Birth sex should not be a factor in legal contracts

As you yourself have referenced, "sex" is not an easily definable concept. While the extremes are the most densely populated, it is nonetheless a fairly smooth spectrum of possibilities. There is no easy line to draw for who is one sex and who is another. The designation is fairly arbitrary, and should not be used as a limiting factor in legal rights. As mentioned, the primary point is to examine the root issue of the legality of same sex marriage, and how the root issue applies to legal contracts in general. There are certain types of contracts that are dependant on physical characteristics. For instance, in a medical study on obesity, only the obese qualify. However, this type of situation is dramatically different. Primarily, these limitations are not government imposed. If an individual/group requires other(s) of certain characteristics, and this arrangement is observed to not be unfair discrimination based on sex, race, etc, according to the various protected class acts [1], then such an arrangement is considered legal and fair. It is only when the government acts to prevent an entire category of legal arrangements on the basis of a protected class, regardless of the desires of the individuals involved, that I protest. So let's consider a case analysis, of sorts. Consider Sally. She is a stereotypical, entirely genetically average example of biologically female, 25 years old. She's considering options of marriage. All persons are equal barring sex contrasts. First, here's Bob. He is a stereotypical, entirely average biological male, also 25. He is legally permitted to engage in any type of legal contract with Sally. His and her reproductive capability are entirely irrelevant. Additionally, he can engage in this contract for absolutely any reason that he and Sally choose, including convenience, tax purposes, or even on a whim, just for fun. Love and interest in procreation are entirely irrelevant to the legal discussion, regardless of how it would be viewed socially. Next, let's take Sandra. She, like Sally, is also entirely female by every measure. However, assuming we're in North Carolina (or similar places :P), she is suddenly forbidden by the government to engage in this particular contract, regardless of her or Sally's wishes. This limitation cannot be repealed or revoked for any reason - because of her sex at birth, she is given no options. Now, let's examine a really weird example. Identical twins! And amazingly, they're both perfect hermaphrodites! On recommendation, the parents have the newborns surgically altered, to be male and female. Samantha and Samuel, genetically identical, both manage to gain an interest in marrying Sally! (Man, she must be a looker :P ) Now, despite all other things being equal... literally... Sam is legally permitted to marry Sally, but not Samantha. Simply because of the sex assignments given to them by their parents, without their consent, at the time of their birth. Only a very few laws for this particular legal contract relate to procreation and the raising of children. Such laws usually relate, not to the legal institution of marriage, but to the biological act of impregnation. Most laws regarding marriage involve such things as tax benefits, visitation rights, what amounts to an automatic power of attorney, and so forth. And again, it can be entered into for virtually any reasons desired, with extremely few limits [2] It is reasonable to conclude that any case where the government removes or reduces rights based on any of the protected classes is unethical and in violation of the associated acts, and it seems clear from the above that this is such a situation. My points made, I have some questions: 1. Do you feel that the protected classes assorted acts are designed to prevent government interference in the legal contracts between individuals, in addition to the primary stated purpose, which is to limit individual bias in the arrangement of legal contracts? If so, why would that not apply in the case of marriage? If not, does that mean the government is permitted to acts of blatant bias, such as forbidding interracial marriage? 2. Are there any other types of legal contracts that are government mandated to include restrictions of protected classes? 3. Does marriage have any legal considerations that require discrimination based on a determination of sex at the time of birth? While I'm a romantic at heart, I'm very much enjoying this angle. :) I look forward to your primary argument, and the subsequent rebuttals! [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... for an overview, and for specifics on the various acts, http://www.congresslink.org..., http://finduslaw.com..., http://www.gpo.gov... [2] http://usmarriagelaws.com...