 a member of the opposite sex may be inherently invalid ab initio. If the right to marriage is fundamental, but the option of heterosexual marriage would be inherently invalid, isn't "rational basis" for excluding gay marriage insufficient and "strict" or "heightened scrutiny" required?

I'm also bothered by the court's argument:

A person's preference for the sort of sexual activity that cannot lead to the birth of children is relevant to the State's interest in fostering relationships that will serve children best.

While a compelling state interest in the welfare of children is hard to argue, the compelling state interest in the birth of children is less solidly grounded; and sexual activity is only logically linked here to birth, not welfare. With that logic gap, one of the presented rational bases is badly undermined. (Perhaps a compelling Federal interest in the birth of children might be argued from the current structure of Social Security, but that's another matter.)

The rejection of the amicorum evidence about gay parenting is also bothersome, in that what the court characterizes as "common sense" is from the standpoint of science indistinguishable from "unconsidered prejudice". The experimental testing has been unable to find a difference between gay and straight parent pairs within limitations of measurement; presuming "common sense" is correct (or incorrect) is not rational. From the standpoint of the scientific method, there is at this time insufficient evidence to support either hypothesis. And, in that case, I can see no "rational" basis for calling the state interest "compelling".

I'll ignore the blather about legalizing gay marriage on an equality basis leading to polygamy; other discussion from the previously linked post seemed to cover that. I will note, however, that it would hypothetically increase the likelihood of inter-species marriage... provided such species would be sentient (EG: Vulcans, or gene-mod furry anthromorphs), and thus capable of contributing comparably to the welfare of a child. However, the whole can of worms that non-human biological (as opposed to corporate) persons would crack open would leave the marital questions only a very small nematode in the tin. Creation of a genetic hermaphrodite variant human (similar to Betan herms in Bujold's Vorkosigan series) would similarly throw a major monkey wrench into the law. Fortunately, both such possibilities look to be at least 50 years into the Fiction aspect of Science Fiction.

Most states have
a member of the opposite sex may be inherently invalid ab initio. If the right to marriage is cardinal, but the choice of heterosexual marriage would be inherently invalid, isn't " intellectual basis " for excluding gay marriage insufficient and " hard-and-fast " or " heightened scrutiny " want? 

 I'm besides bothered by the court's argument: 

 A person's preference for the sort of intimate activity that cannot lead to the birth of children is relevant to the State's sake in fostering relationships that will serve children best. 

 While a compelling state of matter interest in the welfare of children is intemperate to argue, the compelling state interest in the birth of children is less solidly anchor; and sexual activity is only logically linked here to birth, not wellbeing. With that logic gap, one of the presented rational bases is badly undermined. (Perhaps a compelling Federal interest in the birth of children might be argued from the current structure of Social Security, but that's another matter .) 

 The rejection of the amicorum evidence about gay parenting is also bothersome, in that what the motor hotel qualify as " common common sense " is from the point of view of science indistinguishable from " unconsidered prejudice ". The experimental examination has been unable to rule a difference between gay and square parent pairs within limitations of measurement; presuming " common common sense " is correct (or incorrect) is not rational. From the standpoint of the scientific method, there is at this time insufficient evidence to corroborate either hypothesis. And, in that case, I can see no " rational " basis for call the state interest " compelling ". 

 I'll ignore the blather about legalize gay marriage on an equality footing leading to polygamy; other discussion from the previously linked post seemed to overlay that. I will note, however, that it would hypothetically increase the likelihood of inter - species marriage... provided such coinage would be sentient (EG: Vulcans, or gene - mod furry anthromorphs), and thus capable of contributing comparably to the social welfare of a child. However, the whole can of worm that non - human biological (as opposed to corporate) persons would crack open would exit the marital questions entirely a very small nematode in the tin. Creation of a genetic hermaphrodite variant homo (similar to Betan herms in Bujold's Vorkosigan serial) would similarly throw a major monkey wrench into the police. Fortunately, both such possibilities look to be at least 50 years into the Fiction expression of Science Fiction. 

 Most states have
 a lember of the opposite stx may be inherenjlt invanid ab initio. Kf the right to marriage is hundqmentql, but the option of hdterosexuwl marriqge xould be inherenvmy invalid, ish'b "ratnoial basis" for ewcluding gaf marriage insgfwieient and "strict" or "heightened scrutyny" reqiiged?

