>The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal !
If it is truly consenting, taking into account the modern defined limits on who can give consent, why not? A polygamous relationship is already legal in practice (adultery and extra-marital sex are not crimes). The paperwork and law changes aren't going to be simple, but besides for that I don't see a justification in continuing the ban.
Polygamous/polyamorous relationships can easily be supported from a property rights standpoint using corporate entities (LLCs). I see it as the ultimate social/political hack for a right.
I wish more people saw it this way. The fact that a government has any say in who can/can't marry and be with in their private lives is absurd. The concept of marriage should be left up to religious entities.
However, there are many legal matters that are deeply affected by marital status (whether or not you want to call it differently). Many of those rights/benefits are there for good reasons, e.g. child custody, decision-making in medical matters, etc. You can call marriage something different but you'd end up with a legal relationship that looked an awful lot like marriage. Personally, I don't think having a civil union that's different from a religious marriage (with no legal significance) is unreasonable as a concept. But it's not the way institutions have evolved--and, especially now, it doesn't really solve a problem. One could imagine civil unions being expanded as scope but they're never going to be arbitrary so long as there are rights and responsibilities associated with them.
I doubt the USA keeps an eye on Canadian legal cases (though Commonwealth countries certainly do) but Canada's polygamy laws were tested by a high court very recently (2011). The existing laws were upheld.
If the age of consent is 18 (and I don't think that is true across all the States), then 17 is illegal and should be illegal no matter what the age of the partner is.
I am sure a lot of people don't myself included. We are talking about the law and minors though. Society sets that "consensual" age limit. I am sure everyone has their age "line in the sand" so to speak.
But most of the time the law has provisions for edge cases, such as the Romeo and Juliet laws that exist in many states (laws that override the age of consent when the age difference is small).
Some jurisdictions disagree. Personally, I think it's a lot different for a couple who barely straddle the consent age to be having sex, than for one of them to be 50.
SSM and polygamy are not really related issues. You run into very complicated issues when you consider how children and property ownership would work in a many-person relationship. Marriage specifies shortcuts for these kinds of things, but they only work for two-person relationships. Polygamous relationships would basically require unique contracts given all circumstances, which is a pretty high burden. It's also not clear that polygamous marriages would have the same kind of societal benefits that two-person marriages have.
I think it's a point that can be convincingly argued, but the legalization of SSM does not imply a requirement for polygamous marriage's legalization. They're entirely different issues.
It should be restricted by age, but even when I don't agree with you on that point, I don't understand the downvotes (not that I really care about internet points BTW)
One problem I have with polygamy is that its more common to have one-man-many-woman marriages than one-woman-many-man marriages. This results in a surplus of single males, who are prone to causing trouble.
Polygamy is the next hurdle for society.
The judges should declare all consenting marriage legal !