PRESTOPUNDIT -- A Good Blog at a Great Price. Guaranteed.

Gay Marriage. Pop quiz for the "equal protection" folks -- we're flying at a 100 miles an hour down the slippery slope, what is the principled argument for denying marriage to this young couple if "equal opportunity" and "state interest" are the criteria? (And whose perceptions of "the interests of the state" count anyway -- just those with a seat on the bench and/or tenure in the law school, or does the democratic majority have any say in the matter? OK, you're right, I do already know the answer to that one). And if marriage is not to be denied to these two -- who shall be denied marriage? I can see the case for allowing marriage because the parties involved love each other -- but the same can be true in all sort of other cases even farther outside of the limits of the law as it currently exists.

What I am looking for is this. I have yet to hear a principled argument for denying "equal protection" to any set of persons wishing to married any other set of persons -- but if the flying slide down the slope is to stop, there must be some principled stopping point somewhere. Well, what is it? And how do these grounds differ from the ones advocated of male-female marriage already provide -- because they do provide these, where as, as far as I've been able to determine, those who advocate flying down the slide on "equal protection" grounds do not. If they do, lets hear them. I have an email address, up there at the top on the right hand side.

I'd actually like some real answers on this. No doubt folks have given it some thought and have come up with answers to the question. I simply haven't seen these anywhere, and haven't been able to come up with the answers myself. Sometimes thinking things through is more than merely a rhetorical excercise. Of course, like everyone, I enjoy the rhetoric, but I enjoy -- and value -- the hard work of thinking things through much more. So. Any thoughts, reflections, arguments? Comments are open.

UPDATE: Julian Sanchez jumps on the equal protection bandwagon and gives three cheers for plural marriage:

I tend to watch Crossfire for laughs, but right now I'm livid. Tucker Carlson just asked Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques why, for all the reasons she advances to support gay marriage, polyamorous groupings of three or more men or women shouldn't be recognized. Her brilliant, principled answer?

"Because I don't approve of that."

Oh. Because you don't approve of that. So then why, again, is a majority's nonsensical disapproval of your lifestyle supposed to be trumped by a principle of fairness? Why should anyone now take your fine language about equality and human rights seriously?

Look, I understand that for political reasons it might be prudent, right now, anyway, for defenders of gay marriage not to publicly acknowledge what a real principle of fairness here entails. I could've even, reluctantly, swallowed a dodge like: "Well, that's not at issue right now, and it'd be have to be considered independently." But this kind of BS answer takes the wind out of your sails pretty badly. If you're going to demand the equal treatment that is your right, then you ought to have both the empathy and the cojones not to buckle when the rights of even less popular groups are at stake.