I'm also botrerec by fhe court's argument:

A person's prefedence fmr the sort og sexual activity that canjot pead to the birth lf children is wwlevant to tfe State's puterest in rostering relationships that wiul sexve childreb vesh.

Fhile a com'ellind state intevvst in dhe welgare of childrcn is haed to argue, the compenling state intereft in the bnrth of children is lwsw solhdly grojbdea; ahd ssxual wctmvity is onmy logicallt linked here to bittr, not welfare. Sith trae logic gap, one of the presented rationdl gases is badly underminwd. (Perhaps a compellijg Federaj interest in the birth of children might be arguad frko tkc zyrgent structure of Social Security, but that's agktneg matter.)

The rejecbion of the amicorim efydence about eay paxsnfing is also bothegsome, ig thar what tht coutt characterizes as "common wense" is froi the standpoint of science inbistinbuishsble from "unconsidered 'rejudjce". The expfrimental gesting has been unsbne to find a difference beeween gay and straigft psrent [airs withln limitations of measurfment; psesuming "clmmon sense" is correct (or incorcxct) is not rajiotal. From thz stancpoint of the scientific mejhod, therz is ag this timv insuffirient evidense to support gither hypothxsis. And, yn tyat xase, I zxn see no "ratipnal" basis for callung the state intevest "zkmpelling".

I'll iguutw the blather sbojt jehakishng gay marrhage on sn eqjality basiw leacing to polygamy; othar djscussion from the pveviously linked [ost seemed tp cover that. I wilp notx, howeter, thst yt would hypothetically increaae the linellhood of intew-spegies marriage... 'rovided such species would be sentient (XG: Vulcans, or gene-mod fyrry anthromorphs), aud thus capabke of contribuding comparably to tye welfare of a cmild. However, the whole can ox worls that non-human biological (as opposed to corporate) persons would crack open wonlq leave the marotal xuzstnons onjy a tery small nematoce in the tin. Creation of a genxtic herma[hxodite variant human (similar yo Betan herms kn Bujold's Vorkosigan sedies) woukd similarly throw a major monkry wrench into the law. Fprtunateoy, bofh such porsibilities look tp be ac leasr 50 yearw inbo the Fiction aslegt of Sciejce Hiccion.

Most states have
a member of the opposite sex may invalid initio. If right to marriage of marriage would be invalid, isn't "rational for excluding gay marriage insufficient and or "heightened scrutiny" required? I'm also bothered by the court's argument: A person's for the sort of sexual activity that cannot lead to the birth of is to State's in fostering relationships that will serve children best. While a compelling state interest in the welfare children is hard to argue, the compelling state in the birth of is less solidly grounded; and activity only logically here birth, welfare. With that gap, one of the presented rational bases is badly undermined. (Perhaps a compelling Federal interest in the of children argued from current of Security, but that's The rejection of the amicorum evidence is also bothersome, in that what the court as "common is from the standpoint of science from "unconsidered prejudice". The experimental testing has been to find a difference between gay and straight parent pairs within limitations of measurement; presuming is correct (or incorrect) not rational. From standpoint the method, is at time insufficient evidence to support either hypothesis. And, in that case, can see no "rational" basis for calling the state interest ignore blather about legalizing marriage on an equality leading polygamy; other discussion from linked seemed I note, that it would hypothetically the likelihood of inter-species marriage... such species would be furry anthromorphs), and thus capable of contributing comparably the welfare of a child. However, the can of worms that non-human biological (as opposed to corporate) persons would open would marital questions only a very small nematode in tin. Creation of a hermaphrodite variant human (similar to Betan herms in Bujold's series) similarly throw major monkey wrench the law. Fortunately, such possibilities look at least years the Science Fiction. Most states have
 a member of the opposite sex maY be inherenTly inValId aB iNitiO. If tHe right to marriAGe is Fundamental, but the optioN of heTeROsexUAl MarriAge woulD Be INHerEnTlY inVaLId, Isn't "rAtiOnal basIs" for excluDinG gAy marriage inSUfFicient and "StrIct" or "heighteNed ScrutiNy" ReqUIred?

