an open door for expansion later.

Your argument that polygamy shouldn’t be allowed because it would be too complicated is weak as water. The idea that the arguments used to support gay marriage are valid ONLY for gay marriag and not every other non-traditional union is totally arbitrary and illogical.

By what authority can liberals who support gay marriage insist that marriage should be limited to only two people? Every authority in our society–tradition, religion, Western culture–that defines marriage as monogamous is the same authority that liberals have been TEARING DOWN in their fervent fight to legitimize homosexuality. How then can they invoke those authorities to support restricting marriage only to couples? Answer: THEY CAN’T.

Jinno, you and your liberal friends are going to have to admit that if you redefine marriage for gays you have to redefine it for every other fringe group. Legalizing gay marriage WILL open up a legal, sexual, and social Pandora’s box, and that may be just what you want.

Which is why I’d much rather rid the title of marriage from the system and simply have legal unions of two citizens. Same rights and privileges to whomever obtains one. That way if you want your union to be called a marriage, perform the service at your place of worship. To go about this would require amendments to state constitutions that ban it, and/or repeals of laws without constitutional bans. Due to the separation of State rights as delegated by the Federal constitution, the true enforcement of such a legal change would require each state to individually enact their laws and whatnot, which is what really steamrolls this whole thing.

The term marriage has been one the biggest issue in this whole situation primarily because many see it as the true solidification of love. By denying them a marriage, it seems to deligitimize their love.

But love is not something legally enforceable. And therein lies the big dispute. Other things though, have caused a devaluation of their rights as couples. Gay couples in some states have been denied the ability to adopt children. They’ve been denied the ability to see a loved one in a hospital, because of their lack of a marriage. The ability to file taxes jointly, to share assets, and other things indicative of a legal couple have been denied.

Why? Because they don’t fit the norm. They could have the same morals, for the most part, as you, but would be denied those privileges because they aren’t man and woman. That’s what I don’t understand. Why is that an issue?

This isn’t a matter of them being an affront to your rights, this isn’t a matter of infringement, or of any offense. It harms no one. And to implement it legally would be to make a direct clone of the current marriage statuses.

Marriage in the legal sense provides a way of distributing property in separations, providing custody of children or pets, the ability to be a designated family member in the event of a tragedy, among other things. It’s limited to two people for lack of complication. If polygamy were included you would have to determine legally which things belonged to the second wife/husband and what belonged to the divorcing spouse. It’s a 3 or more way distribution, as opposed to two way. It is kept this way for simplicity and efficiency’s sake, not because it’s meant to endorse a lifestyle.

So if we were to make it so that the legal union that is marriage were able to apply to man and man as well as woman and woman relationships, and all had the same rights and priviliges granted, would it be essential to call it something else, or simply continue referring to it as Marriage?

The religious argument is against allowing marriage among Gay’s, because marriage is a religious sanctity. But legally it is a means to manage ownership and custody. It’s not simply a symbol of love among the Lord. But if we cease referring to it as Marriage, it’s no longer a matter of semantics, it’s a singular legal distribution of everything that marriage currently encompasses.

With this I see no legitimate arguments. If I’m wrong, and this is absolutely appalling, give me logical reasons to why, please. No slippery slope arguments like last time.

And Charlotte, if you really believe marriage is a civil right do you support the legalization of polygamy? Or do you believe the definition of marriage should be changed only when it benefits YOUR group? Frankly, I’m fed up with the hypocrisy of gays who scream for the legalization of THEIR lifestyle while opposing the legalization of the non-traditional lifestyle of some straight people. Sounds pretty self-serving if you ask me.

Thank you for your kind words at Right Truth, much appreciated. Don’t be a stranger, I love meeting kindred spirits.

I posted a similar article on my own blog a while ago. It was mostly meant as a “shtick.” That is, I was trying to point out the massive overreach of the California Court. When I first read an excerpt of your article, I was sure you were wrong, but I posted a blerb on my blog saying what a genius you were just to get in a a couple of digs.

This recent article includes more details, but I’m still not convinced. Isn’t all of this sort of Court-Governor-Bureaucracy collusion as old as the civil rights legislation in the Deep South?

P.S — For those who say the sky hasn’t fallen since Gay Marriage in Massachusetts, did you see this on Drudge: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1105329&srvc=rss