Here's an interesting case against polygamy, arguing that it is a socially destabilizing practice, and differentiating it from same-sex marriage (as a stabilizing practice). I still think the debate suffers from people confusing polyamory, which is legal, and polygamy, which is not (and can be either recognized religously or politically -- chalk that up to overloaded terminology).

I could care less whether your religion or belief system recognizes multiple marriages, as long as statutory rape and domestic abuse laws are strongly enforced. But when it comes to political recognition, and putting aside the debate as to whether marriage should be politically recognized at all, I feel that there is no compelling legal or political argument to recognize polygamous marriages. And I don't think the preceding contradicts my belief that there is a compelling legal and political argument to recognize same-sex marriages.

Simply put, the government recognizes marriage as little more than an aggressive two-party contract, giving the interested parties certain tax reliefs and social benefits, but also requiring a government interest in the property and finances of the couple (so that the government has say over said property in case of, e.g., divorce). Preventing persons based on their collective sex to enter into the contract seems unfairly discriminatory to me, and as such I strongly believe in federal and state recognition of same-sex marriage. But preventing persons to enter into multiple contracts or into an entirely different kind of contract isn't discriminatory within the contract at all -- it is an entirely different kind of contract to which the government has chosen not to give benefits.

Is this a clear distinction, or do I sound like I'm splitting hairs?

(via andrew sullivan)