Its absolutely valid you just don't like addressing it.
Nope, you just don't provide anything worth while to "address" cause you're not making an argument, you're making an ignorant statment.
You wish to throw out law banning gay marriage.
Yes, and Redress and others are also giving REASONS why it should be thrown out. Unlike you who....
When a child and an adult come to you and say they want to get married and you can't deny them their "right" they are using the same argument as you are ie their "right" to marray.
Just make statements that assert what people must do without giving any reasons, any argument, whatsoever. For your above statement to be true you must actually take Redresses stated reasonings and show why they apply to children. You can not, which is why you don't, you just throw this **** out there and then bitch when its disregarded like the baseless trash it is.
You can't then proclaim there are laws against chidren marrying adults because you just threw out law banning your favored alternative lifestyle.
Except for equal protection relies on various levels of state interest to determine if its okay for the government to discriminate. The issues regarding the states interest in having a "minor" status has been found to be of sufficient level for that particular type of age discrimination, which is the basis of which groups like agnapostate was a part of fight against. However, they have summarily been unsuccessful at overturning the notion that its a legitimate important state interest.
In this case, the courts are finding that such interest isn't present in regards to discrimination based on (by this case) discrimination based on orientation. As such, the government can't discriminate. Whether or not this will actually be the final result will not be known until the Supreme Court rules.
The REASONS for the state to have a compelling interest in a minor status and states to have a compelling interest in homosexual marriage are
entirely different. Because they are entirely different one can quite easily argue in favor of one and against the other or vise versa.
So no, arguing that the EPC protects sexual orientation (or in my case gender) from laws prohibiting them from engaging in a legal act does not mean one also must believe that there is no legitimate government interest in having a minor status which restricts the minors ability to enter into contracts which in turn restricst marriage.
But here, so you'll see consistancy. If the Surpreme Court decided that the status as a "Minor" IS a violation of the EPC and removed it, making children their own guardians and removing any power the parents have over them, then yes...they should be able to get married. However such a thing is unlikely to ever occur.
Thats the fallacy of the gay marriage movment.
No its not, its the idiocy of those pushing this counter that are using a fallacy.
You want gay marriage? Fight for an ammendment don't try to get activist judges to bastardize the Constitution into pretending they were ever addressing homosexual marriage when it is painfully clear they never did.
Like it or not, the courts have found that marriage is a constitutional right. You may not like it, I may not like it, but until such time as that's overturned officially it is considered a constitutional right.
The fourteenth amendment is absolutely meant to provide equal protection under the law.
By combining those two things, its not activist to suggest it applies to gay marriage. Marriage, generic, is a right even though at the time only hetereosexual was present. The 14th gives equal protection for all, even if at the time it was focused on blacks. This is no more activist than saying that the 2nd amendment protects ones right to assult rifles. Assult rifles didn't exist in the days of the founders, wasn't even dreamed of them, but ARMS are protected and assult rifles can fall under such a designation....just like gay marriage falls under the designation of marriage.