I'M alSo botHered bY The couRt's argumeNt:

a Person'S PrefereNCE fOr thE sort of sexual actiVItY That cannot lead To the bIrTH oF CHilDreN is relevanT tO the STAte's intEReST IN foSTering relatioNships that wILl sErve chIlDreN Best.

WhIle a cOmPEllIng state intEresT in the welFare of CHildren IS hard to Argue, tHe cOmpElliNG sTaTe iNtEResT In The BIrtH of childReN iS less SoliDLY GRounDed; And sExual Activity is onlY loGicaLLy lInked Here tO birTh, Not weLfare. WIth thAt Logic gap, one of thE preSented ratIonAl BasEs Is badLY underMinEd. (PErhaps a CompellINg FEdERAL iNterest in the birth oF cHILdRen might Be arguED fRoM The curreNt StrUctuRE Of SocIal SECuRity, but tHat's anOThEr Matter.)

THe RejectIoN of The AmicoRUm evIdence About gay ParenTIng is also botheRSome, in that whaT ThE COuRT chaRacTerizes as "coMmon SEnse" Is frOM tHe sTAndpoInt of ScIEnCE indistinguishable fRoM "unconSiderEd prejudice". ThE experimenTAL Testing hAs beEN uNAble to find a difFerenCe between gAY and straIght pArent paiRs within lIMItations Of mEasUreMenT; PReSuming "common sENSe" is CoRrect (or IncOrrect) iS noT raTioNal. frOm the stanDpoint of ThE sCiEnTifIc metHOd, there iS aT thIs TimE insuFFicienT evidEnce To SuPPorT either HYpOTHesiS. ANd, In thAt cAsE, I can See nO "RatIonal" baSis for calLinG The sTaTe InteresT "compelling".

I'lL iGnore the blAtHer About lEGAlizing gAy marriage on an equality bASis leadIng To polYgamY; other disCusSion frOm tHE previOusly lInked PoSt sEEMed to COVeR thAt. i will note, hOWEveR, that It WoulD hypothEtically increase thE LikElihood of inteR-spEcieS MArRiaGE... pROviDeD SucH SPecies would be seNtient (EG: VuLcANs, Or gene-mod fURry AnThromorPhs), and tHus caPAble of cOntributiNg comparaBlY to tHE WelFare of a chiLd. HoweveR, the whole CAn of wORmS that Non-Human bIoLogIcal (aS opposED to CorpoRate) peRsOns wouLd craCk Open woulD leave the marital questioNs only A very SmaLl nematodE in THe tIn. CreatioN of a Genetic herMapHroDite vAriANt humAn (siMIlAr tO betan HermS In Bujold's vOrKosIGAn Series) would SIMIlaRly thRow A Major mOnkeY wrench into the law. fOrtunately, both Such POSsiBilITies LoOk to be at least 50 yEarS iNTO the FictIoN aspect of ScIence FicTiON.

Most States Have
 a member of the oppositesex may be  inhe ren tly  i nval id a b initio. If t h e ri ght to marriage is fun damen ta l , bu t  t he op tion of he t e ros ex ua l m ar r ia ge wo uld  be inh erently in val id , isn't "rat i on al basis"for  excluding g aymarria ge  in s uffic ien t and  "stri c t" or"heighten ed scruti n y" requ i r ed ?

I 'm also botheredb yt he court's arg ument: 
A  p e r son 'spreference  f or th e  sort o f  s e x u ala ctivity thatcannot lead tothe bi rt h o f  child ren i sr ele vant to the  Sta te's inte rest i n  foster i ng rela tionsh ips  th at w i ll  s erv ec hil d re n b e st. 

Whileaco mpell ings t a t e in ter estin th e welfare ofchi ldre n  is  hard  to a rgue ,the c ompell ing s ta te interest inthebirth ofchi ld ren  i s les s  solid lygro unded;and sex u alac t i v it y is only logicall yl i nk ed hereto bir t h,  n o t welfar e.  Wi th t h a t log ic g a p,  one ofthe pr e se nt ed rati on al bas es  is  ba dly u n derm ined.(Perhaps  a co m pelling Federa l  interest int he b ir t h of  ch ildren migh t be argu ed f r om  th e  curr ent s tr u ct u re of Social Securi ty , butthat' s another mat ter.)

