>>>Old-school Mormons or Moslems or other religions who want to sanction some form of polygamy or polyandry should be free to do so with the understanding that the marriage has no civil legal standing.
>>>
>>Perhaps once gay marriage gets legal standing, these marriages will too????
>
>That is exactly what I did not say. I said religious views on what marriages will be recognized should be completely separate from the civil contract of marriage which is the *only* one to have legal standing. There is no slippery slope here. Removing gender restriction is the only thing at issue as there is public interest that overrides the private interest.
>
>I somebody starts are religion that lets people marry sheep only that religion's adherents will consider them married. Everyone else will call it what they call it now :-)

Exactly. Personally I think this "slippery slope" thing that people try to bring into this is laughable. Oh yes we allow two grown adults who are in love to get married - and ooooh my gawwwwd they're going to want to marry chickens and sheep next! As you said, removing the gender restriction is the only issue at hand...and the question remains..is there a 'just' reason to have the restriction or not? What I hear the supreme court justices saying during these arguments was...in a nutshell..is "I think its wrong and I don't like it" is not a valid reason to have the restriction, and it's actually what's called discrimination.