Yeah, I agree with the guy. Allowing polygamy wouldn't, and shouldn't, remove the statutory rape, incest, and minimum marriage age laws. I just thought it was funny that after all the conservative commentators saying that gay marriage would lead to polygamy, the first lawmaker to actually propose polygamy is from the GOP.

I'm sure the gay community would love nothing more than to advance the idea that polygamy is a step in the direction of gay marriage but let's face it - the ideas aren't in the same universe.

There is nothing stopping a gay couple in America from entering into a contract that is legally indistinguishable from marraige. That coupled with the fact that no major religion recognizes/sanctions/conducts gay marraiges tells me its more about a societal endorsement than an actual relationship.

But, I'm not gay so its possible I'm misrepresenting the gay point of view. I am open to disagreement.

And yet the argument was constantly made in the other direction.
That is not even remotely true. In fact, a couple of states have laws explicitly banning contracts designed to simulate marriage.
When an Elvis impersonator in Vegas can carry out a legal marriage, the religious angle is pretty much moot. The WHOLE gay marriage issue is about civil marriage, not religious marriage, so it is obviously about societal recognition and legal rights. The relationship is already there.Your contract premise is incorrect, so the conclusion is incomplete, so you can't trust your deduction. Though I also can't speak from experience for the gay point of view.

Religious marriages (more often called commitment ceremonies) for gay couples have been conducted around the nation. The religious service does not require the civil paperwork ... you're just making a commitment before God(s)/Goddess(es).

My boss is a member of a Quaker Meeting here in PA that has had several gay couples presented before the Meeting.

That has to rank near the top of the list of the shit I would have never, ever, expected to hear in this life.

I don't understand the surprise on your part ... Quakers, although traditionally fairly reserved, are raging peacenik liberal types ... at least they are here in PA, which is pretty much where they come from.

Plus, Quakers don't have much of a hierarchy, so whatever is OK with the members can't really be overruled by "the boss".

I'm not offended or anything. It was just a bizarre statement on the surface.

Social Security, health insurance and other benefits cannot be contractually bound between consenting adults. Only a legal marriage can allow that.