"So the result of your restriction is that We The People cannot, through our representatives, make any laws that embody this assumption." -- You
Had you posted my entire quote, the fact that I set in place parameters vis a vis the contention that incest was not to be permitted, would have become apparent, and as such, the fact that I do believe that some legal restrictions are called for in this issue would have become crystal clear.
But as far as a question of which citizens get issued marriage licenses by the government and which do not, the decision must be based on existing laws.
As far as I am concerned, being a homosexual is not illegal in this nation, so laws restricting same sex couples from receiving marriage licenses do not have a legal basis.
"The law must treat committed homosexual relationships as of equal value to a man and woman who marry and procreate."
The Law may not draw a difference on citizens based on whether they are homosexual, or heterosexual as there is no legal definition of the term "homosexual", and the moment you create one, you have also created a new "type" of citizen.
It isn't illegal for a homosexual to marry, except if that homosexual wishes to marry another homosexual, and according to SCOTUS, the ability to marry the person of your choice is one of our basic civil rights.
This restriction could not possibly be based on the couple's ability to procreate, as people who are literally on their death beds can be issued marriage licenses, infertile people are not restricted from receiving marriage licenses, and people well beyond the age of procreation are issued marriage licenses.
So, if homosexuality is not a crime, and procreation is not a requirement for obtaining government issued marriage licenses, what reason does the government have to restrict homosexual marriages?
So what? I am so weary of deflecting this ridiculous argument. Since marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman, then people on their death beds and infertile men and women are welcome to get marriage licenses. OK?
The reason why marriage is defined as a union of a man and a woman is that men and women in general do procreate. Marriage is important to protect the family structure, which in the vast majority of cases involve mothers and fathers.
By simply defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman, there is no need to commit to those legal definitions. However, it is impossible to avoid them in a debate concerning what the Massachusetts SJC has done; i.e. declare the definition itself unconstitutional.
It is beyond argument that homosexuality directly bears on the reason the suit was brought in the first place. Therefore, whether there is any legal definition of homosexuality before or after this debacle, the issue is whether the laws of the people are required to treat the homosexuality of gay couples as equal in the eyes of the law to the heterosexuality of married couples.
The Massachusetts SJC asserts an absurdity: that it is not even rational to make this distinction. I believe myself to be rational when I say that in one category the sexual coupling can sometimes result in procreation, but in the other category, the sexual coupling can never result in procreation.
Moreover, the Massachusetts SJC is calling irrational a majority of Americans who would like to keep the definition of marriage exactly as it is.