Face it, there is no principle that a State can prohibit marriage of any type.
No 'power to prohibit' has ever been delegated to any level of government in the USA.
-- Reasonably regulate, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
Well, the principle you support and argue for does not exist -as such, you battle with windmills and win hands down.
Unable to actually argue the issues outlined above, you simply deny they exist. How weird.
You conflate the ability of people to live together and engage in sexual activity with the institution of marriage recognized and accommodated by society...
BS. No comparison. -- I've said that States can reasonably regulate marriage, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
The state can prohibit some people living together and engaging in sexual activity e.g. children regardless
Nope, -- the state can reasonably regulate some non sexual aspects of people that live together & raise children.
the state can not prohibit adults consentually living together and engaging in sexual activity... HOWEVER, the state does not have to reward those who choose to live together and engage in sexual activity UNLESS they meet certain requirements -these requirements comprise "marriage"...
Again, you're arguing a point not at issue.
A pig with lipstick on is still a pig...
Clever remark if you're into pig jokes.
You make a pointless argument e.g. States can reasonably regulate parenthood, yes. -- Prohibit, no.
HOWEVER we are discussing here one things that prohibit naturally and factually both parentood and subsequently the rational premise underlying what makes a marriage legitimately recognized as such -the possibility of procreation.
ONLY by detaching from reality in discarding rational basis does your argument appear legitimate.
The argument you attempt to advance is a fallacy -an absurd illogical construct: e.g the State can not prohibit men from becoming pregnant...
ONLY by ignoring the biological reality of procreation which is the rational basis premising marriage does your argument "seem" legitimate...
P.S. repeating the absurd ad infinitum adds no legitimacy. IF you have an additional argument -then cough it up...
No 'power to prohibit' has ever been delegated to any level of government in the USA. -- Reasonably regulate, yes. -- Prohibit, no
I would suggest that my arguments thus far in regards to "prohibition" have defeated yours head on...
Now, let me offer an alternate argument -one that instead of taking the "prohibition" issue head on -cuts it off at the knees by concluding said issue of "prohibition" is actually a non-issue in regards to legislation and only applicable to judicial activists...
RE: the Amendment we discuss. Based upon my interpretation which hinges principally on one word, "construe", which I assume was chosen specifically and intentionally I would disagree with any who proclaim a potential "prohibition" of federal or states in regards to marriage.
ARTICLESECTION 1. This article may be cited as the ‘Marriage Protection Amendment’.
SECTION 2. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.’’.
CONSTRUE: To adduce or explain the meaning of; interpret...
In my opinion the Amendment simply prohibits a judiciary the ability to construe a marital construct and leaves open the question legislatively at both federal and state levels...