Gay marriage and the law

This, of course, is bullshit. "Procreation" has literally nothing to do with marriage - this is why sterile couples, old couples and couples with no intention of reproducing are allowed to get married. "Ideal parenting" is similarly bullshit - heterosexual child abusers, spousal abusers, drug addicts, alcoholics, convicted felons, rapists, even murderers are allowed to get married. Hell, a smoker isn't an ideal parent, but they can get married too...as long as they aren't gay. It's not arbitrary, as you've been told repeatedly in this thread and others. The rational defining line is the same that defines every other contract: it must be between consenting adults. An orange, a child, a dog, and a toaster are all not consenting adults, and so cannot be married. As has been explained to you multiple times, race was a qualifier, in that you had to be of the same race to legally marry. The reasoning you're using is the same that was used in Loving v. Virginia, and that ruling struck down the "same-race" portion of what was at that time the "traditional" definition of marriage as Unconstitutional. There is no difference today. So was slavery, and Jim Crow. Once again, for the billionth time: consenting adults. Except there is no reason to call an identical contract with identical rights by a different name except for the purpose of discriminating against a minority, which would be Unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. You can recognize or not recognize as you please in your church, The state must work under no religion lest it oppress all other religions. You can't explain why heterosexual marriage is a right, in the first place.We have explained in detail why the 14th Amendment means that gays need to be treated equally under the law. Your repetition of the "redefining marriage" point is silly - the definition of the legal form of "marriage" has already been changed from what was traditional on several occasions, one of which was redefining marriage so that interracial marriage was legal. Marriage is not solely a religious enterprise, as people of all religions and even Atheists and Agnostics get married. Also, the state grants certain rights and privileges to married couples, so it cannot be the purview of religions only. It's not - just as heterosexual marriage is not. Tjhe reason the Constitution is invoked is becasue the 14th Amendment demands equal protection under the law: no law may exist that treats one group of people differently from another group barring a specific state interest. Since the state has no interest in the sexual orientation of individuals, and gay families have shown to be just as stable and beneficial as heterosexual marriages, there is no rational state interest in distinguishing gay marriage from heterosexual marriage. Without a state interest, treating the two groups separately by disallowing gay marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment, exactly as disallowing interracial marriage was a violation back in the 50s.Since you'll bring up children and toasters and oranges again, they are not consenting adults, and cannot enter into any contract. Toasters and oranges don't even have rights becasue they are not alive, and the state has a rational interest in preventing children from entering into contacts before they are mentally and emotionally able to give informed consent, so they cannot be married either. Which is completely irrelevant to the law.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

I'd accept that option. And lets be honest - there's nothing that prevents a gay couple from referring to themselves as married. It's just not recognized by the state.Polygamous relationships still exist, and they refer to themselves as married. It's just not recognized legally.I suppose someone could say they were married to an orange...and assuming nobody called the men with the white coats to take him away, there is no law against that either. It just isn't recognized by the state.Removing the word "marriage" from the law completely and letting individual couples (and their religious institutions, if any) determine whether they call themselves "married" while assigning all of the rights formerly associated with marriage to a plain, simple contract sounds like the only compromise available. It's the only way to truly treat everyone fairly under the law without actually allowing gay marriage and calling a spade a spade.But do you really think enough of Congress, the American people, or Federal judges will go for removing the word "marriage" from the law completely? I doubt it.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Perhaps more in accordance with the topic of the thread, we should ask him to explain the rationale behind the legal difference.Why is homosexual sex between consenting adults legal, and sex (even if consensual) with a child considered rape?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

First, consummation is irrelevant to marriage. There is no requirement when signing the marriage license that the couple must have intercourse. It can be grounds for divorce or annulment, but that doesn't mean a sex-less marriage is automatically null.Second, as to the "specifically permits sodomy" part:

quote:

---

Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X.

