Slightly OT. There’s some grounds for thinking that protestations notwithstanding, the legal arguments used to justify gay marriage apply to the matter of polygamy. If the ruling stands, and its logic stands with it, how can the state justify forbidding polygamy?

Anyone can see which way the wind is blowing. Proponents of gay marriage are on track to get their way. Please reflect: is winning by any means necessary, and never mind the consequences, the plan? Will you be happy with what you have got when you get it? Or would it be better to proceed with an eye to minimizing collateral damage?

Please grant, explicitly, that polygamy is different. Argue your case with logic that does not include by its very broadness a tacit insistence on the legitimacy of polygamy.

Polygamy ought to be illegal here, because its legalization would undercut equality between men and women, and it would intensify the already rising gap between the haves and the have nots.

It’s bad enough that the haves have so much more money than the have nots. But with money, when a rich man makes more, if he does it by being a good producer, the supply of goods increases and his gain need not be another’s loss. If unequal wealth didn’t have some such silver lining, we would craft our tax code differently.

With wives, when a rich man takes a second, third, and fourth wife, the supply of women does not increase and his gain is necessarily another’s loss.

Opposition to polygamy is not rooted in opposition to Islam; historically, Americans reacted violently to Mormon polygamy, at a time when Islam was not an issue.

article discusses both sides…