“considering you avoided everything else especially “marriage” loll” What exactly are you talking about? Again, read Turner v. Safley. My point has never been that same sex couples are either of a racial minority group or prison inmates. However, Turner appears to expand the court’s finding of a fundamental right to marriage beyond categories of law discriminating against race (in that case, they found it unconstitutional to deprive a prison inmate of the right to marry). The case shows, despite what appears to be your claim, that the deemed fundamental right to marriage is not limited to striking down racially biased laws.
All I am doing is citing Supreme Court precedent. Since we are a common law system ultimately stare decisis is the cornerstone of our legal system. Again, if you disagree with precedent, fine. But based on precedent, I just don’t see any other way for a judge to decide the issue.
From a policy perspective, the government should be out of marriage entirely (afterall, marriage licenses weren’t issued until the progressives took over in the late 1800s/early 1900s). Leave it up to private religious and secular groups who they want to treat as married within their own groups and force no one else to recognize their decisions.
What are the "common laws" or "stare decisis" clauses that deconstructed the standard definition of female-male matrimony? What specific legal rationale (Used by the Court's DOMA case) that was *NOT* made up law but "found in the shadows", destroys the standard definition? Where was that "stare decisis" at? Is marriage deconstructed to the point of incest being legalized next on the hit list? A marriage between a mother and son has more to do with matrimony than same sex partnerships, btw. I assume polygamy cases are already being "rationalized" in the courts, but not yet ready for prime time.
Race and prisoners were specifically enumerated in your examples and maintained the standard definition of marriage. If not why wasn't there same sex "protections" in place already and spelled-out. I believe in enumeration (Especially when adhering to Natural Laws) not your penumbras under a "living Constitution".
Also marriage licenses were issued way before the late 1800's, especially in larger settlements. Why was that? Also, why were the legal requirements for licenses expanded in the first place? One hint; look under pension laws during the time of when the Articles of Confederation was the governing "device" then continuing on under our current Constitution (Civil War led to another "explosion"). Another "hint" is self-explanatory considered what happened during the later part of the 19th century; the main "causation" was not the progressives' "correlation".