Explaining Same Sex Marriage

Gays and straights have the exact same right to marry--and the exact same prohibitions.

MARRIAGE is based on the complementary of the sexes--not the laws themselves. It isn't the social institution of marriage if it is a same-sex union.

No matter what I do, I cannot send in my census report stating I am male--that would be fraudulent. Likewise--to claim there is a marriage between people of the same sex is fraudulent. The "norm" of social institutions cannot be redefined based on the desires of a vocal minority. Facts are facts. I am female, I am not male--I cannot be legally change that fact on a whim--I have to conform to a societal reality rather than write my own universe and expect others to go along with it.

 

Black people and white people were equally disadvantaged by the laws that prevented them from marrying each other.

So I put to you this question: Did the court err in deciding the Loving v. Virginia case? Your position suggests that you must believe they did.

 

Same-sex couples is not an entity. People of all kinds are "discriminated against" in marriage. Children are discriminated against. Consanguineous people are discriminated against. People who are already married are discriminated against. People who want to legally marry animals or objects or imaginary people are discriminated against...etc...

There is no governmental interest in endorsing same sex unions as marriage.

 

We're talking about the legal institution, not the social institution. And I disagree with you about the latter as well. You are merely offering your obviously biased opinion. Perhaps same-sex couples marrying wouldn't be part of the social institution of marriage in the way that you personally envision it, in conformity with your prejudices against gay people.

But the heart of the matter is your desire to marginalize us, by pretending that we aren't a part of society, and one means to that end is to prevent our marriages from receiving legal recognition.

This begs the question. You are merely telling us how the law treats people now. We are saying that this treatment is wrong, and does not conform to American principles of equality and liberty.

 

The point being, those are dissimilar situations.

Repetition of your OPINION. I think this point has been argued to death.

 

What interest does it have endorsing any marriage?

 

So you admit, they are NOT a protected class. Good.

So you admit it is an attempt to socially engineer society against the majority will of the governed. Good.

What interest does the government have with who flirts with whom???

All kinds of "human" qualities do not meet the criteria of a protected class.

 

Sincerity is often taken by adjudicators to mean a relationship based in love:

http://www.immigrationmarriagefraud.com/rokstories/marrying-for-love-you-ll-have-to-prove-it.html

"While adjudicators give applicants the benefit of the doubt, they're also alert to indicators of fake marriages. Staged photos are a common clue, according to Stokes Unit Adjudicator Bryant Chisholm. “You’ll sometimes see photos of a couple lying in bed on their wedding night,” Chisholm said. “What normal couple would allow someone to come into their room and photograph husband and wife in bed?”

Cultural barriers between spouses are another possible giveaway. During some interviews, Chisholm recounted, adjudicators bring in interpreters because the couple does not share a common language. However, he says such situations are not grounds for a denial: “We try to be fair, because you can be on the train and meet somebody and fall in love with them.”"

Here's an immigration adjudicator pointing out exactly that.

 

Sending in your census report misstating your race would also be fraud. The social norm in 1960 was for blacks to marry blacks and whites to marry whites. The anti-miscegenation laws gave blacks and whites the exact same right to marry. And the exact same prohibitions.

Those laws were found to be in violation of the 14th amendment because they discriminated against potential spouses based on their race.

No one is asking that a black man should be thought of as white or that woman should be imagined to be a man, that any social norm should change, or that facts should be changed. But our constitution requires our laws do not discriminate based on race, religion or sex. That includes the laws regarding the legal institution of marriage. That includes the laws which limit who we are permitted to marry.

 

Next of kin can be legally designated.

http://www.advicenow.org.uk/living-together/next-of-kin/

 

No. It is a 14th amendment issue in the case of LvV. Race is a Federally protected class.

 

Sex is also a protected class.

 

OMG. Please look up the difference between legal institution and social institution--or go back through the thread and read.

Woe is you! Spare me. Be objective please, and don't try to paint me as some hater. It just shows the weakness of your "reasons" when you try to label people who disagree with your wants for legitimate reasons.

I'm asking you to make the case--and so far, you can't because you can't show unequal discrimination and you can't show any government interest in endorsing same sex marriage unions.

 

And what is the interest the government has in same-sex marriage? What does society get out of governmental endorsement?

It's not the same as the benefit to society provided by hetero-marriage--in fact, there is an increase in negative social events.

 

really? Read the thread.

 

It's not a requirement--love is a bonus.

Another FACT demonstrated. Thank you.

 

That (the bold) is where you are WRONG. As I pointed out already--there is all kinds of "discrimination" related to marriage. It is a matter of UNEQUAL discrimination. And there is none.

 

And the laws relating to marriage apply the same to men and women.

 

This article appears to show that unmarried couples in the U.K. must carry a legal document designating their partner as their next of kin so their will can be understood if they're unconscious. It also seems to show married couples do not have to face this legal issue. This would seem to be another argument as to why a same sex couple would want to be married, to have equal access to that benefit enjoyed by mixed sex couples.

 

As the anti miscegenation laws applied the same to blacks and whites. Separate but equal has been tried here. Didn't work out.

 

Sure there is discrimination. But the standard is the basis for the discrimination. It is a matter of discrimination based on sex. That would be sexual discrimination. By definition.

Separate but equal? We tried that. Didn't work.

 

They may not as yet have been recognised as a protected class but that does not mean that they have not historically fulfilled all of the criteria. There have been other groups who at some time in the past were not considered protected classes but now are.

No it's to recognise that, absent provable harm, the rights of a minority group are not subjected to the whims of the majority. This is important because if you have any foibles or whims that might fall out of favour at some future point you could be next, absent some method of redress.

Not all elements of society approve, even now, of interracial marriages. They are entitled to harbour that disapproval but what they can't do is expect the law to take sides in their favour. No doubt the courts were accused of "social engineering" back in the day (or whatever the buzz term du jour was then). I suppose you can say it's "social engineering" if by that you mean the law is "engineering" a situation whereby you no longer have control over the rights of others on the basis of what is socially acceptable to you when it is clearly unacceptable to them and their actions are causing you no immediate harm? In that case, I'd say, who cares?

It was an attempt to inject a human element and also to point out that the manifestation of sexual orientation goes beyond "sexual preference" and is apparent in other ways. I think that a male who is completely indifferent to the sexuality of women is in a completely different and recognizable "class" to me despite our sharing the same genitalia. That that class continues to represent a repeated and predictable percentage of the population indicates that, should that class seek recognition in law, their questions need be addressed.

You can roll your eyes all you like but this human quality is being recognised in this manner ever more each day and with good reason and evidential support.

 

There is nothing about being gay that relates at all to being a particular race. Using race as a determiner as to who qualifies to marry whom is absolutely arbitrary, whereas it is NOT arbitrary in the case of the governmental endorsement of hetero-sex marriages due to the fact that homosexual unions are not procreative. Marrige is a procreative social institution. Blacks and whites can procreate--therefore race is an arbitrary determiner. The FACT that the homosexual union itself can never be in and of itself procreative is not an arbitrary reason to deny access to endorsement by the government.

Gay unions are not procreative.

I agree separate but equal is inherently UNequal--but gay unions simply do not meet the criteria for governmental endorsement based on it being irrelevant, and possibly damaging, to the social structure.

 

allowing same sex couples to marry has exactly zero effect on heterosexuals procreating.