(June 4, 2015 at 2:37 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:(June 4, 2015 at 10:41 am)Anima Wrote: Yes it was.
He argued the state has a compelling interest in the procreation of children for state population as well as states responsibility to protect those children (both already recognized compelling interest as determined in Roe V. Wade)
He then argued the discrimination was narrowly tailored in that it was directed only at parties wishing to join in the marriage contract which is not obligatory, but willful.
He then argue the discrimination is least intrusive means by the state incentavising the procreation of children through the conveyance of benefits to couples with the potentiality to have children (as supported in Maher V Roe).
Finally, he argued the states interest is served by this discrimination as evidenced over hundreds if not thousands of years and verified by the supreme court in Maher V Roe.
The only problem with this is that the least restrictive means test would not be passed by limiting marriage to two people. Under this rationale there is no reason to oppose polygamy.
Why is this a problem? I don't understand
