"Regardless of whether it is a gay or plural relationship, the struggle and the issue remains the same..."

"... the right to live your life according to your own values and faith."

A NYT op-ed from Jonathan Turley, who is the lawyer for Kody Brown, the "Sister Wives" guy who has 4 wives and is suing for the right to be left alone. Note that he's not asking for the state to recognize plural marriage as marriage. He just wants to be rid of the threat of criminal prosecution.

One might expect the civil liberties community to defend those cases as a natural extension of its campaign for greater privacy and personal choice. But too many have either been silent or outright hostile to demands from polygamists for the same protections provided to other groups under [the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas].

The reason might be strategic: some view the effort to decriminalize polygamy as a threat to the recognition of same-sex marriages or gay rights generally. After all, many who opposed the decriminalization of homosexual relations used polygamy as the culmination of a parade of horribles. In his dissent in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia said the case would mean the legalization of “bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality and obscenity.”

In his last paragraph Turley says don't be like Justice Scalia. I suspect Turley is reaching out to liberal readers, who presumably would be horrified by sounding like Justice Scalia. That's a good rhetorical move if what's really going on is that liberals resist showing favor to polygamy because it's done by people they don't like: Christianity-motivated traditionalists. 

Turley isn't trying to talk to conservatives, who generally don't mind sounding like Justice Scalia. Indeed, they get ideas about how to think from Justice Scalia.  Conservatives aren't supporting the constitutional right of privacy in other contexts, so there's no hypocrisy to point out.

Turley also isn't talking to libertarians, who should find this issue so easy that no argument is needed. He does say "Civil libertarians should not be scared away by the arguments of people like Justice Scalia," but that usage of the word "libertarian" is different. It means something like liberals who take pride in thinking of themselves as supporting the kind of legal rights that good people are supposed to believe in. That's why — in a NYT op-ed — ugh, you sound like Scalia! is a good argument