We’ve seen a lot on gay marriage of late . . . and regular readers of this blog know my stance . . . now others are trying to expand the definition of marriage even further to include polyamorists. While the case for consensual bigamy or polygamy or polyandry or group marriage can be made well enough . . . the problem with polyamory is that the definitions are not clear. Some polyamorists talk about it as akin to swinging while others discuss it as group or plural marriage. When talking about polyamory as a legal marriage system, there are too many riders that sound and feel like polygamy to most folks – not to me, but I have a clue – and polygamy is still seen as something that exploits women (there are some wonderful pieces on plural marriage that show otherwise but for the most part it is definately carrying a lot of baggage that we can all do without). The definitions have to be cleared as to what it is and what protections or rights should be afforded them. This is particularly true since there are already many laws on the books which specifically prohibit polygamy (gay marriage is not specifically prohibited in most states). Heck, the US has immigration documents that specifically prohibit foreign nationals from immigrating if they publicly endorse or promote polygamy. Talk about discrimination, these folks can’t even advocate the idea. While I am personally in favor of consensual polyamory being recognized, I don’t think it will happen. However, I do believe that gay marriage may eventually win legal recognition within say twenty years. Heck, go to the various polyamory resource sites and you will find much that is just a call to free love and practices that are not only unaccepted by the majority of folks but that are out and out dangerous – note that the folks advocating legal polyamory do not condone or endorse these practices, but the baggage is still there.