> Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,
I don't see how that's so. Polygamy is legal in 58 nations worldwide. How "complicated" do they find it?
Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?
> They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?
I don't agree it is obvious
> Polygamy overly complicates the structure of marriage benefits,
I don't see how that's so. Polygamy is legal in 58 nations worldwide. How "complicated" do they find it?
Australia has legal de facto polygamy. To explain: under Australian law, unregistered cohabitation is classified as a "de facto relationship", it entails (in principle) the same legal rights as marriage does. While Australia only permits a person to be in a single de jure marriage at a time, a person can be in multiple de facto relationships simultaneously. If that isn't "overly complicated" for Australia, what makes it "overly complicated" for the US?
> They were denied the same benefits and advantages a hetero couple is afforded purely because they were seen as gross. It was just a tax on gay people.
Did gay people who opposed same sex marriage do so purely because they saw themselves as "gross"?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-04/the-gay-couple-who-op...