Sure. Perhaps you've heard of bigamy? Alice can't marry Carol because Bob already has a vested marital interest with Alice. For example, if Alice marries Carol and dies, Carol is entitled to 100% of her assets as spouse. But so is Bob.

And yet, none of that addresses the number of spouses and the issue noted above.

On the contrary, tradition is absolutely relevant as to whether something is a fundamental right. Marriage is a fundamental right because it's enshrined in our traditions and collective conscience. The fact that it has other traditions associated with it - the bride wears white, or Justice Thomas can't marry his wife because she's white - are irrelevant to whether the right to marry itself is fundamental.

Polygamy does not have such a place in our traditions or collective conscience, and therefore is not a fundamental right. So, instead, you'd have to fit it into the existing umbrella of marriage, and, as noted above, there's no equal protection argument for polygamy, unlike for interracial or same-sex marriage.

It's irrelevant for singles, because if you die, you have no spouse to inherit your assets, which is what marriage is about. Yes, you can adopt a child or have a child without one, but there are separate intestacy statutes about how property passes to your child. Marital statutes are about inheriting from a spouse.

It's like saying you don't drive and don't have a car, and then asking why RMV laws are irrelevant for you. It's not an imposition on your civil rights that you're not required to get annual inspections on your skateboard.

Because we don't want property passed between siblings probate-free?

Go re-read the post you're replying to. It explains why marriage places obligations on a bunch of parties who never signed any contract. Even if you bundle contracts, that still doesn't apply to people who never signed them.

Unlikely. It's not an equal protection issue because, as noted earlier, 3>2. Equal protection is an issue where two groups that are equally situated are treated differently. For marriage, there is no difference between a gay couple and a heterosexual couple. There is a difference between a couple and a larger group, however.

It's also not a fundamental right, as polygamy is not part of the traditions and collective conscience of society, except for Mormons.

Hence, it's just a regular old issue, like a zoning variance or naming a post office. If poly people want polygamy, then they can draft a bill and get it passed. It's not a big deal.

Nothing but a label.

Your turn to repeat it, unless you'd actually like to provide some argument for a change?

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. DoMA was in violation of both the due process clause and the equal protection clause (as well as being a violation of the 10th amendment and outside of Congress' power under Article I). The side of law and logic was the side that won in Windsor.

Nope, I'm saying that the arguments for the two are entirely different, and that one is a due process and equal protection issue, while the latter is simply a lack of existing statutes.

Is that legal right now? Can I get a group of people and file taxes together? No? You mean you have to write a new statute to cover it, just as I said?!

So you're going to treat spouses like children for the purpose of division of assets? That would require changing hundreds of laws, and would make estate taxes a huge issue again. Good job. You haven't really thought this through, have you?

"I'm OhPlz, and I'm suggesting a pragmatic solution: we just let the court decide based on whatever criteria they wish to use, or maybe people can just come to an agreement."
Seriously, do you even understand why courts and laws exist and we don't just have everything based on "whatever criteria a judge wants"?

Step back and really think about yours - you're saying "we don't need laws, we can just let judges decide whatever they want". That's more "traditionalist" than me... mind you, it's also several thousand years out of date.

As noted in another reply to GP, marriage places obligations on people outside of the contract. The government enforces those obligations too, even though the INS, DoJ, IRS, VA, etc., haven't signed any contracts with married couples. So, the government's role in marriage goes beyond merely enforcing contracts.

Nope. If you change "husband and wife" to "spouse and spouse" in existing statutes, nothing else changes. Taxes are still the same, marital privilege is still the same, immigration is still the same, etc. In fact, if any existing statute treated husbands and wives differently, it would already be unconstitutional due to discrimination on gender.

But, if you change, "spouse and spouse" to "a group of spouses", then how do you change "upon death of a spouse, the remaining spouse shall inherit 100% of communal property before probate"? As in, you die, and your three widows each inherit 100%? That's 300%. Where do you get two more identical houses?
Or what about medical proxy? You go into a coma, your first spouse says 'pull the plug', your second spouse says 'keep him alive at all costs'. Does the doctor get to decide? Because they can't. Under existing law, no matter what decision they make, the other spouse sues and wins.

In both cases - and in many others - the laws have to change. That's not true for gay marriage, where literally nothing but the label on a line on a form changes.

You've got it backwards - property and inheritance are not exclusively about marriage. That's why you can also sell deeds and leave things to your children. But yes, marriage is about property and inheritance, which is why when you're married, not only do you not need a will to leave things to your spouse, any such will is irrelevant because you won't even go to a probate court.

And what law would the LGBT crowd need to write? None, as noted above. Literally nothing changes in existing laws when there are two spouses, regardless of their genders. Not one single law is different. If you don't believe me, then go find one that has to be changed. I'll wait.

The side of law and logic? Feels great, just as it always has.

How is "more than 2" different from "2"? Are you sure Slashdot is at your speed?

No, marriage is about property and inheritance rights. It's irrelevant for singles, and it's different for polys since you would need some sort of proportional probate system. Draft that law, and then you can have polygamy. Until then, not yours.

Well, contracts exist only between the parties, right? They're not binding on anyone else. For example, if I sign a contract with my buddy buying your car for a dollar, you don't have to turn it over to me, just because I have a contract, right?

So, let's say you replace the marriage contract between two parties and the state and just have private contracts... Well, what requires a hospital to let you visit someone you signed a contract with in the ICU? What requires the IRS to let you two file taxes together? What requires the prosecution not to call them as a witness to your conduct? What requires the INS to let them come into the country, merely because they signed a contract with you? What requires a veteran's cemetery to let you be buried together if only one of you is a veteran? What prevents the state from taxing you on property when they die? Etc., etc. There are literally over a thousand rights and privileges that attach with marriage and are binding on third parties who never signed any contract.

Why? Because it's valuable to society. Having two people look out for each other drastically reduces expenses.

3>2

And they're allowed, as a private company, to decide what results to show and not show.

Or do you advocate that the Government take away their right to freedom of speech by using force of law to dictate what they are and are not allowed to say?

Also, if 'the state' doesn't mean 'the federal government,' as the dissent seems to think, somebody better call the US State Department and tell them that they're using the term wrong.

Also, tell the POTUS that he's no longer the Head of State.

Actually, we still haven't got a clue as to what the longterm problems might be with Wifi.. There are studies which suggest it IS harmfull..

Please link to peer-reviewed, reproducible tests and studies showing standard Wi-Fi routers produce harmful radiation.

Take your time, we'll wait.

Would switching to a high veggie low fat diet reverse the trend and rebalence flora?

It has been stated weight gains happen with fecal transplants. So different flora over time could reverse