Which seems to indicate you have no actual understanding of what precedence means.
Incestuous Marriage and Same Sex Marriage are absolutely unable to be treated as analogs under constitutional law.
Same Sex Marriage, in relation the conversation here, is discrimination on the basis of gender. Constitutional Law has long since established gender as a middle teir category under the EPC, requiring that the government must demonstrate discrimination on such a basis must be substantially related to an important state interest.
Incestuous marriage is discrimination on the basis of family relationship. Constitutional law has shown absolutely
zero evidence of this being treated as a middle or higher teir classification. As such, barring a court setting entirely new precedence regarding that classification, discrimination against it must simply be rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
The bar is set much higher for the government to discriminate against gender compraed to discrimination based on familiar relationship. As such, the court finding that the laws do discriminate on gender doesn't indicate what so ever that the discrimination based on familiar relationship is unconstitutional, because the government has a much lower bar to cross for that classification.
Additionally, the context surrounding both are significantly different. For example, when talking about the "welfare of the children" reason so often referenced by people. It is much easier from a legal stand point to make an argument that such a reason is a LEGITIMATE state interest, but it is far more difficult to make an argument that it's an IMPORTANT state interest in this context. Additionally, it's far easier to suggest a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest in regards to incestuous couples, given the scientific evidence regarding the potential genetic damage to a child born of incest, than it is to suggest how barring same sex couples is substantially related to that interest (and even more so, the fact that said interest may not actually reach the level of "important" in the case of gender).
So would the case provide some very minor levels of precedence that could possibly be built off of? Sure. Every case
ever provides for that. However, that is not a legitimate constitutional reason against something.
A court case declaring that the KKK is free to have marches
COULD set precedence that someone then uses to suggest that the KKK should be free to have marches where they're depicting lynching black people. However, if that is the only reason against allowing them to act on their rights to speech and assembly then it is not a legitimate argument, because the slippery slope that is being pointed to is an entirely seperate issue that can be dealt with based on it's own merits and faults at a latter time
IF it even happens...which is not gauranteed.
Now I'm done playing your game, since it seems even when I attempt to honestly answer your meandering line of questions you still dishonestly misrepresent or flat out ignore what I'm saying. You have
STILL yet to provide an answer, outside of the slippery slope, regarding my initial claim. If you actually have an argument please present it.
Otherwise, I'm not going to continue to indulge your attempts to simply hide and deflect the fact you have no legitimate argument against the claim that it's unconstitutional on the basis of gender.