things, regardless of the inconveniences to the child's attached adult(s). Of course, this would be a little hard on the pregnant widows of soldiers, firefighters or peace officers killed in the line of duty, but do we care about the rights of the child or don't we? More seriously, the "mother and father" argument has already been rejected in California. Same-sex couples may adopt and be co-parents of chidlren. So banning same-sex marriage in California will do absolutely nothing to insure that every child has one (1) male and one (1) female parent; all it does is dissolve those parents' marriage, or prevent them from marrying at all, if they are of the same gender. Why stop there? Why not multiple marriage or incest for those over 18? There is no harm there so why the legal prohibition. I'm not a fan of the former and really creeped out by the latter but what is the harm? Well, why not answer your own question, JustMe? I wouldn't mind, frankly, if the state and federal government stepped out of the cohabitation business entirely , and no longer had anything to do with marriage or any divorce/separation issues other than child welfare (including custody determinations where parties cannot amicably agree). But if the government has to be in the marriage business, what exactly is the rational, non-religious basis for barring polyamorous marriages? It's entirely, I suspect, a matter of individual's "ick" factor, but if "ick" is going to be the basis of