reply to post by SamaraTen
Having read the op's point of view and what is written, the following can be stated:
While the OP is correct that marriage is not in the original concept of the constitution as it is written, however, there are as his sources would
indicate there are many things that are not in the constitution at all. Though many of these ideas and rights that we take for granted, may not been
per say written or mentioned, they are covered by the protection that the constitution would provide under one form or another.
The Op, however is incorrect in his aspect and view of marriage, as that would ultimately, if it is what we take to be the only reason for marriage
would invalidate those marriages that are childless, or even though where the couple is too old to bear children, does it then invalidate their
marriage? How about a couple who is infertile or incapible of having children? Or where one person is steril, does that mean that person does not
have the right to marry another of their choice? Or even what if both persons are not of sound mind or handicapped in one way or another? Do we now
tell the returning vetrans, that due to their injuries they can not get married or that their marriages are now invalidated, cause the injuries may
have made them steril or incapible of having children?
The main reason why the 14th admendment is used when it comes to ideas and concepts that are not covered under the constitution, such as marriage is
that it deals with the equal protection under the law of the United States of America. In short, you can not ask one group to do what everyone else
does, yet deny them the same rights and freedoms under the same law, that is the very essence of discrimination. So is it fair and when you take out
all of the other factors in the question it all boils down to the following:
When 2 people get married, what defines it as a marriage in the eyes of the law where it is equal for all? Is it in the control and perview of the
religious aspect, or that of the state?
Those 2 questions will have to be weighed and determined before the court can proceed in its decision.
Take out gender, take out all other factors and go from there, use no religious conotations, but in straight black and white aspects.
This one of the first times I have ever heard of a court case being so complex that the Supreme Court is split in equal parts, that means that all of
the Justices are at a lose, and ultimately, have to decide based on their conscious and what the law would represent, and how they would view the law.
We can not know what is or is not on their mind or how they will rule in this aspect. Nor can we tell how things are going to come out. The court
may even decide not to rule, as it is looking at this as it is not within its perview to decide if it can make this kind of decision. We will not
know for the time being. In any case the opinion and decision will make for an interesting read.