"No, the judges would be ruling on the constitutionality of th ecurrent definition; unconstitutional."

Yes, the current definition, and thereby "changing" it on their own by ruling it unconstitutional.

"I also see an end to one spouse too."

Good luck on that one! Not that I stand to gain from such a change! LOL


"But it applies equally to all under that age, males females, etc."

But it doesn't prevent the intended and written discrimination against those under 18/21yrs. That's what I'm saying in that the 14th is only good if the discrimination has no merit. Otherwise a 10yr old might try to claim that the laws against underage drinking are a form of age discrimination and site the 14th amendment as an arguement. As the 14th is written, he can't because the 14th doesn't claim all people are equal. In the case if interracial marriage, it had no merit for discrimination. In the case of drinking, the discrimination(age) HAS merit. In the case of same sex marriage, I don't believe the discrimination has merit, but I also don't believe the Supreme Court has enough pro members to get it done, and by leaving it up to the states(which is IMO what they will do) they won't have to. Remember, it's all about interpretation and they still have to have a majority.

He couldn't answer.

Figures.

Ya that question really messed him up for awhile!
He really hates it when I do that!