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.

" Keep digging, DanFroth."

I notice you skipped over addressing the facts, and went straight to ad hominem.

Truly, GFY moron. You couldn't come up with an answer last time either.

" the exact language people used (and some still use) about same-sex couples as well as transgendered individuals."

What a riot. I literally used the words the state of Utah used when addressing the issue of polygamy, dumfuq.

" If you really were for extending the rights, you'd be willing to do at least *some* of the legwork yourself like you did for gays"

I absolutely did, especially by pointing out how same-sex marriage is about the exact same issues of superseding rights, while polygamy requires an entire canon of new laws addressing proportional rights.

Meanwhile, you still can't come up with a single new law, and instead, bitch at the truth of the matter.

" that completely undermines your argument and proves my point about you."

What a riot.

Your reaction was the exact same last time we went around on this topic. You were never interested in rights, just at throwing a wrench into equality debates, as if not supporting something without a single law was the same as not supporting equality.

You were an idiot then, and couldn't come up with a single law.

I see you haven't learned anything since.

"I can see you're having a lot of fun down there."

I always enjoy pointing and laughing, especially at morons. And particularly when they can't directly answer a direct question, and tap dance instead.

What a riot!

So ... what, five posts with no answers at all?!?

You're not really interested in rights, are you?

Your sole achievement is throwing wrenches, on a topic you clearly don't understand.

"quoting an ultra-conservative state when it ruled against marriage equality"

There was no equality to be found.

Law recognizes the first wife as legitimate, everywhere. No state recognizes multiple marriage. Utah merely found no grounds to forbid cohabitation.

Let me boil this down: There is no way to grant superseding rights to multiple people, BY DEFINITION.

"you've demonstrated you're not arguing in good faith"

I asked two direct questions, which go directly to the heart of the matter. Easy questions, despite the fact we still have 13,998 more to go.

Again, I'm not against polygamy. I'm against idiots who pretend they're for it without addressing the needed tenets.

"You do raise legitimate questions about how plural marriage would affect survivor benefits and competing spousal claims. That is something that would need to be worked out"

14,000 advantages would have to be worked out. And the multiples of permutations and possibilities. Get on it...if you're really serious. You realize, I hope, you have to have the laws IN PLACE by the time it's made legal.

And I'll support any good, fair plan you've got.

"a state when it ruled against marriage equality."

The fact you keep calling it equality proves you don't understand the issues involved. The second, third and fourth wives get NONE of the rights and protections; not from the federal government, and not from the state. They CAN be forced to testify against their "husband". They don't have unlimited gifting rights. They don't have first refusal of an industrial pension. Etc, etc, etc.

Utah couldn't rule on "marriage equality" because no law has been passed creating polygamy. All the case did was uphold the fact the law only recognizes the first wife.

And pointed out the others can co-habitate as they choose.