But he didn't fully address the question. He simply offered an answer in support of SSM, and stated multiple marriages raises questions. Not once did he say it shouldn't be legal. So again, if marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? It seems he, and you are claiming that SSM is a "fundamental right", but plural marriage isn't.<quoted text>
You always seem to "omit" Ted Olson's reply to the justice, so I'll help you out once again...
Ted Olson: "Well, you've said -- you've said in the cases decided by this Court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you -- if a State prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.
Why do you call polygamy a "scare tactic"? Is SSM such a secular sacred cow that it must be legalized? Why does it matter to you, or any other SSM advocate, if polygamy is legalized? Seems rather hypocritical of you to proclaim that the sole legal definition of marriage as a monogamous union of husband and wife should be discarded to accommodate your version of marriage but no one else.It's selecting them as a class, as you described in the Romer case and as you described in the Lawrence case and in other cases."
See... Apples and oranges... Conduct vs. status...
It's so simple that even someone like you can understand.
In a few words, he put your "polygamy scare-tactic" to rest.
A few questions. Does any state require a statement of orientation prior to issuance of a marriage license? Does any state prohibit "mixed orientation" marriages? Does any state prohibit a person from marrying outside their self stated sexual orientation?