Reply #46: They "could" rule it violated the 14th [View All]

if such a case had been presented. The plaintiff presented no such case and defense presented no such defense.

To issue a ruling on a issue not presented is not judicially sound. The "other side" wasn't given an opportunity to present a defense of that idea/concept.

While you may like the outcome in this instance it s a very dangerous route to take.

Take the Heller decision for example (Heller vs DC ruled 2nd amendment is an individual right).
Heller didn't put incorporation against the states on the table. DC didn't provide any defense against incorporation.
If SCOTUS had ruled beyond the scope of the question and stated the 2nd is incorporated against the states it would be a ruling on a topic in which neither side presented arguments. What is SCOTUS was wrong? Sometimes the issue is black and white but sometimes it is not. The courts shouldn't reach decisions until they at least hear arguments from both sides. What if one side presented a point that the court hadn't considered.

Courts should not decide things not presented as evidence and on which both sides have presented arguments.

So two issues with 14th amendment approach:
1) the plaintiffs didn't present that as an argument
2) is marriage a right? Can you cite any case law indicating it is anything other than a privilege granted by the state.

Arguing something violates the 14th before proving it is a right is getting the cart before the horse.