Except that there is and can be a rational basis to not extend marriage to polygamy.
And where in this decision was that rational basis found? Where in any decision was that rational basis found?
And the whole "You don't know what you are doing" bit is tired. One of us managed to actually back up their comments, and one of us has, and continues to, fail at doing so.
No, Redress; it's actually true. The first statement of yours I quoted above shows it conclusively. You claim there IS a rational basis for prohibiting polygamy, thus my argument fails. But you don't get to simply declare that there is such a rational basis. That is a question which must be
litigated and
ruled upon, in a federal venue. That you don't
understand that is only illustrating what I'm saying. It would explain why you
think my argument "fails," however.
Also, that you think
You fail again in claiming that this quote "IS" the finding. It is not. It is a part of the finding, and a small part.
Redress, there's a difference between a "finding" and a "holding."
And I never said it was the only holding; there are, in fact, TWO -- due process and equal protection. That paticular one I mention is the equal protection holding, and it's the one relevant to inroads for polygamy.
But hey, if you want to get into his due process arguments, we can do that, too.
“Marriage has retained certain characteristics throughout the history of the United States”: “two parties . . . give their free consent to form a relationship, which then forms the foundation of a household.” “The spouses must consent to support each other and any dependents. The state regulates marriage because marriage creates stable households, which in turn form the basis of a stable, governable populace.” "“[M]arriage in the United States traditionally has not been open to same-sex couples.” But that’s “an artifact of a time when the genders were seen as having distinct roles in society and in marriage.” “Today, gender is not relevant to the state in determining spouses’ obligations to each other and to their dependents.” Plaintiffs’ same-sex relationships “are consistent with the core of the history, tradition, and practice of marriage in the United States.”"
And on the basis of all of that, "“Because plaintiffs seek to exercise their fundamental right to marry, their claim is subject to strict scrutiny.”"
Strict scrutiny. Do you know what that is? Do you know how high of a standard that is? Tell you what -- you apply strict scrutiny and explain exactly why a restriction on
number would succeed when a restriction on
gender would not. And do it without needing to litigate
any questions, because that's what you need to do show my argument "fails."
My argument, by the way, to remind you, is that this decision opens the question of polygamy in a way which was not available prior to this decision.