Finally, a case might be made on the grounds of equal protection. The conceit of marriage regulation is to protect the population. Whereas, in times past, marriage regulation was set up to prevent, say, miscegenation, now we would say that the 14th Amendment prevents states from prohibiting miscegenation in their marriage regulations, on the grounds of equal protection. It is no great advance to apply the same logic to gay marriage.

Of course, it s a mere conceit that state governments regulate marriage. I agree. But states must be held to their conceits, so that, perhaps one day, honesty will force them to honor their pious declarations of rights and liberties, and abandon their dishonest practices.

The great danger is abandoning the pieties.

As conservatives are now pushing, in this one case, at least.

I do not think, by the way, that the Constitution should be interpreted solely on original intent. The plain meaning of the words should be used to conform to an understanding of rights that are compossible, and that means, basically, the use of the ninth and 14th amendments, in tandem, to institute progress in our mutual emancipation.