The point is that the constitution has no command that states can not define marriage as between opposite genders, and only two people. There is no possibility that the framers of the equal protection clause had same-sex marriage nor polygamy in mind, and that is the understanding that controls. All law has preferences and distinctions, so an absolutist view of the epc would destroy all law. Because the phrase is general, it requires limitation to what the framers understood they were enacting, and it was not same-sex marriage. If anything, polygamy actually has a bit better argument for const protection, because some religions have allowed polygamy, and they can argue that polygamy is also protected by their freedom of religion, as well as the epc, while same-sex marriage arguments do not have the religious freedom argument to make. Neither polygamy nor same-sex marriage were intended by the framers, so, if we are to have either, it must be decided democratically and not by unelected judges under the GUISE of the const. All we ever hear about on this case is whether there are good POLICY REASONS for same-sex marriage, and no actual const argument. If the court leaves the framers' meaning and fraudulently create same-sex marriage a const right, they have no principled way to limit marriage definitions from that point, and they then MUST create polygamous marriage as a const matter, also.