No, that's what you THINK my argument has been, but you are MISTAKEN!
Uh huh, I have not read the whole post yet, but I am sure you will again repeat it.
There is no "prohibition" on any kind of marriage, there is a definition of marriage, and some things fit the criteria while others don't. You're kinda fucked in the head when it comes to words and how they are used.
And THE "definition" of marriage once excluded interracial couples, because some retards believe that God had ordained it as such.
Presently, marriage is defined as the union of a man and woman. Several other criteria for marriage may also apply, the man and woman must be of legal age, they can't be too closely related, they can't be already married to someone else, and they have to be alive. It is not discrimination to refuse issuance of a marriage license if any of these criteria are not met, it is just how we've defined marriage. There is no caveat that someone has to be heterosexual, or can't be homosexual... if that were the case, I would side with you in having that overturned. I don't believe marriage should be based on sexuality... just one man/ one woman, as it has been traditionally understood.
So, now THE "definition" is dependent on time and place. Quick, try to deny you ever used the word "presently" or try to twist it to mean something else so that you can pretend THE "definition" is written in stone and may not be changed, without bringing a plague upon us.
And again, you return to pretending all the criteria for participants (which does not define marriage) is equivalent. It is not. Most of the other criteria relate to a valid state interest. We've already been over this, but you will just pretend that was never really your argument and go back to some other invalid point.
You argue for a redefinition of marriage, to accommodate a sexual lifestyle. However, the 14th stipulates, if you extend special considerations to one group of people, it must be equally applied to all groups on the same basis. If marriage is changed to become based on sexuality, then you open the door for other sexuality to be equally considered. Granted, you are correct about illegal acts, they are still illegal for now, and wouldn't be considered. Like I said, first up will be the Polygamists... I notice you had no comment on whether you would support Polygamist Marriage... My guess is, you wouldn't have a problem with it... and my guess is, as time progressed on, and other sex nuts came out of the woodwork to "demand dey rights" ...you'd be right there arguing their case, because you want to redefine marriage to accommodate sexual lifestyles, and as long as you can't see a victim, you believe they should be able to pervert marriage in any way they see fit.
Yep, there it is. lol... You open by denying this is your argument and close with a repetition of it. So...
Your argument has been that overturning prohibitions on gay marriage, under the 14th, must lead to overturning prohibition on underage, incest or marriages to mailboxes and animals. But it will not for the same reasons you acknowledged Lawrence has not led to overturning laws prohibiting related sex acts.
At least you have FINALLY acknowledged the difference, but I am sure you will back off of it later.
I am not redefining anything, because who is allowed to marry does not define marriage.
As for polygamy, I have answered. I can see no valid state interest in prohibiting it, so long as all consent, which would include all of the existing marriage partners.
Tell us how that would change THE definition of marriage when it was seemingly permissible or at the very least tolerated in many biblical stories and in many cultures?
But challenges to polygamy laws could come with or without a ruling in favor of gay marriage. I am not sure the precedents relate all that well. The 14th amendment applies to gay marriage, because the prohibitions discriminate based on gender in the same way as miscegenation laws discriminated on race. Polygamy has nothing to do with either race or gender, but just the numbers.
If I were arguing in favor of it, I guess I would tie it into the first amendment and religious freedom. The fact, is that it is a different case and would be a different movement. Certainly, a precedent on the issue at hand could affect it, but it is not certain and not necessary to bring a challenge to those laws.
I, honestly, have not considered it much because it is not relevant right now. If a case were brought today, I am sure the court would either find some way to deny protection (not saying I would support whatever reasoning they may use) or they would simply refuse to hear it, because a ruling in favor of polygamy would almost certainly upset an overwhelming majority. Or at least, I think it would. But that is hard to gauge when no one is really pressing for it.
Our system does not allow the courts to do much in the face of an overwhelming majority. The courts could not have thrown out anti-miscegenation laws in 1880, even if they had wanted to and believed the logic against the laws was unassailable. They had to wait until they were safe from reversal by amendment or they would have just setback progress and miscegenation laws might still exist.
In my younger years I was even more idealistic and may have said to hell with them, but I have come to appreciate the wisdom of this. It's quite possible we could have avoided the Civil War and may have accelerated the civil rights struggle that followed if the abolitionists had been a little more patient. But, that's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking.
My change on that has come from more reflection on one of my favorite Jefferson quotes.
"The ground of liberty is to be gained by inches, and we must be contented to secure what we can get from time to time and eternally press forward for what is yet to get. It takes time to persuade men to do even what is for their own good." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Clay, 1790.