Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Thumpalumpacus]

The 14th Amendment argument is the strongest argument in support of legalizing gay marriage.

It is not a fundamental right,  it is  a legal right. And furthermore, here in America, it isn't even listed in the Bill of Rights; in other words, the ability to marry is not an enumerated right. It could be argued that it should fall under the 10th Amendment, but at that point, its status as "fundamental" would seem to be severely undermined.  Certainly a fundamental right would have an Amendment devoted to it, no?

Your are right.  Currently marriage is not a fundamental right but a legal right.  Historically (and at present) the states have primacy over domestic issues (including marriage) by means of the 10th Amendment.

The petitioners want to compel the states to recognize same sex marriage. The states are responding exactly as you are stipulated.  That they have authority over domestic issues and that marriage is not a fundamental right.  So the petitioners are trying to change that along with the definition of marriage from procreation centric to recognition and dignity/security centric.

Which is as it should be, so that it comports with the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection under the law.

Simply because a minor can void a contract in a more lax manner than an adult doesn't mean that the minor has the same -- or as you're insinuating, more -- rights as an adult.  Firstly, the ability to more easily void a contract is only one specific privilege; but minors don't have the same rights to privacy or speech that an adult enjoys. Secondly, there must be court approval in most cases of a minor entering into a contract at all -- which fact in itself is a significant derogation of a minor's rights.

Minors do have the same right to privacy and speech that adults enjoy.  I believe what you are making reference to is the diminished right to privacy and speech of minors at school.  In which case you are correct as the Supreme court has held that in order to maintain discipline and order in the education of children they are granted a modified reasonable expectation of privacy where a child should not expect to have privacy (beyond restrooms) and their freedom of speech may not be such as to disrupt school discipline and order.  Otherwise minors have the same fundamental rights as adult person (though the rights are to be exercised on their behalf by an agent under the age of 5).

Yes, and that means that minors do not enjoy the full scope of rights enjoyed by adults. There are many other examples as well, by the way.

But we were discussing if petitioners win their case and marriage is made a fundamental right as well as recognition and dignity/security centric rather than procreation centric.

I would think that the issue of informed consent should alleviate the worries about children wanting to get married to their first-grade crush.

Can a five-year-old marry a three-year-old without parental input?  Can a ten-year-old consent to sex with an adult? Can a twelve-year-old take out a car loan, legally?

1.  No children may not get married at present.  Even as a Fundamental right the child must be at least 5 years of age.
2.  A 10 year old can consent, but the court does not recognize this consent as proper consent.
3.  Yes, a 12 year old can take out a car loan legally if any one were stupid enough to agree to one with them.  (and is actually very common around amish communities in the state of Pennsylvania).

The answer to 3) varies by state.