Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Losty]

Sort of.  The technical issue here that Anima is getting at is "a ruling that marriage is a fundamental right would make it much harder to place restrictions on marriage."  The suggestion is that any "expansion" of a right to marriage that is sufficiently large to necessitate the removal of a same-sex restriction would be too blunt to avoid also taking out age restrictions.

Even if the animus is "slippery slope scaremongering" - I'm not saying it is in Anima's case, but you do see it a lot on, say, the news or comments sections of websites and such - it's not a ridiculous sort of question to ask.  In this case, however, I think it's extremely obvious that you can expand marriage to be between two men and not have to expand it to be between a 40-year-old man and a 10-year-old girl.  This is partly for reasons I've mentioned above; again, I stress that if you expand what marriage is, you're not expanding the capacity to consent to things such as marriage.

Marriage is already a fundamental right, as it is included as part of our fundamental right to privacy. I'm sorry if I've gone completely out of line here but this is what if remember from high school government class. 


Privacy:
Contraception: right to use and purchase contraceptives 

Abortion: Prior to viability. No undue burdens

Marriage: Right to marry. No bans on interracial marriage.

Procreation: Right to have children without excessive government intrusion 

Private Education: Parents have right to homeschool or otherwise educate their kids privately. 

Relations: •Right for nuclear family to live together. 
•Right to make parenting decisions (strict scrutiny)
•Right to custody of your kids
•Right to refuse medical treatment

Sexual orientation: Right to engage in consensual homosexual activities



So, if allowing interacial marriages didn't force us to allow child marriage, how would allowing same sex marriage be any different?

Sorry if someone already said this.