No, Pietro, I exposed the depth of your ignorance.
Dodge again.Nope, just more ignorance on your part.
Learn the difference between men and women....oh wait...you like outties, not innies.Pietro, learn to count. Why your argument is irrelevant has been explained to you countless times (thank heaven it has been explained countless times, because clearly, you lack the ability to count them anyway.
The reality also remains that some states, either through ballot, legislative action, or court imposed, have abandoned conjugality as the basis for legal marriage within their particular state. So, why then, if that conjugality is expendable, why isn't monogamy?The reality remains that every state has marriage between two people, and no state allows marriage between three or more.
Soooooo what? Why does number, two, trump nature, conjugal or opposite sex, as it pertains to legal marriage? Please explain how two lesbians constitute "marriage", but not three? Still same sex, still "marriage equality", conjugality has been rejected, and yet you cling to this notion that the state must.....ohhhhhhhh....they just have to....retain monogamy. The bottom line is, you offer no compelling reason why three lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry each other, and no lawsuit has yet to be filed in this regard. It's only a matter of time. It'll be fun to watch the rainbow coalition trip over themselves trying to argue against their own.Such a change seeks greater, not equal protection of the law; whereas same sex marriage seeks equal protection of the law for two people.