The argument before the courts was that consenting adults, such as gay couples, should be allowed to marry.
Are you saying now that multiple partners and close relatives, all of whom are mature willing companions, are not consenting adults if they choose to form marriage groups?
Are not multiple partners and close relatives, all of whom are mature willing companions, are not free persons?
Sounds like the government only wants to intrude into the affairs of other mature willing companions who's only desire is to form marriage groups of their choosing.
That's called discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.
It's like telling the Asians, Hispanics, Native Americans, etc,... that just because the law now allows blacks and whites to enjoy interracial marriages that they can't.
The government and you need to quit discriminating and allow all mature willing companions to enjoy their...
*****CHUCKLE*****
No, that was not the argument. The argument was that there is no compelling reason to deny a gay person equal protection of the law.
I read the term 'consenting adults' mentioned several times in the Iowa rulings which came prior to this most recent ruling so too me that term is part of the justification of the ruling.
So now you're saying that all mature willing companions don't deserve equal protection under the law?
Show me a compelling reason not to support allowing all mature willing companions to form marriage groups as they choose so long as all involved are mature willing companions.
Good luck with that.
*****CHUCKLE*****
No, I'm not saying that. I am saying the law is equally applied. Incestuous marriage is not allowed for anyone so everyone is treated the same.
And the compelling reason you seek has been explained to you. Incest is illegal. Polygamy is illegal. The state does not offer marriage licenses which endorse illegal behavior. If homosexuality was still illegal, same-sex marriage would never have been allowed for the same reason.
You've not shown me anything to make me believe that the behavior, namely allowing close relatives and multiple partners to marry, should be considered illegal. As I recall the 14th Amendment forbids states from making or creating laws that abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. Since these laws you mention also deny these other mature willing companions their liberty to marry freely with other consenting adults this also violates the 14th Amendment. Therefore 'NO', the law is not equally applied because people with latent closet religious beliefs, such as yourself, believe that close relatives and multiple partner marriage should be illegal, though you can't explain why it should be illegal.
FACT: The courts brought up the subject of close relatives and multiple partners when making their decision.
Close relatives and multiple partners are only mature willing companions who deserve equal protection from laws that violate their privileges and liberty to live as they choose.
*****CHUCKLE*****
I don't have to show you why those acts are illegal. They are. Your position dies a thousand deaths because of it since their legal status is a compelling reason to ban those types of marriages.
Now if you want to fight for those acts to be legal, you're more than welcome to file suit in your state.
I'm not saying the "you" have to show me why those acts are illegal.
I am saying though that the justices who mentioned those very acts during the proceedings do have to justify their ruling for overlooking other mature willing companions (consenting adults) which includes those forms of marriage.
Otherwise they should have thrown everything back at the legislators (Congress) for further clarification.
I believe that's one of the Checks And Balances built into our form of government.
*****CHUCKLE*****
