Hahahaha 
Poor Anima, no one whats to talk to you, Because it seems that I may be the reason for this I will take the bold step and do my best and debate you.
I do have a question, If the state's interest is children or the issue of population can it be argued that because the state allows birth control to be sold in its boundaries, (even the state's own medical system provides birth control in both blue and red states) Allows children to be adopted by other nations or (to some) grants abortion that aid in the decreasing of the population. To now argue that marriage is important to the state because of population, is hypocritical and considered to not be the states intent given their actions in support of various forms of reducing the population?
Can the court take this into account when deliberating the cases?
Poor Anima, no one whats to talk to you, Because it seems that I may be the reason for this I will take the bold step and do my best and debate you.
I do have a question, If the state's interest is children or the issue of population can it be argued that because the state allows birth control to be sold in its boundaries, (even the state's own medical system provides birth control in both blue and red states) Allows children to be adopted by other nations or (to some) grants abortion that aid in the decreasing of the population. To now argue that marriage is important to the state because of population, is hypocritical and considered to not be the states intent given their actions in support of various forms of reducing the population?
Can the court take this into account when deliberating the cases?
