You (and Roberts) don't acknowledge the "right to marry" for those who 'don't fit'.
That's what it comes down to.
Marriage isn't, contra-Roberts, about the state saying which couples are worthy. Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share.
It's not about procreation, it's not about keeping blood lines pure, it's not about not offending Chuthlu or Odin or Zeus or the FSM.
It is, in the USA in 2015, about two adult people (not any other hypothetical set) making a commitment to each other that is recognized by the state and conferred with certain rights and responsibilities.
See my other reply below in the thread.
Society isn't static. The interpretation of the law isn't static either. SC justices decide what the law means - that's their job.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Marriage isn't, contra-Roberts, about the state saying which couples are worthy. Marriage is a fundamental right that two adults can share.
It's not about procreation, it's not about keeping blood lines pure, it's not about not offending Chuthlu or Odin or Zeus or the FSM.
It is, in the USA in 2015, about two adult people (not any other hypothetical set) making a commitment to each other that is recognized by the state and conferred with certain rights and responsibilities.
See my other reply below in the thread.
Society isn't static. The interpretation of the law isn't static either. SC justices decide what the law means - that's their job.
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.