Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Cato]

Now the person whose conduct in X is greater may be said to be more dignified due to the magnitude effect of greater quality or quantity.  As such the person who minimally engages in X or does not engage in X (while still not engaging in Y) may be said to be less dignified than one who engages in X extensively or minimally.

. The quantity/quality argument doesn't work. I call my adult children on a regular basis because I love them. Your idea would be the same as trying to evaluate which of my adult children I love more or better based on an aggregate of how many minutes I've spent on the phone with each of them.

I think the problem is holding the state in conferring dignity.  The state is expressing an affirmation or refutation of given conduct in accordance with the interest and needs of the state.  As such the state may legislate or encourage undignified conduct which is in the states interest.  This is respondents argument.  That while society may assign dignity to the institution of marriage, the state has no intention in or is not trying to assign dignity in endeavoring to meet state interests.

The Respondent must argue this if the procreative centric state interest is to have any merit. The only problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of what I think a majority of people's ideas are regarding the purpose of marriage. I think there are a substantial number of people that get married for reasons other than the promise of child rearing. People that get married with no intention of procreation don't sit down and say "I know that marriage as recognized by the state is procreative centric, but we can pull a fast one on them and get married regardless of our intent or ability to have children". Nor do they get married because the state dignifies marriage, but it's not beyond reason that many get married because of the legal benefits that attend the dignity of the state recognition of marriage. The benefits expressly denied same sex couples. Hell, I'd wager the Respondents don't truly buy the narrative they're spinning; a hazard of the profession in some cases evidenced by the quote you ended your comments with.

Argument may than be made that the states affirmation is perceived by the general populace as imparting dignity.  To which two things may be said.  First, such an argument would stand in contradiction to the general observations that while the state permits infanticide (in the form of abortion) and homicide (in the form of execution) dignity does not follow the agent by which infanticide and homicide are carried out.  Thus, state sanction did not convey dignity.  

Objection; irrelevant

Seriously though, I have attempted to play fair by limiting the discussion to the legal merits of the case. I feel betrayed with your assertion that abortion is a form of infanticide. You can't support this using well established legal definitions. Sir Thomas would be greatly disappointed.