From the opinion:

Weird. You quoted me and then you responded to something completely unrelated. You were supposed to try to poke holes in the logic of "marriage = gay marriage; marriage != polygamy". Instead, you responded that there are tax filings and estates and such. That's not in dispute - the issue here is (i) is gay marriage just "marriage" and (ii) is polygamy just "marriage". In fact, as you note, there are a whole bunch of "implementation details" that have to get worked out for polygamy but don't for gay marriage, which is why polygamy is not the same as marriage. But let's try again, just in case you got your wires crossed:

Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that.

And once you do, there are literally no other changes to the laws. Not so with forms that you have to add "spouse 1", "spouse 2", "spouse 3", "spouse 4", etc.

Nope. It favors the primary caretaker. That frequently happens to be the mother, but not always. The laws themselves, however, make no distinction between stay at home dads vs. stay at home moms. The "stay at home" is the important part, not the genitals.

Maybe you missed the two paragraphs explaining that. Not sure how, considering I've now quoted them twice so they've appeared in their entirety in three separate posts now. I have some theories, but... well... they're not kind.

"Apparently" you didn't read the post you replied to, twice. It's not that I would refute that, apparently, but that I did. Twice. It's quoted above a third time. Will you respond to it FINALLY or just admit you're a troll?

Yep, trolling. Or an imbecile. One of those two. My money's on the former, since you appear to be able to use a computer.

Seriously, you're arguing that recognizing that a large group of people has more votes than a small group of people is "pretty much hate speech". Well, that's "pretty much idiotic."

Well, first I counted to two. Then I kept counting. Then I realized that I had a number larger than two. That's "pretty much hate speech" in your world, apparently because anything beyond base 3 is tyranny or something.

Seriously, are you proud of your post? Because anyone who reads it is just going to shake their head at you.

Not so, plenty of people can argue that things are wrong when they are not. For example, you're arguing with me right now. The mere fact that people disagree doesn't mean something can't be true.

Sure, you can make that statement. The difference is that I can support mine with logic, and you cannot. For example, in the post you're replying to:

Now, feel free to try to poke some holes in that. As of yet, you've simply ignored it.

No, you used the term bigot because you're projecting. Let's see if I've got this right:
1. You are against gay marriage. Evidence for this is you saying my statement that gay marriage is marriage "is wrong".
2. You think that the arguments against gay marriage and polygamy are identical. Evidence for this is the fact that you've been arguing they're identical.
3. You think that I am against polygamy. Evidence for this is you calling me a bigot for being against polygamy (despite the fact that I've never said anything of the sort).
(and finally)
4. You think you can catch me being hypocritical because I'm against polygamy, but not against gay marriage, and the arguments are the same. Evidence for this is you saying that if anti-gay marriage people are called bigots, then you think that I should be called a bigot with my 'logic'.

But no. You're wrong on every count. 1 - gay marriage is marriage; 2 - it's not an identical argument with polygamy; 3 - I have no problem with polygamy; and 4 - I'm not a hypocrite.

Sorry, bub, but you're transparent. It's like you got your talking points from Rush Limbaugh.

Not at all. Here's the logic, broken down into short bits so you can understand it:
It's unconstitutional to treat groups that are similarly situated in different ways.
Blacks and whites are similarly situated. Race does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
Homosexuals and heterosexuals are similarly situated. Sexual orientation does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
Men and women are similarly situated. Gender does not affect their ability to contribute to or participate in society.
(see where this is going yet? No?)
Large groups and couples are not similarly situated. The number of people in a group directly affects its ability to contribute to or participate in society. Large numbers of people have more votes than small numbers. They consume more resources. They can be in more places at once. Etc., etc.

That's the logic. Count clearly matters.

So you think a right is only fundamental if it's listed in the Constitution? I take it you never read the 9th Amendment?

Let me Google that for you.

HTH. HAND.

Great, thanks! Glad someone is reading my words and seeing what's there and what's not.

/facepalm

So close, and yet so far.

Yep, you missed something. Please go back and reread my posts. If something still doesn't make sense, please cut and paste or use the "quote parent" button. I feel no need to keep restating something over and over when you clearly aren't reading it.

Nope, marriage is part of our traditions and collective conscience. As a fundamental right, it can't be denied to gay people. Polygamy is not, and therefore is not a fundamental right. The reasoning is consistent.

The comparison you're trying (and failing) to make is that people were denying gay marriage because, as they said, "gay marriage" is not a fundamental right and not in our traditions, as if it was something different. It is not: gay marriage is marriage. There is nothing different about it, except for the genders involved. Therefore, it's not a "new" right outside of our traditions, but the same exact and existing right. One can say "marriage is a fundamental right, and gay marriage is marriage, so therefore gay marriage is also a fundamental right."

Polygamy, however, is different than marriage. As noted above (remember, the part you keep trying to dismiss as administrative convenience?), there's a whole bunch of substantive issues that are different when there are two people compared to when there are three or more. It's a different institution than marriage, with more than just a simple gender difference. Accordingly, one cannot simply say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore polygamy is a fundamental right" any more than one can say "marriage is a fundamental right, therefore driving a car is a fundamental right." They're different things.

And finally, before you continue throwing around that "you're a bigot" name calling bullshiat personal attack, realize that I haven't said anything against polygamy. In fact, I think it would be a fine thing to legalize. All I've said is that there is not an equal protection or due process analogy between gay marriage and polygamy because - as repeatedly and thoroughly noted above, despite your inability to read - they are not the same institution, any more than driving a car is the same institution as marriage.

Nope. Not once. Note that you can't actually quote me ever saying that. That should be enough to show that you're not actually arguing with me, but rather with the voices in your own head. You should really get that checked out.

Again, with no quoting. Do you even know what "my equal protection argument" is? You can't very well refute it if you have no idea what you're arguing about. Let's start from the beginning, but this time without you trying to put words in my mouth, okay?

Are you trolling? Please let me know before I waste more time. That has nothing to do with what I said, and if you're going to fight strawmen, you can do that on your own.

What I said - as you noted when you continued quoting me - was that unlike polygamy, gay marriage changes nothing in existing statutes. It is literally the same, except for the genders involved. Polygamy is different, due to the fact that existing statutes assume a single inheritor or legal proxy. Accordingly, a gay couple is situated similarly to a heterosexual couple, but a group of people are not situated similarly to a couple. In equal protection law, it is unconstitutional to treat people situated similarly in different ways without a sufficient justification. It is not however unconstitutional to treat people situated differently in different ways.

As noted above, those are already unconstitutional. And despite your "you obviously have no clue" protestations, you haven't named a single law that has to change. Instead, you just backpedal:

We're talking about NOW, not a generation or two ago (you know, back when marital rape was legal and interracial marriage was not). And actually, since this is in the context of legalization of polygamy, we're talking about the FUTURE.

a complete and utter strawman that was not my argument. You're trolling. Enjoy having an argument with yourself, since it's clearly not based on anything I said (hence why you don't actually quote me, but merely say "your argument".

Correction - your argument that you claim is my argument. If you can't quote me, then stop pretending you are.

Yes. It helps prevent the establishment of a hereditary aristocracy. Feel free to argue for those.

Then it's not really just "contracts," which is what you were proposing. So, just to be clear, you're now proposing that the government replace marriage with a bundle of rights and obligations that they will enforce on third parties? Like, say, marriage?

I have literally no idea what you're proposing here. Can you rephrase?

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.