If marriage is all about people who love one another, and not about children, then why should society prohibit siblings from marrying one another? Why prohibit sons from marrying mothers, or fathers marrying daughters, if they agree not to have children? I could imagine a couple of elderly siblings deciding to get married to avoid inheritance taxes, so why should they be prevented from taking advantage of these opportunities that society has heretofore limited to heterosexual couples?

@Deoxy: What makes a mockery of understanding language and enduring law is to think that people meant to enshrine their mistakes. If I say “you are entitled to due process”, that means any process that can be shown to be in fact due is process to which you are entitled, regardless of whether anyone thought it was or wasn’t due at any particular time. If people can later show new types of process that are in fact due, then you are entitled to them as soon as that showing is made.

That’s why the right to free speech includes speaking on the Internet. Nobody intended that, but as soon as it could be shown to be speech, the freedom extends to it. This has nothing to do with whether anyone considered, or would have considered, Internet posting “speech” at the time the first amendment was written.

Try reading the ninth amendment.

I think a great many things should be, but the cost of getting the government to do them (ESPECIALLY the Federal government) is far too high for me to even consider supporting it.

This could quite easily be such a thing.

(Of course, the idea that the Constitution, as written, has such a right embedded in it makes a mockery of the basic concepts of understanding language and enduring law, as clearly, none of the people who wrote it or enforced it for 200+ years would have thought it meant that. Words should have meaning, and changing them should be explicit and intentional. Want a constitutional right for SSM? Pass an amendment. The text as written clearly contains no such thing.)

Bob