Of course we have nothing but the same playbook being used here. The argument is:
In his ruling, Hanson said the state law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman violates the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection.
Never mind that a law allowing marriage only between a man and a woman discriminates against polygamists, which under the same “logic” would “violate the constitutional rights of due process and equal protection” of those who would take pluaral wives. The fact is that in changing the definition of marriage from what it has historically been, marriage becomes meaningless.
And that is the ultimate reason for this ruling.
