Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

So can I ask what is the procreation centric definition of marriage?

Indeed you can and it follows by answering these questions regarding procreation:
1. how many people do you need (at minimum) to procreate? 2
2. what genders do those people need to be? Opposite
3. what minimum age do they need to be? Of pubescent age (about 13)
4. what familia relationship? Different (or at minimum not immediate)

Thus, the procreation centric definition would be 2 people, of the opposite gender, that are at least of pubescent age, who are from different families (or at minimum not part of the same immediate family).

---

Now, I mean, I've obviously argued that, charitably granting both the declaration of marriage as a fundamental right and taking this out of the equal protection realm (which I still think gets the job done)

Just so you know. When we are arguing scrutiny we are arguing equal protection. The equal protection clause does not prohibit all discrimination of the laws. It prohibits invidious discrimination with out reason. It follows thus:

Under the 14th Amendment Equal protection clause a law may discriminate under:
1. Rational Basis Scrutiny: The state must have a legitimate interest and the discrimination must reasonably be related to that interest.
2. Intermediate Scrutiny: The state must have a legitimate interest and the discrimination must reasonably be related to that interest and serves the interest.
3. Strict Scrutiny: The state must have a compelling interest, that is narrowly tailored, that is least restrictive, and that serves the interest.

Marriage restrictions are commonly argued under rational basis because it is not a fundamental right. Sexual orientation is not a protect class and also does not warrant strict scrutiny. In order to compel the states to recognize same-sex marriage the petitioners are arguing that marriage is a fundamental right to compel strict scrutiny. The respondents argued under rational basis. Now what makes the lawyer for the respondents the shit in the oral arguments is after his 5 minute argument for rational basis he then proceeded to argue (without being obligated to do so) why the prohibition would pass strict scrutiny.

---

It is not a fundamental right,  it is  a legal right. And furthermore, here in America, it isn't even listed in the Bill of Rights; in other words, the ability to marry is not an enumerated right. It could be argued that it should fall under the 10th Amendment, but at that point, its status as "fundamental" would seem to be severely undermined.  Certainly a fundamental right would have an Amendment devoted to it, no?

Your are right. Currently marriage is not a fundamental right but a legal right. Historically (and at present) the states have primacy over domestic issues (including marriage) by means of the 10th Amendment.

The petitioners want to compel the states to recognize same sex marriage. The states are responding exactly as you are stipulated. That they have authority over domestic issues and that marriage is not a fundamental right. So the petitioners are trying to change that along with the definition of marriage from procreation centric to recognition and dignity/security centric.

Simply because a minor can void a contract in a more lax manner than an adult doesn't mean that the minor has the same -- or as you're insinuating, more -- rights as an adult.  Firstly, the ability to more easily void a contract is only one specific privilege; but minors don't have the same rights to privacy or speech that an adult enjoys. Secondly, there must be court approval in most cases of a minor entering into a contract at all -- which fact in itself is a significant derogation of a minor's rights.

Minors do have the same right to privacy and speech that adults enjoy. I believe what you are making reference to is the diminished right to privacy and speech of minors at school. In which case you are correct as the Supreme court has held that in order to maintain discipline and order in the education of children they are granted a modified reasonable expectation of privacy where a child should not expect to have privacy (beyond restrooms) and their freedom of speech may not be such as to disrupt school discipline and order. Otherwise minors have the same fundamental rights as adult person (though the rights are to be exercised on their behalf by an agent under the age of 5).

And none of this addresses my point, which is that minors aren't free to engage in marriage before specific, stipulated years, which fact means that minors do not enjoy the full panoply of rights that adults do, which was my point.

Again, at present you are right because marriage is not a fundamental right and is under the Authority of the states. As such the states may simply say, under rational basis, that they have a legitimate interest in keeping underaged persons out of sexually intimate relationships (such as marriage which at present is procreation centric) and that the age restriction on marriage is reasonably related to that interest.

But we were discussing if petitioners win their case and marriage is made a fundamental right as well as recognition and dignity/security centric rather than procreation centric.

Can a five-year-old marry a three-year-old without parental input?  Can a ten-year-old consent to sex with an adult? Can a twelve-year-old take out a car loan, legally?

1. No children may not get married at present. Even as a Fundamental right the child must be at least 5 years of age.
2. A 10 year old can consent, but the court does not recognize this consent as proper consent.
3. Yes, a 12 year old can take out a car loan legally if any one were stupid enough to agree to one with them. (and is actually very common around amish communities in the state of Pennsylvania).