There need not be a state interest to grant the right to marry or "redefine" marriage. A state interest comes up when a state tried to deny a right. It is part of the judicial level of review called strict scrutiny. You've just aired your ignorance of the law once again.Why yes there is. Is there a compelling state interest in redefining marriage, in calling a came sex personal intimate sexual relationship, marriage? No, there is not.
And, unless restricting marriage to being between a man and a woman serves a compelling state interest, those constitutional provisions are unconstitutional under the federal constitution. This isn't a difficult concept.What we have are state constitutions which define marriage as, surprise, a union of one man and one woman.
They have no merits, and they are in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.They stand on their own merits.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Neither of which rises to the level of a compelling state interest. Does the marriage of an infertile heterosexual couple equal that of a fertile heterosexual couple? Your point is disingenuous at best.Hellllooooooo....differences? Function and form.
Simple, it isn't about outcomes, it is about protection of the law. You seem to be confusing this simple issue.How can u have equal protection when the form and function are not the same?
There aren't gay people? It's pretty much a fact that gay people exist, kiddo.That has yet to b conclusively proven. Even so, there's no reason to redefine marriage.
You've yet to offer any state interest served by denying same sex couples the right to marry. Personally, I think you are incapable of offing any such interest.Exactly, all men and all women, each able to marry the other sex.
Sure there is, namely to fulfill the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection of the laws.There's no valid reason to call a SSR, legally, marriage.
I wonder what you are going to do later this month when the US Supreme Court rules against your position?
And they market it as a burger. Your argument on this point was utterly inept. Then again, all of your arguments are utterly inept, and unsupported by fact, law, or reason.Yet, manufacturers, attempt to create a veggie patty that looks like a hamburger. Hmmmmmm.....