I still haven't figured out why anyone gives a fuck about anyone else's sexuality. Considering all the evidence available the most plausible explanation I can come up with is that they are all hiding in the back of the closet.

Screw a million fag march, they should stage fuck-ins. Like a sit-in, only way less boring. Lets see the local news cover that!

If by idiotically distorted you mean full of idiots who distort reality, then yes it is.

There is no valid justification for denying polygamy as long as its consensual. The state has no interest except to perpetuate religious bullshit. Why should anyone care if three people are in love and want to get married to each other? Even assuming there is some valid reason to care ("think of the children!") it's not enough to justify denying a fundamental human right. I don't remember the specifics anymore, but I'm sure being a lawyer you know the usual thresholds for the degree of scrutiny applied to the states claimed interest by the SC, "protected classes" and all that. Go look up cases where they've had to weigh in on marriage, Loving v. Virginia you've probably heard of at least. Per the big shots at the top, marriage is one of the most basic and fundamental human rights (I don't see any reason to disagree with them but I'm certainly open to argument on that point). When the government messes with it for social engineering purposes that's some extra-bad shit according to them, when the state says it has an interest in regulating marriage in some way that claim needs to have some serious justification behind it. Same principle, new era. If we're going to live in a free nation then the state is going to have to prove why it denies that right to any person.

I'd personally be all for marrying more than one woman. Let's face it, folks... one gets boring.

I want a harem so bad. That would be beast mode. Too bad if it's My harem it'll probably be full of ugly chicks..

Would contracts written to include spouses now extend to all spouses under polygamy? That might be a huge problem that would need to be addressed.

The far right is really the big brother they claim they are fighting.

The founding fathers were careful to not define "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

The biggest concept of law that must be raised is "where is the harm?"

Common Law is really governed by the principle of harm. If someone has harmed another, then there is a problem we must deal with. The Magna Carta was one of the first steps in making this law a reality,where it laid out the principle of Habeas Corpus. I see Habeas Corpus provides that a victimless crime is merely one man alleging another man (or woman, if you please) has transgressed them in a not-qualifiable or not-quantifiable (in the case of equity law) way.

I really want to know where the hell the body is when Vincent and Guido want to move in together, exchange vows, share in benefits other couples are afforded, and then be as miserable or happy as they can be together. Jeez, there is evidence that could say that homosexual men are less likely to be child predators than heterosexual men - so why can't they raise a family? I demand a body of evidence to be submitted for scientific review , or at least to be debated at length by those with competent ability.

As to multiple marriage partners? Jeez, does it matter? Those with tons of money will have the harems, and distribute the wealth around thereby. If it affects you, then follow the line of consent - evidence of harm or beat it.

I'd most likely score the attractive yet severely crazy harem. Dead in months, by brain asplode.

I have a neighbor and her husband and between them they have EIGHT children (they just fall out at this point, I think). Crazy, but not at all unheard of. Trade a couple of those ankle biters in for spouses and you have basically the same situation.