Almalieque wrote:
You're completely missing the point.
No, I'm not.
Quote:
Guess what happened to those relevant things? They all got amended to the Constitution.
Some things have. Others have been determined to fall under the existing Constitution via judicial review. The court accepted right to privacy, for example.
Quote:
You're simply denying the fact that certain rights were granted in the constitution during a span of time and SSM isn't one of them.
I don't think you understand what I was saying at all because you're completely off base here. In fact, we may as well be having two separate conversations. I've stated that the US government plays a role in marriage largely because it stemmed directly from another government which did the same thing. The main take-away from that is that the Esteemed & Holy Founding Fathers never sat around and said "So... let's develop an overarching theory for why we should be involved in marriage and base our future marriage related legislation strictly off that rationale."
There is no singular rationale for marriage benefits and there never has been. Do you even remember how the whole jaunt down Tradition & Common Law Lane got started? Because you made a turn somewhere in babbling about the Constitution and neglected to tell the rest of us.
