Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

Although this sentence would necessarily include heterosexuals as you pointed out, heterosexuals have the option of marriage denied to homosexuals in the first sentence. The express purpose of the second is to deny homosexuals the state conferred legal benefits and standing attending the qualities, significance, and effects of marriage. I could accept that the design of marriage would dovetail nicely with the procreative centric state interest argument, but the other three highlighted cut against the Respondent argument that the state recognition of marriage is in no way dignity bestowing. I don't have a crystal ball, but I have to imagine this is where the Respondents lost Kennedy.

The sentence does not discriminate against homosexuals. The law does not care about orientation. This is evidenced by the definition of marriage not being limited according to orientation but according to biology. Parties of opposite sex may marry (in recognition of the biological potentiality of offspring Naguyen V INS; not just hetero orientation of parties).

You may be right in that Kennedy did not accept respondents argument that the state does not confer dignity in the sanctioning of marriage. Legally the respondent is correct in this assertion as legal conference of marital status does not convey sociological dignity. An interesting unintended consequence of the argument that marriage confers dignity is that all who are not married are lacking in dignity in relation to those who are married and it is the laws fault!!!

Roberts vote is a bit trickier to assess. If I remember correctly, during the procreative centric discussion there was a tacit admission that the Respondents considered adoptive relationships inferior to biological relationships. Roberts is an adoptive parent. There's no way of knowing what significance Roberts will give this.

Respondents really went out of their way to stress that adoption is a separate state issue and that adoptive parents are not inferior to biological relationships (I believe the respondent even said people who adopt are heroes!!). Respondents went on to say that adoption is dealing with a factual situation where children have already been separated from their biological parents. However, both petitioners and respondents argue that marriage is separate from adoption. Petitioners so as not to be required to adopted for marriage, and respondents under the procreation centric argument.