The argument you posted said what it said, I never disagreed with that. My claim was that it did not say what you were implying that it said. Specifically, that MY argument has "missed the target" in some sort of definitive fashion.
You've implied that the article you posted asserted that gender argument
I was making had "missed the target". The article says no such thing, nor implied such a thing.
First, it plainly acknowledges that it's absolutely plausible for the current SCOTUS to consider the issue despite
Baker. Your source states:
"The answer to that depends upon how the Supreme Court currently would interpret a one-line decision it issued in 1972, in the case of
Baker v. Nelson."
The very fact that he's acknowledging that it
DEPENDS upon how the SCOTUS will act indicates
CLEARLy that the argument has not inherently "missed the target" completely and
IS still plausible to be something that the current SCOTUS listens to.
Second, you've pointed out where the article suggests that "recently" (as of 2012) the gender argument has seen less use as an argument than before. The argument not being used as heavily is not defacto proof that it's "missed the target". And...going back once more as to why I may seem "jacked up"...I've given my opinion on
why it's likely seen less use
repeatedly now and I'm not going to repeat myself yet again for you to simply ignore it once more.
Finally, third, your article does not actually address the argument
I was making. It addresses whether or not it is gender discrimination in a broad sense, at any time in judicial history. That was not the argument I was making. The argument I was making was that given the fact that Gender is now viewed with intermediate scrutiny, the discrimination on the basis of gender for marriage is not substantially related to an important state interest. Your article doesn't address this argument what so ever because it's only focus is on
Baker, which is a case that occur PRIOR to Gender being viewed as needing intermediate scrutiny and thus was not a ruling that states it's constitutional discrimination given the modern precedence.
Redress is another post who has been responding to you, and who's words you've likely been ignoring similar to what you have by and large done with my posts.