they are not allowing polygamy because they are phobiting a conduct.... they are prohibiting gay marriage "like prop 8" is because of their sexual status, which came the debate being unconstitutional...

so gay would sacrifice their rights to be married so we would avoid polygamy being in the law????? that is kinda unfair since polygamist are hetero dont you think??????

I'd bang Vlad for free if he promised to be gentle and call me after my first time. ;)

Why not? Should be the question. I dont know why even ask it. A person's decision is their own.

I support it, being married sucks, why gays should be spared of such a sorrow when the rest of us have to endure it?

That's awesome, but you should let me negotiate for you - at least take a ride on the awesome Bear-Shark!

Fair enough ... hence forth I dub thee Zappykins el Lawyer de JoeFlex. Now go forth and ensure I get the ride of my life (yes, that was a double entendre).

 Blacks are also known to be very religious.....Religon is the main reason why most blacks and pretty much everyone else against, are against it. Doesn't matter if right wing or left wing 99% of the time on other issues..

I disagree. Just look at all the politicans suddenly switching over to the gay side...and mostly because they want to have a winning chance in future elections and see no reason to fight the inevitable.  Its pretty much just the super religious that won't budge.

Bows Graciously, (reminds I'm not a lawyer, but I've probably played one on TV), and send $600.00 per hour bill, like a true lawyer. ;)

"The other side has no good reason but hate of others. What are you talking about?"     I was talking about the debates the Supreme Court Justices had when talking about this subject. NPR (KPPC the local public radio station I listen to & support) reads of the discussion of the Justices. Though I may disagree with some point of views that are expressed, many of them do bring valid arguments that are debated by all 9 Justices + the Defense & Prosecution. There exist valid points by both sides. Points that question my beliefs and moral standings. I know that different people have different set of standards by which they live, and I would not consider imposing my religious beliefs unto others who do not share it, but since we all live in a sociaty where our actions reflect back on ourselves, discussing future reprecutions that could possibly derive from mayor decisions is not bad idea.

"Gay marriage is to adults who love each other. You have a problem with that?"       If by gay marriage you mean a civil union recognized by the state & federal government, no I don't have a problem with that. I do NOT have a problem with homosexual couples getting all the perks that heterosexual couples get from their civil unions. Do I have a problem if they want to call a civil union marriage? Not really because "marriage by the state" doesn't classify as marriage to me, it is just a civil union. Marriage--to us--is when a couple join hands in holy matremony and make a promise under God to be together until the day they die. It is usually a ritual performed by a priest & in a church.  Now, if gay couples wish to force any religion to marry them by force of law, then my honest opinion is for them to go to hell, because it's not going to happen. For all I care, they can form their own religion that is accepting of their way of life, but it will be a cold day in hell before catholism accepts it, because even civil unions (marriage by the state) is not really considered marriage under the doctrine of Catholism. Civil unions are just necessary for legal purposes. This is why there can be two ceremonies in catholic weddings.

Let me just say that marriage is joke in the U.S. People treat civil unions as marriage, but it's not, and divorce themselves when things go sour. I'm sure I don't need to remind people of how high the divorce rate is in the United States, and to top it off they wish to deny the same legal rights hetoralsexual couples enjoy to gay couples--rights that so often are squander. Hypocracy & discrimination run rampant in this nation, that's my bias opinion.

I'm not going to touch your opinions on the judges because that's another topic entirely. 

I'm sorry, I can't seem to understand you points in this post. I'll try to answer as best I can though.

As I understand it, the woman who brought this issue to the supreme court had a legimate claim that the Federal government taxed her $300,000 after her spouse died in the State of New York. New York recognizes her joint legal status, but the federal goverment (DOMA) did not. So she is sueing in the claims that gay couples with legal state civil unions are not being recognized by the federal government. The Obama administration already said they will not defend federal law that stated that marriage was between a man and a woman, so the house of representatives have taken on to themselves to hire an attourney to defend it.

One of the questions that arouse from one of the justices went into the expanding the definition of marriage that would be recognized by the government of the United States. He asked if giving claim to same sex marriages would open the debate up to other practices. Poligamy came into question because some religions actually accept it. By openning up the definition of marriage to same sex couples, would they then be bound to cross-examine others. It seems to me like a valid question. Moroms used to practice Polygamy (some still do), and if I am correct so does Islam. I warrant that with the rise of Islamic immigrants and a possible rise in their faithful could lead to them having a case being brought up to the supreme court in a couple of decades or so. Just something to think about.

If your interested in hearing what I have to say about legalizing Polygamy then here it is:  If a man can afford having more than two wifes and can prove it with his tax returns + pay more taxes for the privilage, sure let him have as many wifes as he likes. He should; however, be able to provide a separete house per wife and be able to afford to send his kids to school. He can only send his first wifes kids to pubic schools for free, and have collateral set aside for each household just incase things go south. The government shall determine the amount that is needed. =P