Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

We seem to be talking about the law like it is changed by taking tablets which may have unpreventable side effects.

I'm going to poke my brain out of my ears in a minute. Is there anyone anywhere who is actually requesting there be child marriage, whether or not there is gay marriage? And if not, why is anyone talking about it when you can just allow gay but not child marriage? What harm can possibly come from allowing gay marriage, and what the living fuckball biceps do children have to do with it? Are there people campaigning for child marriage that I don't know about?

Either this argument doesn't make sense, or the law is really badly stupid and needs changing, or I'm so far gone in the head I might as well do to myself what I did to science last week.

Changes to the law do have unintended consequences. Remember that laws are related to one another. If you change the definition of one it impacts all laws related to that law. That is why the changing or enacting of a new law leads to tons of court cases in regards to that new law or the changes. (As I like to say to conservatives at work, "Contrary to popular belief it is not all in the constitution!")

Parties who would actually be requesting child marriages would be Warren Jeffs at present and any parties under arrest for performing or facilitating child marriages. (there are several cases pending regarding the fundamentalist Mormons in Arizona/Colorado). Or people from the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) who I understand are supporters of pederasty.

---

But what is that a list of?  Some of them are biological truths, such as the genders need to be opposite, they need to be of an age where they can have children.

But members of the same family can produce offspring but with there being more chance that the offspring will suffer from abnormalities or death.

So with that in mind this list is incomplete.  If you were to go by what you call the procreation centric view of marriage then no one over the age of late 40s should be allowed to be married because at this age the offspring is at a great risk of having down syndrome. 
Also straight people who just can't have children because of sperm or ovary abnormalities should also not be allowed to get married.

You bring up an excellent point regarding incest. As learned from the nobility of Europe inbreeding has some serious side effects over many generations but not right away. As it is right now the states may prohibit persons from incestuous relationships under rational basis (the state has a legitimate interest and the discrimination is reasonably related to that interest) under the rational that
1)Incestuous relationships are in opposition to the biological goal of dihybrid procreative means practiced by humans and all hominids.
2)Incestuous relationships are psychologically harming to the people directly and indirectly involved (such as the resultant children).
3)The state does not wish to encourage or promote the engagement of incestuous relations which may reasonable result in incestuous relations with children who are underage.

Under the petitioners propose change to a fundamental right that is recognition and dignity/security centric none of those reasons will pass strict scrutiny.

---

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.

You are right about that! If marriage is recognize as a fundamental right than the state will not be able to prohibit polygamy or polyandry under strict scrutiny.

The respondents argument was in regards to the restriction on same sex marriage passing strict scrutiny.

Sort of funny how even if the petitioners win the states could still keep them out under strict scrutiny while letting every else in.

---

It seems to me that those who wish to be polygamists do it regardless of whether or not it's legal. I doubt legalizing polygamy would lead to hundreds of people going out and having multiple marriages.

To Paraphrase:

It would seem that those who wish to break the law do it regardless of whether or not it is legal. I doubt legalizing what they do would lead to hundreds of people going out and doing it.