So only couples comprised of one adult male and one adult female who intend to and are capable of reproducing the 'good old-fashioned way' should be allowed to get married? That procreation through heterosexual intercourse is what marriage is all about? Is that what you're saying? It looks like that's what you're saying, but I'd like to be sure.
You've struck on a truism here, though tangentally.
Many governments have justified their interest (or interference, if you prefer) in marriage as a mechanism by which to increase their native-born population. That being the case, obviously a preference would be given to traditional marriage because, unless there's another Star in the East, SSM cannot, absent external assistance, produce offspring.
- - - Updated - - -
But I've stated there are plenty of Christians who are not opposed to SSM. Why would I be hostile to them? No - I am not hostile toward Christians. I am hostile toward bigots who drape themselves with the mantle of Christianity as a veil to disguise their intolerance.
So Christians can be "good" in your eyes so long as they agree with you on this issue. Gotcha.
I've never said you don't have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. What I say you don't have a right to do is regulate others' affairs that have nothing to do with your own. What business is it of yours if a couple wants to get married? How would such a marriage have any effect on you, other than offending your personal morality?
Never been a huge fan of emojis, but an "eyeroll" would be oh-so-appropriate right now.
I very explicitly referred to the second half of the Establishment Clause, which reads "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"...first portion of the Establishment Clause...."nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof"...the second half of the Establishment Clause, which is the relevant part you're ignoring.
A lawsuit forcing an organization to pay for forms of birth control which that organization considers an abortifascent is an explicit and unconstitutional violation of the second part of the Establishment Clause. A lawsuit awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages against the owners of a private business which declines to bake a wedding cake for a SSM couple or to take photographs of the wedding of a SSM couple are similarly unconstitutional violations of the second half of the Establishment Clause. SCOTUS, in their decision to legalize SSM, punted when it came to taking into account such unintended consequences- if they were indeed "unintended"- and will be forced to take up a case based on such challenges to draw a definitive line between the two contradictory sets of civil rights.
- - - Updated - - -
There seems to be a problem with what you write, whether or not your theory is correct. By your definition, a same sex couple in Kentucky is treated differently by the federal government than a same sex couple in California (e.g. federal income taxes, social security benefits, etc.). Is this result constitutional?
I apologize for the confusion, but I assure you that you, I and the other Forum readers are far from the only folks so afflicted.
The answer to your question is, Yes, the SSM couple in Kentucky would be treated differently than the SSM couple in California, and, No, that would not be Constitutional.
However, had the Federal government not taken it upon themselves to interfere in what should be a sacred, as opposed to secular, institution, which it should have done because the power to regulate marriage in any way does not appear in the Constitution, under the Tenth Amendment, the regulation of marriage would have- and should have- been the province of the state. If the Federal government were not involved in marriage regulation, there would be no Federal laws which the admittedly unequal treatment of SSM couples by the states would violate. If a gay couple in Kentucky wanted all the tax advantages, insurance advantages, etc. that California offered, as a result of a statewide referendum that legalized SSM by a vote of the people- and not a 5-4 ruling by nine unelected and unaccountable judges- then that couple would have to move to California in order to access those benefits.
>BUT<, once SCOTUS decided to rule on the issue of SSM, the outcome was legally predictable; SSM would have to be legal either no where or everywhere, because, as you point out, to treat citizens differently is a violation of, among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment. While I personally disagree with their decision, I cannot but accept that, legally, it was the proper ruling....but they should never have taken up the issue at all.
- - - Updated - - -
It's a fair statement to say that "science" has no position on the legal aspects of marriage.
Now, that said, obviously the most favorable circumstance for the continuation of a species which reproduces only through sexual reproduction is a "union", call it whatever you will, between at least one man and one woman, not closely enough related so as to raise the spectre of birth deformities. A civilization which has predominately same-sex "unions" is, unless the opposite sex "unions" are particularly fertile and/or climatic conditions, resources and such are better than the historical average, doomed to eventual extinction.
