Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Never mind the whole civil rights issue.
Never mind the fact that two people in love should be allowed to marry regardless of gender.
Never mind that gay marriage has largely no effect on your day to day activities or even your life in general.

Never mind all those numerous reasons for the allowance of gay marriage.



Gay marriage should have been allowed centuries ago.  Why?  Because of fairness.  Marriage is hell, they should have to suffer through it just like all us straight people!

I do not think ACE is referring to specifically gay marriage as much as marriage overall.

Furthermore the law does not care about love (or dignity for that matter) as it is not a requirement for marriage.

Also when you say it will have no effect on your day to day activities...Umm. Where do you think their benefits come from? They come from the rest of us so to pay more benefits we are going to have to raise taxes or limit the amount of benefits per family.

As Stated by Justice John Roberts in the Dissent:

Near the end of its opinion, the majority offers perhaps the clearest insight into its decision. Expanding marriage to include same-sex couples, the majority insists, would “pose no risk of harm to themselves or third parties.” Ante, at 27. This argument again echoes Lochner, which relied in its assessment that “we think that a law like the one before us involves neither the safety, the morals nor the welfare of the public, and that the interest of the public is not in the slightest degree affected by such an act.”

Then and now, this assertion of the “harm principle” sounds more in philosophy than law. The elevation of the fullest individual self-realization over the constraints that society has expressed in law may or may not be attractive moral philosophy. But a Justice’s commission does not
confer any special moral, philosophical, or social insight sufficient to justify imposing those perceptions on fellow citizens under the pretense of “due process.” There is indeed a process due the people on issues of this sort—the democratic process

In addition to their due process argument, petitioners contend that the Equal Protection Clause requires their States to license and recognize same-sex marriages... The majority goes on to assert in conclusory fashion that the Equal Protection Clause provides an alternative basis
for its holding. Yet the majority fails to provide even a single sentence explaining how the Equal Protection Clause supplies independent weight for its position, nor does it attempt to justify its gratuitous violation of the canon against unnecessarily resolving constitutional questions. In any event, the marriage laws at issue here do not violate the Equal Protection Clause, because distinguishing between opposite-sex and same-sex couples is rationally related to the States’ “legitimate state interest” in “preserving the traditional institution of marriage.”