Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but here are my thoughts. Please correct me if I'm being dumb.

Not being dumb. Just did not know how it works. Remember the law does not care about what is right or wrong. The law is concerned with what is legal or illegal.

If allowing the two parties to be of the same gender by law is impossible without also permitting unrelated stuff like marrying children, then there is a problem with the law that needs addressing first. It's blatantly absurd to me. I would hope that discussions are about this problem with the law, rather than if this problem justifies holding onto pointless discrimination.

It is not impossible if the law is changed by the states themselves. The states may tailor the law to include and exclude various parties based on rational scrutiny. It becomes very difficult if nearly impossible when a fundamental right is established for marriage. Now any exclusions must be based on strict scrutiny. Furthermore the argument of the petitioners is that marriage is not procreation based. As I posted earlier a nonprocreation based definiton does allow for same sex marriage. But it also remove limitation on the number of partners that can join, the age of the participants, and the social status of those partners (brother marrying sister, father marrying daughter).

The general argument of the petitioners is that any limitation on marriage is pointless discrimination. Thus, they would argue that any of the marriages you consider "blatantly absurd" are just a result of your pointless discrimination. While the respondents argue that some discrimination is required for marriage and that the terms of that discrimination should be based on biological facts. (As expressed in my previous post a procreation centric definition of marriage limits the participants to 2, of the opposite sex, of at least pubescent age).

I sincerely hope that the law makes more sense than this. I imagine groups of people who think that if you allow gay marriage, then the courts must accept the next proposal about marriage, regardless of what it is, without even reading it. That is the nonsense of the slippery slope argument.

Unfortunately the first thing you will realize when you study law is the slippery slope is a reality. People due it all the time when trying to get out of a crime. "I did the same thing as him with just a little difference. He got off so I should too." As a fundamental right strict scrutiny would be required to limit the age, social relation, and number of participants to marriage. If the argument of the petitioners to dignity and security prevail than it may be said that child bride/groom, incestual, and polygamous marriages deserve dignity and security.