It's inaccurate to suggest it has failed in some broader sense for the plethora of reasons I've stated in my past few posts.
As I've explained repeatedly, my argument isn't the same as was argued in Minnesota, because precedence regarding gender discrimination and what level of scrutiny is applied to it have changed since the ruling in Baker.If it isn't the same, so be it.
This is true, there is a question as to whether or not gender discrimination in marriage is constitutional or not.but the MN decision in that case does raise a question
I've acknowledged that from the very beginning. From the very beginning of my posting about that topic in this thread I acknowledge that this is my personal belief, not that it is factual constitutional law. I've also stated that I've yet to see what I would consider a legitimate or reasonable argument that there is an important state interest being substantially served by discriminating against gender in marriage.
But I've never suggested that it is anything but "questionable" and up in the air from a legal stand point, because I fully recognize that it is.
For a few reasons.why didn't YOU mention it when I asked if it had been used before?
One, at the point that you asked me if it had been used before, we had already gone back and forth a number of posts with you continually and repeatedly treating my argument as if I was talking about orientation when I clearly wasn't. Given that it at least APPEARED that you were in no way taking the time to read and understand my posts I had no strong inclination to do research at your behest or answer your questions when you had yet to actually answer or engage me on my claims.
Two, another poster addressed this with you (redress in post #338) highlighting a number of more recent and more relevant cases that dealt with Gender as part of the equation...one instance disagreeing with the claim (with Baker as part of that reasoning) and one actually agreeing with the claim. It also noted that the case that ruled it wasn't unconstitutional gender discrimination is an appeal that is being heard by the SCOTUS, while the one that deemed it unconstitutional gender discrimination was denied appeal by the SCOTUS. So more recent examples than Baker, that were far more relevant, were already mentioned.
Three, as you state, I don't believe Baker is exceptionally relevant in and of itself to my argument. I've stated why I feel that way in multiple posts now. More importantly, since there are more modern cases...which have been mentioned in post #338...that rely on Baker, those cases function well enough to highlight that part of questionable legal precedence.