Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Read the post from which your snip was taken.  Very unconvincing and arbitrary.

Legally, very convincing and specific. The respondent is recognizing (as the supreme court does) that no legal definitinon is going to be perfect. I believe someone termed it "The Law of Unintended Consequences."

If the given legal definition encompasses 100% of the intended group while unintentional incorporating some of the others the court has said that an expectation of perfect definition is untenable and would subsequently invalidate every law. Thus, over or under inclusiveness does not constitute invidious discrimination.

Furthermore, the respondents utilize Roe V Wade. A ruling whose benefits may be utilized by women only and not by men. This is called disparate impact. As stated by respondents, in Bray V Alexander the supreme court stated that 100% disparate impact does not constitute in and of itself animus or invidious discrimination.