What's it to get? Marriage as a fundamental right, is the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. Rather straight forward.<quoted text>
YOU DON"T GET IT!!!
Marriage is a fundamental right. As such, it falls upon the state to justify any restrictions on that right.
That's not necessarily true. There still must be a foundational definitional basis for the fundamental right of marriage. It is the union of one man and one woman, of age, able to consent, not currently married, and not closely related by blood, as husband and wife.As an absolute right, marriage would allow anyone marrying anyone else anytime anywhere. Male-female, male-male, female-female, 1 male and multiple females, 1 female and multiple males, multiple males and multiple females, couples of any age. In short, any and all combinations that anyone could (and do) think of.
Exactly, a compelling state interest which does to exist in a same sex relationship.But we don't live in an absolute world. And since the state gives benefits and rights to those married the state places restrictions on those who can marry. Restrictions. But to place a restriction on a fundamental right the state needs... you guessed it...'a compelling state interest'.
Of age, yes. Non humans, that's silly. More than one wife, or husband at a time........The state Restricts marriage by setting a lower age limit to marry. It is constitutional because the state has a compelling state interest to protect children.
And no, you cannot marry a non human because the other party cannot give consent... yes... a compelling state interest.
The state restricts those who can marry to two at a time. The state has a compelling state interest to ensure heredity rights. To affirmatively know who would be the presumptive care-giver if the other spouse is incapacitated, etc. We are not a war-faring society that loses a disproportionate number of males in the population, so plural marriage would not have a stabilizing influence on society. Quite the opposite in fact as witnessed by what happens to the unattached males in fundamentalist LDS communities.
Many societies have had a same sex sexual behavior taboo as well. However now that SMS is legal in some state and countries, the rules have changed. What was once considered immoral is now acceptable. So why is "immoral" for two sisters, or two brothers to marry? No risk of sexual reproduction. They can just as easily, for all practical purposes be "spouses" to each other, as can a SSC, so why not a legal designation as spouses? As far as the equal protection clause, SSM has changed the rules. If two ss first cousins can marry, why not ss siblings?All societies have an incest taboo. Because married couples do tend to have sex and having sex often leads to children, the state has a compelling state interest to ensure the wellbeing of those potential children. So closely related individuals cannot marry as a compelling state interest. And now that the state has that restriction, the state cannot then allow same-sex relatives to marry (your personal red herring) because then the state would run afoul of the equal protection clause; either no close relatives can marry or all close relative can marry.