Americans have a right to marriage. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.
States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.
States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages. Not children, close relatives or polygamy.
States have also restricted marriages by age(9 year old's cannot get married), by marital status(you don't have the right to marry a second person if you are already married), and by legal and/or biological relationship(brothers marrying sisters, fathers marrying daughters, adoptive mother marrying son etc). States have been able to successfully defend these restrictions as fulfilling a societal purpose. COP OUT. Because they said so doesn't count. They said SSM didn't count either. According to you, all that's legal is just, all that's not legal is just. Again, cite a single argument in support of gay marriage that cannot be applied to close relatives. Note: Gay marriage doesn't "fulfill" a society purpose, nor do prison inmates getting married..
Clearly reading comprehension is not your strength.
States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.
A couple does not need to prove that their marriage serves a societal purpose- the State needs to prove that it doesn't.
Now- you asked me for the argument for 'gay marriage'- I provided it.
You can either actually reply to my argument- or you can't
So far you haven't been able to.
Clearly nothing. My R/C has been keen since I was a kid. I also recognize BS when I see it. What YOU'RE saying is gay marriage is legal because they say so. Gay marriage cannot possibly serve a societal purpose. It's a waste of time, money and leads to confusion and decay. On the topic of BS, the court decided that gay marriage was a constitutional right, not that " they couldn't prove it wasn't". Speak of reading comprehension, read this "Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his sweeping decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. “They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.”
So once again, in the name of twisting definitions and the Constitution as a liberal agenda, WHAT ARGUMENT FOR GAY MARRIAGE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO MARRIAGE BETWEEN CLOSE RELATIVES? Take note, the courts decided against gay marriage in the past, just as they have marriage between relatives. Can you comprehend that?
Clearly your reading comprehension is not 'keen' since you still don't understand my actual words
- What YOU'RE saying is gay marriage is legal because they say so.
Americans have a right to marriage.
States can only restrict that right when restricting that right serves a definable societal purpose.
States have in the past restricted the marriage rights of Americans of mixed race, of Americans who owe child support, Americans in prison, and Americans of the same gender- and the Supreme Court has found that the states could not provide a societal purpose that was achieved by restricting those marriages.
- Gay marriage cannot possibly serve a societal purpose.
We all have the right to marriage- whether you think a couple getting married serves a societal purpose is immaterial- your rights to marriage can only be denied when such denial serves a societal purpose
Let me try this another way:
Americans have the right to own guns. The government can only restrict that right based upon a societal purpose- such as denying convicted felons the right to own guns.
But a law saying that women cannot own guns would be unconstitutional.