Could it be that it's not really about "rights," "evolving," "conscience" or whatever buzz words these folks choose to pay lip service to, so much as what falls within their particular political framework and what doesn't?
Note: I bring this up, not to argue for polygamy, but simply to point out the selective, hypocritical, and downright phony arguments I've been hearing for gay marriage.
First of all, Ivy, I'm beginning to resent the tone of your posts as you belittle mine by suggesting they are insincere and explicitly calling them "downright phony". If you want to maintain a serious dialogue on any issue, you have to be respectful.
If we view state marriage only, I have no problem with the state's right to decide on the merits of polygamy. I'm not in favor of it personally, whether straight or gay polygamy, because state marriage is a social contract between two people to make an exclusive commitment by entering into a legal relationship with each other. The relationship carries many legal rights, responsibilities and privileges that can be easily compromised and diluted if individuals have multiple spouses. My moral opposition to the arrangement is of no consequence.
The right to practice one's religion, keep in mind, is not absolute. I represented a Jehovah's Witness family back in the 90s, who were trying to stop a hospital from performing a blood transfusion on their child in that the procedure violateds their religious convictions. We were unsuccessful as the it was deemed the state's interest was more compelling than the specific religious right. Polygamists may be able to get mariied to several spouses in their church, and I respect their right to do so. But the state, I believe, should limit the contract to marriage to two people.
