Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RACooper
Same reasons that the Romans did (from which ultimately most of our laws derive)... because of the profound legal problems that ultimately result when a 2 person partnership is involved ~ ie. inheritance, support, and other legal commitments...
|
But that's beside the point under the theories being put forward. Proponants of same-sex marriage are arguing in courts (and some courts have agreed) that denying same-sex couples the right to marry deprives them of the constitutional guarantee to equal protection of the law. (And some proponants here are arguing that it deprives them of the "pursuit of happiness," though as already pointed out, that's irrelevant in court.)
So, if the Equal Protection Clause provides same-sex couples the right to marry despite the interests that states may have in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples, then I'm simply asking for a logical distinction as to why marriages between three people would not also be protected under the Equal Protection Clause and trump a state's interests in regulating marriage.