Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

 It was permitted by means of the overinclusivity of the procreative criterion, which once again is sufficient to include 100% of the targeted group and with only a few who are not part of the target group.  With that said it is recognized the relationships and activity the state derives a benefit from are heterosexual and it is for these relationships the state is willing to incur addition burden/cost.  Thus, the state is not opposed to any orientation having heterosexual relationship and intercourse, and is even willing to give State recognition of those relationships.

Question, Why not count those homosexuals that do have children by biological means? Would their offspring not be counted as adding to the benefit of the state like and heterosexual? (True medical insemination is very costly and  has a lower success rate then natural child making, but just for now,) can we say that they benefit the state just like the hetero?

Adoption is another issue unto is self, so I am not counting it in this example. It can be argued with infertility in that it dose not add to population numbers.

Ace;

In what manner do you mean count?  As bolded above the is not opposed to homosexuals entering heterosexual relationships and engaging in heterosexual activity from which it derives a benefit. From this benefit the state is willing to incur an additional cost and give State recognition and benefits.

It is funny you bring up adoption. As it would appear the slippery slope continues (in less than 2 months no less) and homosexuals wanted more than just marriage (who would have ever thought this was the case).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/miss...cbf1e70b54

It will be interesting to see how this case goes. Once again they are suing under the 14th amendment due process and equal protection clauses. Once again the state may discriminate under rational basis scrutiny where the state has a legitimate interest (in regards to children it may readily say it has a compelling interest) and the discrimination is reasonably related to that interest. Thus, there is no violation of either the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses of the 14th. Just as with Obergefell this should be an open and shut case in the favor of the states.

The question becomes if we continue to extend this Due Process protects Dignity (which it does not) and has some mystical relation to Equal Protection BS utilized in Lawrence, Windsor, and Obergefell. To do so the court will have to say there is a fundamental right to adopt children (which there most certainly is not).