Yeah there were lot of big words that I didn't understand. And, at a few hundred words, it was pretty long...:hammer:
Actually, your lazy reply and thoughtless dimissal is the fluff and nondsense.
If you had read the article you would have noticed early on a link to a
Supreme Court brief that was referenced. This brief discussed at length and cited detail the connection you're wondering about.
:dunce: This is embarassing...On page 3 of the brief they have a table on contents. One section is The Table of Authorities.
13 past cases are referenced and some in the neighborhood of
200 scholarly materials are cited.
Fluff and nondsense indeed :doh:
Your tunnel vision that has you seeking confirmation bias has blinded your intellectual curiosity.
read the brief
It's objective and historic fact. Traditionally, heterosexual marriage is what has been supported. You've become incapable of acknowledging historic fact.
Read the brief.
Do you understand what "primarily" means?
You should be embarrassed by this 'effort'