(04-13-2017 10:45 AM)bluesox Wrote:  If you label somebody a bigot because they disagree with an issue, I don't see where the line gets drawn. It's a good proproganda tool though. I will go back plural marriage, why isn't it bigoted to be against that?

No, I label somebody a bigot when they discriminate against a protected class of citizens. That's quite different than "disagreeing on an issue". I'll once again point to my own company (and pretty much every legally compliant company in America): disagreeing on an issue is not inherently a problem, but discrimination will (and should) get you fired. There's a massive difference between not liking someone's opinion and actually infringing upon another human being's civil rights.

The plural marriage argument is actually a propaganda tool to attempt to justify continued bigotry. I've heard that one many times - "If we allow anyone other than a man and a woman marry, then we're on the road to allowing plural marriage, incest, people marrying pets, and every other "deviant" act out there! Harumph!"

It's obvious that I'll never get anywhere with many people here on the fundamental moral and social underpinnings of what I believe. However, there's an objectively clear legal argument as to why plural marriage is very different than same-sex marriage: plural marriage would require a change to virtually every family law concept on the books, a great portion of the laws regarding wills and trusts, many tax laws and a whole mountain of other statutory and common law standards. Why? Because all of those laws are inherently based on a one person marrying one other person for legal purposes. (Whether a polygamist might choose to take on multiple wives in a religious context is honestly up to them, but a polygamist can only have one *legal* spouse.)

In contrast, not a single family law or estate planning law statute or concept had to be changed with the allowance of same-sex marriage. Every single statutory and common law concept that applies to heterosexual marriage holds up perfectly from a legal perspective. That simply isn't the case for plural marriage (and why courts with judges across the political spectrum would treat it very differently).