[IronJack]

The argument was that if two adults have the right to get married, then, under Equal Protection, that means ANY two competent adults. Excluding homos denies them a protection accorded heterosexuals (also known as "normal people") based solely on their sexual orientation.

That's the argument. I don't buy it, but at least it's better than inventing a "penumbra" or stating that 4 + 1 is somehow unequal to 2 + 3.

[AmericanVictory]

But what if “equal protection” traces back to the 14th Amendment?