put three or four or many into the definition of marriage. it was very easy to say two same sex people we can say that's married and now they can get property and have kids. everything else would have to be negotiated by a polygamous union and come up with a different name for it if they wanted to expand it. nothing in the supreme court's decision that necessitates recognizing polygamous marriage in any way. >> so, that's the argument? it's inconvenient to change all the words? for 1,000 words we had marriage defined between a man and woman. i'm not arguing against it i'm merely saying what is the argument against polygamy? you don't like it? that's not a real argument, right? >> it's not. i disagree with trevor. i think the supreme court decision presents a total argument in support of group marriage. and here is why. the constitution is silent about marriage. the supreme court redefined it and included a new fundamental right to marry based on one thing. feelings. feelings of consenting adults. romantic feelings and