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

the case here is being able to legalize same sex marriage.... so i dont know why people keep inserting this stuff...

even in the supreme court...

Sotomayor begs the Scalia question.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you’re being asked — and — and it is one that I’m interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what State restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what State restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to — that could get married — the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age — I can — I can accept that the State has probably an overbearing interest on — on protecting a child until they’re of age to marry, but what’s left?

MR. OLSON: Well, you’ve said — you’ve said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you — if a State prohibits polygamy, it’s prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status. It’s selecting them as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases, you’re picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom that you’ve said is fundamental, important and vital in this society, and it has status and stature, as you pointed out in the VMI case. There’s a — there’s a different -

Or worse. Keep in mind that the mentality for the majority of people outside of western Europe and North America is overwhelmingly anti gay. So while I agree that some may view it positively I am fairly confident that the majority will point to it as an indicator of how immoral people in the west have become.