I have a question for lawyers. The arguments for seem to be basically, let people do what they want, and there is no cultural interest in the result. The question is, there are going to be people who are going to want to "marry" their pets; is there a public interest in this? Is it OK? If not, why not? disigny

Their pets are not, in fact, consenting adults.

"The arguments for seem to be basically, let people do what they want, and there is no cultural interest in the result."

Wrong, the argument is that you cannot let some people have a right and prevent others from having the same right. I can marry the person I wish to marry. My gay friend cannot. Equal protection under the law requires that he have the same right that I have. Pretty simple.

Marriage is a contract. The government can sanction contracts or not.

Today they do not sanction polygamy. But I'll be ordering 2 or 3 mail order brides from Ukraine (or maybe from a more polygamous culture) and assert my right to have my marriage acknowledged by the government based on religious freedom grounds and the fact that monogamous people have civil rights I should be able to enjoy too.

Spiker, the difference is that no one has a "right" to have a polygamous marriage acknowledged by the government so you can't either. On the other hand, most people in our society DO have a right to marry the person of their choice while some are denied this right. They can demand the right because others already have it...unlike polygamy.

What's the difference from when the government only recognized opposite gender rights to marriage? According to your logic that was an arbitrary choice that discriminated.

I'm being denied my right to practice my religion in a state that is all about religious freedom. Mormons and muslims are being oppressed. So am I.

Prenuptiual agreements are contracts as well. Yet there are some that put unusual stipulations in that contract. Like how many times a month the couple are to have sex. Yet, if one partner does not and is forced it would be rape or putting a monetary stipulation to sex is usually against the law--prostitution. It's hard to draw a line, yet these agreements are made between man and woman. Why exclude homosexuals equal unhappiness of marriage?

Actually you are correct. There is no legal basis for denying a polygamist marriage if all parties are consenting adults. From what I can tell, the primary legal reasoning against it is that a polygamist marriage introduces a nightmare of legalities. IE - If wife A and husband B disagree on which medical procedures to approve for husband A, which takes precedence? If husband C dies, without a will, who gets which share of the left overs?

Other than these problems, morally there is no problem. Most of the populace gets hung up on the horror stories about those polygamist cults that pop up now and then that introduce force and coercion to the mix. In a group of normal functioning humans, it is a severe gap of logic to think that a person can only love one other person. Love is not like water with a finite amount, it is more like laughter of children, an unending supply that can be spread among many.

(Personally, I can barely stand one person in my life. I am not a candidate for that type of marriage. I just don't feel like standing in the way if it works for other people.)