I don’t think the author fails to understand the matter.
I think the author is dishonest about the matter.
Yup.
He’s lying and knows he’s lying.
...I think the author is dishonest about the matter...
I think the author is more than a little biased.
I don’t think the polygamists have much of a chance for the simple reason the left generally opposes polygamy. Feminists definitely hate it. Therefore, Kagan and Soto-whatever are almost certainly going to make up constitutional reasons why gay “marriage” is OK but polygamy is unconstitutional.
You see, we conservatives still think this is all about logic, reason, and the rule of law, but it’s not! The court will rule for whatever it wants irrespective of the law, historical understandings, or whatever, and then devise excuses (also known as rulings) as to why whatever they want is constitutional. It doesn’t even matter if they said the exact opposite just a few years prior!
Therefore, slippery slope arguments that say the court will soon mandate polygamy are likely invalid. They could simply write that “marriage” has traditionally been thought of as a union of two people. “Wait,” you say. “That’s illogical. They ruled against tradition when they mandated states accept sodomite unions!” Exactly right. It is illogical, but it’s also exactly where we stand today in regards to the courts.
Bottom line: The oligarchy gets what the oligarchy wants.