Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

I mean, it's almost sounding like, "Computer says no. Even though you and I understand that a minimum age and arbitrary gender restrictions are unrelated, we must entangle them both because that's how the law works." It seems those in the legal battle who are against it are trying to manipulate the law to bring up barriers, so that they don't have to fall back on their stupid bigoted "arguments".

I hope I've done at least a decent job of suggesting that the law, as it currently is, has a clear mechanism for delineating these things: consent.  I think one can at least argue (without making any glaring logical errors) that the two issues (gay marriage/child marriage) may be too closely entangled to separate by using Constitution (rather than with, say, state statutory law), but I simply think that one who makes such an argument is mistaken.

---

And I'm still planning on proceeding to different parts of the oral argument, Anima!  (... when I get time!)

Great!! I look forward to it!! We are only on the first topic of fundamental rights!!

I just read something very interesting, summarizing the author he states:

A single parent should love marriage to be a fundamental right that is recognition or security centric. Under such a criterion the parent may consent to marry their own child, not out of a sense of perversion, but out of a sense of financial security. In consenting to marry their own child they will gain further recognition and security conferred by the state, by being able to claim income for state benefits and taxes jointly. As the financial cutoff for many benefits and tax breaks are higher for married couples and the child has no income to speak of, effectually cutting joint income in half, a no longer single parent now married to their child will be entitled to greater benefits and tax breaks than if filing single or marrying a person with actual income.

I never thought of it that way.