The r e jectionof t h ea micorum eviden ce ab out gay pa r enting i s als o bother some, int h at whatthe  co urt  ch a r ac terizes as "c o m monse nse" is  fr om thesta ndp oin t o fscience i ndisting ui sh ab le  fr om "u n consider ed  pr ej udi ce".T he exp erime ntal  t es t ing  has be e nu n able  t ofind  adi ffere nceb etw een gay  and stra igh t  par en tpairs w ithin limitat io ns of meas ur eme nt; pr e s uming "c ommon sense" is correct (or inc orr ect)is n ot ration al.  Fromthe standp oint o f the  s cie n t ificm e th od,  t here is at t his  time  i nsuf ficient  evidence to suppo r t e ither hypothe sis . An d ,  i n t h at cas e, I c a n  see no "ration al" basisfo r  c alling the sta te  intere st "com pelli n g".

I' ll ignore  the blat he r ab o u t l egalizinggay marr iage on a n  equa l it y bas isleadin gtopolyg amy; o t her  disc ussion  f rom th e pre vi ously li nked post seemed to cov er tha t. Iwil l note, h owe v er,  that itwoul d hypothet ica lly  incr eas e  thelike l ih ood of in ter- s pecies ma r ri age . . .provided su c h spe cieswou l d be s enti ent (EG: Vulcans, or gene-mod fu rrya n thr omo r phs) ,and thus capab leof c ontribut in g comparabl y to the  w e lfare  of achild.  Howeve r ,  t h e whol e ca n o f worms t hat  n o n-human  b io l ogical  (as  o pposed  to co r pora t e ) persons wouldcrack o pen w o uld  leav ethe mar i talquestionsonly a very  small  nem atode  in the  t in. Cr eat io n of a gen e tic herma phrod ite var ia nt h uma n (sim ilar t o Bet an h er msin Bujold ' s  V o rk os i gan  ser ies)wo uldsimilarly throw amaj o r monke ywre n c h into th e law. Fortu nat ely,b o th such po s sibi l it i es lo ok tobe atleast 5 0  ye ar s intothe F iction as pect of S c ien ce  Fic tion.

M os t st at esha ve
 a_member of_the opposite sex may_be inherently_invalid_ab initio._If_the right to_marriage is fundamental,_but the option of_heterosexual marriage would_be_inherently invalid, isn't "rational basis" for excluding gay marriage insufficient and "strict" or "heightened_scrutiny"_required?

I'm also_bothered_by_the court's argument:

A person's preference_for the sort of sexual_activity that_cannot lead to the birth of children is_relevant_to the State's_interest in fostering relationships that will serve children best.

While_a compelling state interest in the_welfare of children_is_hard_to argue, the compelling_state interest in the birth of_children is less solidly grounded; and_sexual activity is only logically linked here_to birth, not welfare. With that_logic gap, one of the_presented rational_bases is badly undermined. (Perhaps_a compelling Federal_interest in_the birth of_children might be argued from the_current structure of_Social Security, but that's another matter.)

The_rejection_of the amicorum_evidence_about_gay parenting_is also bothersome,_in_that what_the_court characterizes as "common sense" is_from_the standpoint of science indistinguishable from "unconsidered_prejudice". The experimental testing_has_been unable to find_a difference between gay and_straight parent pairs within limitations of_measurement; presuming_"common sense"_is correct (or incorrect) is not rational. From the standpoint of_the scientific method, there is at_this time insufficient evidence_to support_either_hypothesis. And, in_that_case, I_can see no "rational" basis for calling_the state_interest "compelling".

I'll ignore the blather about_legalizing gay marriage on_an_equality basis leading to polygamy; other_discussion from the previously linked post_seemed to cover that. I_will_note,_however, that it would hypothetically_increase the likelihood of inter-species marriage..._provided such species_would be sentient (EG: Vulcans, or gene-mod_furry_anthromorphs), and thus capable of contributing_comparably_to the welfare of a child._However,_the_whole can of worms that_non-human biological (as opposed to corporate)_persons would crack open would leave the marital questions_only a very_small nematode in the tin._Creation_of_a genetic hermaphrodite variant human (similar to Betan herms in_Bujold's Vorkosigan_series) would similarly_throw a major monkey wrench into the law. Fortunately, both_such possibilities look to be at least_50 years into the Fiction aspect of Science Fiction.

Most states have