"A primary function" does not mean a necessary function to remain a fundamental right. Again, recent courts including the Supreme Court have made it clear; procreation is not a necessary function for marriage to remain a fundamental right of all persons. Even ability to have sex is not a legal requirement. Even 100 years ago, they recognized procreation was not the only function of marriage, and not a requirement. The Windsor decision makes this clear as well.<quoted text>
Yet there have been other court cases, affirming those rulings which date back over a hundred years long before "gay" became a reference for same sex sexual attraction/behavior. Actually it's sexual references referred to opposite sex sexual practices first.
The laws were changed. So how can they be treated under the same laws, if the laws were changed? You've contradicted yourself Nye.
They are not "equal", differ in form and function.
The Supreme Court has made clear marriage, as defined as the legally recognized union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a fundamental right. Not once did they say same sex marriage is a fundamental right. If it had, every single state constitutional amendment defining marriage as a monogamous conjugal union would be null and void.
The flaw in your argument is that if you can redefine marriage for your desire/need/want and still argue it is a fundamental right based on YOUR definition, then you cannot deny others the right to do the same.
The 1,138 federal laws that were already in effect for os couples remain in effect for all couples. Many already use the term spouse, as they apply equally regardless of gender. A spouse inherits property from the other spouse, regardless of gender.
Again, incest is an entirely different restriction. They still have plenty of choices, just not a parent or sibling.
Glad to see you finally admitting marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.
The Supremes have not yet addressed the constitutionality of state laws that restrict gender. The prop 8 folks tried, but the court said they didn't have a case, and left the lower ruling in place. Prop 8 violates the equal protections requirements of the 14th amendment.
Again, recognition of same sex marriage does not change the effect of the 1,138 federal laws that define what legal marriage means. Changing the gender terms to neutral terms such as spouse, doe not change the effects of those laws. A spouse can still inherit property from the other spouse, receive social security benefits of the spouse, etc. None of the laws are removed and none of the effects are changed by changing "husband" or "wife" to "spouse."
And again, removing the gender restriction has nothing to do with the other restrictions. If someone wants to change those restrictions, they must overcome the reasons for the restrictions. Same sex couples have shown their marriages are the same legal form and function as os couples, and all of the same laws apply equally.