Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

5 humans versus 4 bigots equals wins all round!

Let me know when the child/horse marriages start appearing out of thin air like some metaphysical domino rally

Your statement of 4 bigots is evidence of your bigotry and ignorance. Those 4 bigots are the only ones who adhered to the law.

(Opinion of the Supreme Court)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14p...6_3204.pdf

After reading the majority opinion and dissents, I have to say Chief Justice John Roberts is correct. The majority opinion has no basis in law and will likely be overturned soon. To try and simplify the majority opinion is as follows:

P1. The law confers dignity and security by means of legal recognition of X.
P2. People engaged in X have a Constitutional right to dignity and security.
C1. People engaged in X have a Constitutional right to dignity and security by means of legal recognition of X.

Now we start inserting for X in C1 above:
X = Same Sex Relationships C1 => Legal Recognition of Same sex relationships.
X = Polygamous Relationships (case pending Brown v. Buhman) C1 => Legal recognition of polygamous relationships
X = Consensual Incest Relationship C1 => Legal recognition of consensual incest relationships.
X = Adult child relationship C1 => Legal recognition of adult child relationships.

So far so good right? But as stated before X is not solely limited to those cases and now serves as precedence for any situation in which withholding legal recognition denies a person dignity and security (once again insert X into C1 above):

X = Prostitution (act between consenting adults) C1 => Legal recognition of prostitution.
X = Necrophilia (legally not hurting anyone) C1 => Legal recognition of necrophilia.
X = Beastiality (legally not hurting anyone) C1 => Legal recognition of beastiality.

To name a few.

As stated by Chief Justice John Roberts, "There is, after all, no “Companionship and Understanding” or “Nobility and Dignity” Clause in the Constitution."

In determining a substantive fundamental right the court is to apply a two fold test as determined in Washington V. Glucksberg:
1. Is the right objectively, deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition as to be considered fundamental?
2. Is the right implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, such that neither liberty or justice would exist if sacrificed?

As stated by Chief Justice John Roberts:

"The opinion describe the “transcendent importance” of marriage and repeatedly insists that petitioners do not seek to “demean,” “devalue,” “denigrate,” or “disrespect” the institution... As a matter of constitutional law, however, the sincerity of petitioners’ wishes is not relevant...

When the majority turns to the law, it relies primarily on precedents discussing the fundamental “right to marry.” These cases do not hold, of course, that anyone who wants to get married has a constitutional right to do so... None of the laws at issue in those cases purported to change the core definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman... As the majority admits, the institution of “marriage” discussed in
every one of these cases “presumed a relationship involving opposite-sex partners.”

In short, the “right to marry” cases stand for the important but limited proposition that particular restrictions on access to marriage as traditionally defined violate due process. These precedents say nothing at all about a right to make a State change its definition of marriage, which is the right petitioners actually seek here. Neither petitioners nor the majority cites a single case or other legal source providing any basis for such a constitutional right. None exists, and that is enough to foreclose their claim."