This is so "unrelated" people can live together. The tax laws, as usual, will recognize the first spouse, and allow for as much play-acting folks want.

"why ignore the possibility people can love and be devoted to multiple partners?"

I'm not. The law is merely pointing out marriage, at its legal root, is the conference of SUPERSEDING RIGHTS to ONE person.

For multiple marriage partners, a whole new canon of laws would have to be written.

To date, legally, it's ONE spouse (the first), and some play-actors. The third "wife", for example, isn't really a wife, and has ZERO legal marital rights and protections.

"You're entitled to your opinions, but you can't hide the fact that you're just as much of a bigot"

GFY.

Same-sex marriage fits like a glove inside current marriage rules, since the rights and issues are exactly the same.

Meanwhile, poly marriages would have to have an entirely new canon of laws written, all based on PROPORTIONAL rights.

Supporters are willing to flap their gums, but NO ONE has even proposed the first law. I'm all for extending the rights; now let's see some legwork instead of just lip service.

For example, I'll give you the easiest issues of all.

Husband has been with wife #one for 30 years, wife, #two for 20 years, wife #three for 10 years, and now is marrying a fourth time.

What proportion of rights does the fourth wife get upon marriage? Full rights, or a proportion based on length of marriage?

Next question: how do you break up one man's Social Security benefit with four widows?

"you're just as much of a bigot as those who described same-sex couples as "play acting""

That's a lie.

I was at the forefront of the equality movement, always pointing out my wife and I got over 14,000 protections and advantages the moment we said "I do", while gays were being treated as second-class citizens.

Why lie???

"Looks like we've struck a nerve."

Rank stupidity always gets that reaction from me.