It didn't fully address the question.<quoted text>
If Olson's answer was inadequate, one wonders why the case was won.
Thank you for that humble opinion. The reason, or least the primary one one, restricted to two, is because, despite the practice of polygamy througought history, it has been viewed in this country, at least in the 19th century, as "barbaric", "uncivilized", and "unChristian". That moral view has carried to the present day, although to a lesser extent. Now that SSM is legal, and homosexuality is viewed as "morally acceptable", at least more so than 20-30 years ago, polygamy has gained, albeit slowly, greater moral acceptance too, in my humble opinion. What's the major difference in terms of morality, between a man who fathers several children out of wedlock with several differs women, and either doesn't support his children in any way, or offers limited support, and a man who does the same but views the women as his wives, they view him as their husband, and he is supportive of bis children? So the former is acceptable, but the latter, taboo?But in MY humble opinion, marriage is the legal recognition of the mutually-protective bond formed by two unrelated adults who have chosen each other as life partners. We restrict it to two, because any more dilutes the bond that one person can have for another, complicating the nature of the relationship so severly that the benefits of marriage cannot be consistently, or even properly, applied. We restrict it from family, as marriage CREATES a familial bond, and ascribes many rights which family members already have.
No not necessary. Marriage is an consenting adult relationship. No animals need apply.Hopefully I don't need to explain why we restrict it to adults, or humans, or the living, or whatever other bizarro "slippery slope" relationships that some people fear.