Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

(I am still waiting to hear the states compelling interest for denying recognition of adult/child relationships that convey added dignity and security)

And I'm still telling you it's diminished capacity to consent: Children as a class do not have the same ability as adults to determine what is in their best interest, and the state has a compelling interest in making sure children aren't exploited, sexually, monetarily or otherwise.

More importantly: even if you are absolutely 100% convinced that this isn't a proper distinction, it doesn't matter, because every Judge in the United States will say it is.

Or, hell, they'll find some other justification for it.  I'm sure that a proper search in the process of writing an opinion would reveal all sorts of justifications. My point is that your insistence on this as an "issue" simply demonstrates that you're living in text-book, law school land, not the real world.  Judges aren't going to look at Obergefell, say "wait, this allows child marriage!," and start overturning Obergefell.  What they will do is say "obviously, child marriages aren't legal," and then use Obergefell and the rest of US law to tell you exactly why.  Whether you agree with their reasons is matter of opinion and interpretation.

TL;DR: legal realism

Ha ha!! You are going to argue legal realism based on the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges?! Did you read the ruling?? It really has no basis in the law. The majority completely ignored the law as it has always been understood going back to English common law (which is where US law runs when it does not have an answer). They ignored two centuries of legal precedence deferring domestic issues to the states. Ignored Washington v. Glucksberg in determination of a substantive fundamental right. Ignored the intentions of the ratification of the amendment in contradiction to two centuries of constitutional interpretation. Under some BS argument to dignity, which nearly every group with a law against it may now argue.

You may be right in that judges will rule that way in contradiction to the very ruling of Obergefell v Hodges. But do not insult it by calling that realism or even in calling it justice. Ruling in such a manner would mean there is no consideration for the rule of law, but rather the judges are ruling according to what they solely think it should or should not be. Even the Chief Justice John Roberts states such when he said the court in ruling as they did has just re-entered a time similar to Lochner V New York. I know many on this site think it is a slippery slope that will not happen. To this I would say go to law school, read all the cases, and marvel at the slippery slope that always happens. Hell marvel at the slippery slope of Lawrence V Texas that lead to United States V. Windsor and to Obergefell V. Hodges all under the argument of Dignity!