At least we're getting somewhere ...

This is my question then - do you feel that Reynolds v United States is as discriminatory as The Defense of Marriage Act? I realize of course that one is legislation and another a Supreme Court Decision, but the point is neither are Constitutional Amendments. And that seems to be the sticking point for you here. Anything short of a Constitutional Amendment (regarding the definition of marriage) you consider out of the government's purview or mandate to enforce based on anti discrimination law (circa 1964, etc).

"You are right and I shouldn't have lumped polygamy in with the child marriages or other abusive cases... there is nothing to say that three (or more) perfectly rational adults couldn't decide that they all want to live happily ever after as man and many wives (or vice versa). I'm not the one that determined that such an arrangement is un-Constitutional... the US Supreme Court did when it upheld numerous polygamy case decisions over the course of the last 200+ years . . . I'm not suggesting that this isn't a situation that could be challenged, because I am certain that this sort of case was every bit as biased as Dred Scott v. Sandford was, but I am saying that the determination stands until such time as the Court rules otherwise.

I agree that it stands until another Supreme Court rules otherwise, but my question is that given what you have written above, to maintain a consistency with your gay marriage argument, do you contend then that polygamists are every bit as "discriminated" against via that ruling and the various state laws as gay couples are via the Defense of Marriage Act and the various state laws? Do they have the same beef in other words (man, there's a ton of bad pun opportunities were I a less than mature individual .... hehe)?

You divorced it from child marriages and injured third parties, and properly so, I get that. You also seem to be answering my question "yes", but I want to be crystal clear here - until such time as a Constitutional Amendment is passed is it your position that both gay couples and polygamists (involving consenting adults) are being discriminated against by our federal and state governments, because short of such a Constitutional Amendment the government, in your opinion, hasn't the authority to regulate morality to this degree?

Now if your answer is essentially "yes", then fine. You have a wholly consistent argument - marriage between consenting adults, regardless of gender or number in party, should not be regulated by the federal government until such time as they have the clear Constitutional authority to do so via the amendment process. I can live with that. I utterly disagree of course, and I know you oppose it as a personal lifestyle choice being a practicing Catholic, I just wanted to be sure - your position is that consenting adults ought to be (meaning the laws & rulings while in need of being respected are "unjust" as current) allowed to practice polygamy and same sex marriage until such time as an amendment gives the government the right to regulate marriage as between one man and one woman. Is that correct?