It's a direct response to your argument. Your whole argument is that government can't decide what marriage is, only the participants can. So what about polygamy? Or siblings? Preposterous you argue, people can't decide what marriage is themselves. What about gays? Of course they can, people can decide for themselves.
Pop just pulverized your argument.
What about them? Those have to be argued on their own merits using the same methods to redress their grievances that others have used.
If you can't come up with a societal harm in allowing them, I reckon they've got as much a chance of winning their case as the Lovings did.
That would be the same argument same sex couples have used cuz
These are STILL SAME SEX COUPLES!
Laughing my ass off!
Sorry Pops, you couldn't legally allow only same sex incest...you know that, right? It would violate equal protection.
Creates a paradox don't it. How do you deny SSSM because hetros can procreate?
Hmmmmm
No Pops there's no paradox. You can't allow same sex siblings to marry and not allow opposite sex siblings. That would be unconstitutional.
Wow, you have one incredible imagination to have found that in the Constitution. Is it in the Article after the one that covers fairy dust and orangutans?