Obergefell did not establish marriage as a fundamental right, that was done long before.
I disagree. It was stated in an opinion brief, it was not ensconced into law... ie.; "established". The case won on the merits of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, marriage did not have to be a fundamental constitutional right. Besides that, Marriage is something entirely different than Gay Marriage. So even IF it IS a fundamental constitutional right, it isn't same-sex unions.
Nor do I see how Obergefell is related at all to age of consent laws.
Well that's because you don't seem to understand that Obergefell used the Loving opinion brief to create a new fundamental right to marriage (as defined by the pairing) that didn't previously exist under the law. Now it does. That's not Loving's fault. So now, marriage becomes a fundamental constitutional right that can be defined by whatever criteria cranks your tractor, basically. The strict scrutiny test must apply because it's now a fundamental right... it can't be denied on the basis that you find it icky.
On multiple occasions before Obergefell, including Loving, the USSC described marriage as a fundamental right. From my reading previous cases involving marriage have used strict scrutiny because of that determination. I will give you an example : Zablocki v. Redhail. From section a of the syllabus, "(a) Since the right to marry is of fundamental importance, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, and the statutory classification involved here significantly interferes with the exercise of that right, "critical examination" of the state interests advanced in support of the classification is required.". Here is a link to the full text : Zablocki v. Redhail 434 U.S. 374 (1978) . So here we see the court describing marriage as a fundamental right and applying strict scrutiny based on that.
There may not have a been a law written defining marriage as a fundamental right.....but there still is no such law. Obergefell did not create a new law; you will find no new statutes where none previously existed. The USSC has apparently considered marriage a fundamental right for years and made decisions based on that classification a dozen or more times before Obergefell.
Arguing that the fundamental right described by the courts in previous years was based on the idea that marriage was for opposite sex couples is a much stronger argument. Although I have read that in none of those cases did the justices mention opposite genders when discussing marriage, it can likely be assumed for most of them.
Monty, you're having trouble with words again, "Of fundamental importance" is not saying "a fundamental right". And again, stating something to that effect is not establishing a law based on it. Finally... even IF marriage is a fundamental right, marriage is still the union of two genders, with numerous other qualifiers like consent, age, relation, etc.... not same sex unions.?
Says Boss- quoting Boss- citing Boss.
This entire thread is just Boss's contrarian opinion fest, with Pop's trolling added in.