Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

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?

This a very interesting question. I really had to give it some thought and read up some constitutional and state law to figure it out.

1. There is not an inherent right to abortion. What was decided by the Supreme Court in Roe V. Wade was a reinforcement of the 4th amendment protections to privacy. As such restrictions against abortion must meet strict scrutiny: so that state 1) must have a compelling interest; 2) the discrimination must be narrowly tailored; 3) the discrimination must be the least intrusive means; 4) and the discrimination must satisfy the states interest. In short the court decided in Roe V Wade that states prohibition against abortion violate #3 and is not the least intrusive means of satisfying the states compelling interest.

2. With that said two things were noted by the Supreme Court. First the court recognized the compelling interest of the state increases with the viability of the embryo/fetus. Thus as the fetus approaches autonomous viability it approaches personhood and protection by law as an individual person, whom under the 14th amendment may not be deprived of LIFE without due process of law.

"The United States Supreme Court stated in Roe v. Wade (1973) that viability (i.e., the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid"[6]) "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks."[6] The 28-week definition became part of the "trimester framework" marking the point at which the "compelling state interest" (under the doctrine of strict scrutiny) in preserving potential life became possibly controlling, permitting states to freely regulate and even ban abortion after the 28th week.[6]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Second the Court recognized the States right to regulate abortion so long as it does not impose an undue burden (that is to say so long as it remains least intrusive):

"The subsequent Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) modified the "trimester framework," permitting the states to regulate abortion in ways not posing an "undue burden" on the right of the mother to an abortion at any point before viability; on account of technological developments between 1973 and 1992, viability itself was legally dissociated from the hard line of 28 weeks, leaving the point at which "undue burdens" were permissible variable depending on the technology of the time and the judgment of the state legislatures." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Which we are all aware of the State has regulated highly.

3. In regards to your particular question it may be said the Supreme Court has held, in numerous cases, the compelling interest of the state to promote, preserve, and protect life outweighs privacy protections of the 4th amendment. However, the court has also ruled the State may not intercede in the private health decisions (Roe V. Wade) or private intimacy decisions (Lawrence V. Texas) of individuals until such time as the States compelling interest exceeds the private interests of individuals. The court will take this into account in their decision, though they do not need to because the State's prohibition does not need to satisfy strict scrutiny. It only needs to satisfy rational basis. Furthermore, State recognition of same sex marriage is not a private issue (what is sought is State/public recognition) and thus is not given 4th amendment protections as private health decisions are afforded.