Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Thanks to the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling marriage restrictions must now pass strict scrutiny and the marriage has be redefined as security and dignity centric.

Please tell me you aren't confusing the respondents' concentrating on a procreative centric definition of marriage and the actual definition of marriage. The respondents concentrated on this aspect of marriage because they knew there was no way in hell any of the other commonly accepted and well known attributes of marriage could be used in argument and have a chance in of surviving a 14th amendment challenge. The definition of marriage hasn't changed, the procreative centric concentration was simply the only viable defense available.

Ha ha!! You have no idea how right you are. You see the petitioners could not win if the law still considered marriage under a procreative definition. As Stated by Chief Justice John Robert:

"The Constitution itself says nothing about marriage, and the Framers thereby entrusted the States with “[t]he
whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife.” Windsor, 570 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting
In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890)). There is no dispute that every State at the founding—and every State
throughout our history until a dozen years ago—defined marriage in the traditional, biologically rooted way. The four States in these cases are typical. Their laws, before and after statehood, have treated marriage as the union of a man and a woman. See DeBoer v. Snyder, 772 F. 3d 388, 396–399 (CA6 2014). Even when state laws did not specify this definition expressly, no one doubted what they meant. See Jones v. Hallahan, 501 S. W. 2d 588, 589 (Ky. App. 1973).

The meaning of “marriage” went without saying. Of course, many did say it. In his first American dictionary, Noah Webster defined marriage as “the legal union of a man and woman for life,” which served the maintenance and education of children.” 1 An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). An influential 19th-century treatise defined marriage as “a civil status, existing in one man and one woman legally united for life for those civil and social purposes which are based in the distinction of sex.” J. Bishop, Commentaries on the Law of Marriage and Divorce 25 (1852). The first edition of Black’s Law Dictionary defined marriage as “the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for life.” Black’s Law Dictionary 756 (1891) (emphasis deleted). The dictionary maintained essentially that same definition for the next century.

This Court’s precedents have repeatedly described marriage in ways that are consistent only with its traditional meaning. Early cases on the subject referred to marriage as “the union for life of one man and one woman,” Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15, 45 (1885), which forms “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,” Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211 (1888). We later described marriage as “fundamental to our very existence and survival,” an understanding that necessarily implies a procreative component. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); see Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U. S. 535, 541 (1942). More recent cases have directly connected the right to marry with the “right to procreate.” Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374, 386 (1978)."


Now in saying the definition of marriage has not changed you are sorely mistaken. As written by Justice Kennedy in the majority opinion:

"The lifelong union of a man and a woman always has promised nobility and dignity to all persons, without regard to their station in life. Marriage is sacred to those who live by their religions and offers unique fulfillment to those who find meaning in the secular realm. Its dynamic allows two people to find a life that could not be found alone, for a marriage becomes greater than just the two persons. Rising from the most basic human needs, marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations... Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process."

Clearly the definitions are not the same. And it is by means of the definition to nobility and dignity (something the other definitions did not talk about at all) that Justice Kennedy endeavors to support Same sex right to marriage. Unfortunately this argument is readily adopted to any number of things by which we supplant references to marriage to reference to engage in any prohibited activity X