If DOMA is unconstitutional (opposite sex marriage) and same sex marriage is allowed, what law would need to be written to prevent "combinations"? The same constitutional arguements to eliminate opposite sex marriage could be applied to various combinations.
Help me out here.. If everyone has equal constitutional rights how can a "pairing" create a different set of constitutional rights? If men = A Women = B If A and B have equal civil rights, how can the combinaton of A + B create a new constitutional advantage?
If the gov't created laws which favor "pairing" of A + B and we equalize A + A, and B + B to be the same as A + B now we have a cunundrum and that is age. Civil rights don't begin at a certain age. Does the gov't have the right to legislate the age of marriage? Is the age of consent for marriage a moral law? Does the age of marriage violate civil rights?
If A + B were prevented from marrying a blood relative for medical reasons, do the dynamic change for gay couple who are unable to reproduce? Do we need to rewrite laws of marriage to exclude biological factors?
you know how roberts changed penalty to a tax. If they do find in favor of gay marriage... I hope he has the balls to change the name of marriage to State Sanctioned Union.
Just an observation the side who is supposed to be on the side of personal freedom is against personal freedom in this case. The paradox of being a social conservative. If a man is against gay relationships then stay out of gay relationships, something some social conservatives have trouble with.
its more complicated than that. 1. let the people vote... is very valid conservative view point on this issue. 2. conserve what works. How could this be a new Constitutional right. Gays are electing not to marry someone of the opposite sex. But, do they really need a new right to marry someone of the same sex. Why not 3 somes. I just do not see how supporting a new right is libertarian. 3. establish an equal category is a far cleaner solution. 4. get the state out of the marriage game is another if you do not feel the state should encourage the stability of familys. I do not see any way in which a libertarian could be happy that the CA Sup Ct overturned a vote on the issue.