[Torie]

Because the law is about the moral precepts of those that fashion it first and foremost, in the wide swath of discretion over constitutional interpretation the courts have seized for themselves. Second, polygamy is about by and large the exploitation of men of women, who bring in a younger model when they get bored with the aging one, and by per force, imperiling the status and economic security and rights of the aging obsolescent model. And that isn't going to stand, ever, not in the USA, and certainly not in the elite legal community courts, who are not going to stand for the exploitation of women.

Gay marriage on the other hand is perceived, and I think by and large rightly, as an emotional and deep seated disgust of male gay behavior, particularly by men, and the rest of the argument is mostly window dressing for that primordial reaction. And that isn't going to sell in the circles to which I am referring.

That is about as candid an explanation as I can give. You might not like it, but it is spot on, just in my opinion of course.

[I_dmc]

According to some, in Mormon history, it was far less an issue of older men wanting to replace wives with newer, younger models, than it was the fact that it was perfectly legal to kill Mormons. Usually the men were the one's killed, leaving a large number of "wives" to be cared for. This was the original justification (from a pure standpoint of logic) because the birthrate was rather necessary to maintain. As this became less of an issue, other reasons for polygamy became more common. For those raised under the other reasons, it was not a universally pleasant experience.

[ppaul]

...polygamy is about by and large the exploitation of men of women...

And why is that wrong, exactly?
Who says it's wrong, you?
And what if I say it's okay?
Upon what moral principle do you base your judgment?
If we cannot apply outdated Biblical morality in regards to "marriage", doesn't anything go?
I mean, let's be ideologically consistent here, shall we?

[little jeremiah]

Second, polygamy is about by and large the exploitation of men of women, who bring in a younger model when they get bored with the aging one, and by per force, imperiling the status and economic security and rights of the aging obsolescent model.

I don't think this argument holds much water. First of all, in some poyygamous cultures, men marry several sisters all at the same time, so there's no "old" ones and "new" ones. Second, many times (theoretically) women could say - and think - that they like the arrangement. In fact, in the article posted above, the man went in to procure a marriage license with his current wife and the prospective bride at the same time. No protest from wifey #1 apparently.

[claudiustg]

---Because the law is about the moral precepts of those that fashion it first and foremost, in the wide swath of discretion over constitutional interpretation the courts have seized for themselves. Second, polygamy is about by and large the exploitation of men of women, who bring in a younger model when they get bored with the aging one, and by per force, imperiling the status and economic security and rights of the aging obsolescent model. And that isn't going to stand, ever, not in the USA, and certainly not in the elite legal community courts, who are not going to stand for the exploitation of women.---

I think you're right about the moral inclinations of the court. The liberal judges will be inclined to look favorably on homosexual unions and will not even consider polygamous marriages. My question was by what mechanism they would deny polygamous marriage. To answer my own question I think that the lower courts will rule against polygamous marriage even though they have no basis except long standing custom, which also prohibited same sex marriage. The higher courts will simply not hear the cases.

That polygamy is about the exploitation of women I disagree. It certainly can be, but in the societies that practiced it there were mechanisms to prevent abuses. Betrothal was one. Not to mention that if one's brother died, one was expected in many cases to take his wife and children as one's own. Religious custom and tradition tended to reduce abuse of the marriage vow and the resultant social strains. We cannot any longer say the same!