About the number “2”, I mean. Why should marriage be limited to just 2 people?
Now that the Supreme Court has broadened the definition of marriage to include gay couples, by what logic would they defend a limit to just 2 people? Polygamy supporters are overjoyed by the two decisions this week, with good reason.
I fully expect to see not only legal polygamy in the U.S. within my lifetime, but also legalized inter-species marriages. Why not marry your dog, horse, or goat? Where in the Constitution can you construe something preventing that?
I'm not the only one wondering these things...
Best I can tell the supreme court did two things:
ReplyDelete1) said the federal government could not deny benefits to same sex couples (this was over hundreds of thousands in taxes)
2) decided that those suing to challenge prop 8 being overturned, didn't have standing to do so.
I get the first decision. Frankly the federal government should get out of the business of marriage to start with.
The second I don't get. The governor and attorney general of CA decided to not fight for prop 8 in court, because of their own personal beliefs, and so if they refuse to do their sworn duty, then I don't know that the recourse is. Impeachment?
Regardless, as long as they are consenting adults, I don't care who someone marries or how many. Dogs and cats and minor children and your tractor cannot consent.
Larry