---

The states and people retain whatever rights are not specifically eliminated by law, not the other way around. The Constitution doesn't need to specifically permit heterosexual sex, for instance.And the Supreme Court has struck down the various and sundry sodomy laws that used to exist in the US as Unconstitutional, as well...so clearly sodomy is both allowed, and irrelevant to marriage.Besides, sodomy isn't restricted to homosexuals. Many heterosexuals consider other-than-vaginal intercourse to be a darned good time.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

The key words there are "can be" as opposed to "must be." There is no requirement to consummate a marriage in order for it to be legally valid, it is only a legal grounds for annulment if the couple decides to do so and even then only within a certain timeframe.And you didn't answer any of the other points - your entire statement was false.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Bullshit. We also found out on a "racial landscape" that defining marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race was Uncionstitutional. It would still have been Uncionstitutional to name interracial marriage something other than marriage.The argument is exactly identical for gay marriage. If they are the same rights there is no reason to use a new term except as discrimination, which is illegal under the 14th Amendment. They insit on being treated equally. Exactly the same. There is zero reason outside of bigotry to call gay marriage anything other than marriage if it is exactly the same institution.And gay marriage has nothing to do with coming out of the closet.And there are no "special provisions" here. The law as it currently stands under the 14th Amendment demands that gays be allowed to marry in exactly the same way heterosexual couples marry, with no differences whatsoever. Anything less would be Unconstitutional as seperate treatment with no compelling state interest.The people asking for special treatment are those who insist that gay marriage be called something other than marriage. Absolute equality is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America! Read it sometime."If blacks want to get married to members of the same race they are absolutely free and equal to do that. Why isn't that enough? Why do we need to enact special laws for them."It's the exact same argument, Hoot. If interracial marriage is Constitutionally guaranteed as was decided in Loving v. Virginia, then gay marriage is also Constitutionally guaranteed by the exact same reasoning."Seperate but equal" is not equal. Saying that gays can still marry people of the opposite sex does not mean they are receiving equal treatment any more than blacks were receiving equal treatment when they were allowed to marry other blacks but not whites.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Thanks. And as I stated just a few posts ago in this thread, I would fully accept that compromise. The word "marriage" can be left to religious institutions and the couples themselves - if you want to call yourselves a married couple, feel free to do so, and the legal "civil union" will account for the rights currently assigned by marriage.It's perfectly fair if you compeltely remove the word "marriage" from the law for everyone.But that's the thing - for equality, it's all or nothing. Either all consenting adults can be married, whether in same-sex couples or otherwise, or nobody can. It's the only way to follow the Constitution.There will be a lot of people on both sides who will say either "you can't take away marriage!!!" or "...why can't we just call it marriage like we always have, and just include everybody?" But those are really the only two Constitutional options.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

The state DOES have a compelling interest in preventing incest due to the eventual increase in birth defects after a few generations.If that were not the case, and as with homosexuality the only arguments consisted of either "eww" or "my religion says that's bad," I would agree that incestuous marriages should be allowed as well so long as both parties are consenting adults.As a matter of fact, as distasteful as I find it, I have no rational problem with an incestuous couple being married so long as both parties are consenting adults. Even the birth defect issue isn't all that compelling for the state, or we would ban marriages for anyone with any birth defect as well. ...wow. Just wow. Do you honestly think that, for instance, a black berson would use gene therapy to become white in order to sidestep unfair treatment like the old mixed-marriage laws? Is that really the way you want to handle this issue?And of course homosexual couples should be treated equally in schools! We dont necessarily need to state every possible combination in all of the books, but when a kindergarten teacher asks the students about their parents, a child with gay parents should be treated in a way that promotes acceptance and discourages "odd looks" or treating the situation as unusual in any way. I'm perfectly happy with myself as a heterosexual. The gay peopel I know are perfectly happy being gay (minus the bogotry that comes their way). I seriously doubt you will ever see many people "switch teams" even if this turns out to be possible.Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

I don't know about RAZD, but I would be okay with removing marriage from the law and issuing only civil unions from a legal standpoint, because it would ensure equal treatment under the law.That doesn't mean it's not a retarded idea to change so much when simply allowing gays to marry will solve the issue as well.

---

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.