Support for same sex marriage at an all time high

dixon76710 · Mar 29, 2013

Cubed said: ↑

Dix: As above, you are technically correct. The intention of the act was to legislate the morality of homosexuality, even if it wasn't specifically expressed in the act itself.
Click to expand...

From the house report

At bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting
the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a
deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation
and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage
because it has an interest in children.
Recently, the Council on Families in America, a distinguished
group of scholars and analysts from a diversity of disciplines and
perspectives, issued a report on the status of marriage in America.
In the report, the Council notes the connection between marriage
and children:
The enormous importance of marriage for civilized society
is perhaps best understood by looking comparatively at
human civilizations throughout history. Why is marriage
our most universal social institution, found prominently in
virtually every known society? Much of the answer lies in
the irreplaceable role that marriage plays in childrearing
and in generational continuity.49
And from this nexus between marriage and children springs the
true source of society’s interest in safeguarding the institution of
marriage:
Simply defined, marriage is a relationship within which
the community socially approves and encourages sexual
intercourse and the birth of children. It is society’s way of
signaling to would-be parents that their long-term relationship
is socially important—a public concern, not simply
a private affair.50
That, then, is why we have marriage laws. Were it not for the possibility
of begetting children inherent in heterosexual unions, society
would have no particular interest in encouraging citizens to
come together in a committed relationship. But because America,
like nearly every known human society, is concerned about its children,
our government has a special obligation to ensure that we
preserve and protect the institution of marriage.
There are two standard attacks on this rationale for opposing a
redefinition of marriage to include homosexual unions. First, it is
noted that society permits heterosexual couples to marry regardless
of whether they intend or are even able to have children.51 But this
is not a serious argument. Surely no one would propose requiring
couples intending to marry to submit to a medical examination to
determine whether they can reproduce, or to sign a pledge indicating
that they intend to do so. Such steps would be both offensive
and unworkable. Rather, society has made the eminently sensible
judgment to permit heterosexuals to marry, notwithstanding the
fact that some couples cannot or simply choose not to have children.
Second, it will be objected that there are greater threats to marriage
and families than the one posed by same-sex ‘‘marriage,’’ the
most prominent of which is divorce. There is great force in this argument—
as the Council on Families has noted:
The divorce revolution—the steady displacement of a
marriage culture by a culture of divorce and unwed par
enthood—has failed. It has created terrible hardships for
children, incurred insupportable social costs, and failed to
deliver on its promise of greater adult happiness. The time
has come to shift the focus of national attention from divorce
to marriage and to rebuild a family culture based on
enduring marital relationships.
But the fact that marriage is embattled is surely no argument
for opening a new front in the war. Indeed, it is precisely now,
when marriage and the family are most in need of nurturing and
care, that we should be most wary of conducting new experiments
with the institution. As William Bennett, commenting on same-sex
‘‘marriage,’’ has observed:
The institution of marriage is already reeling because of
the effects of the sexual revolution, no-fault divorce and
out-of-wedlock births. We have reaped the consequences of
its devaluation. It is exceedingly imprudent to conduct a
radical, untested and inherently flawed social experiment
on an institution that is the keystone in the arch of civilization.
52
In short, government has an interest in defending and nurturing
the institution of traditional marriage, and H.R. 3396 advances
that interest.
Click to expand...

- - - Updated - - -

DentalFloss said: ↑

It allows States to ignore the full faith and credit clause. It's black letter Unconstitutional. It's going down. Take that to the bank..
Click to expand...

They could do that under the public policy exception of the full faith and credit clause without DOMA.

Archie Goodwin · Mar 29, 2013

dixon76710 said: ↑

Was that a yes or no. Or was that I dont want to talk about that
Click to expand...

It was neither a yes nor a no. And if dodging it is to your liking, the easy way is to ignore it entirely and not grasp for a cheesy dodge-reply, which you think makes it look like you're taking it head on, but in fact fools no one with 12-year-old or above intelligence.

drbwh · Mar 29, 2013

rahl said: ↑

which is unconstitutional. just like colored water fountains and white water fountains.
Click to expand...

what sounds more like seperate but equal?....... traditional marriage vs gay marrige or marrige vs civil unions

dixon76710 · Mar 29, 2013

EyesWideOpen said: ↑

No, but it does intrude into states rights.
Click to expand...

States have no rights to determine who is eligible for FEDERAL tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Texas couldnt allow marriage between a cowboy and his horse and then demand that the federal government award the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage to the cowboy and his horse. If they strike down DOMA Im going to suggest texas do just that. Get some more of that federal income tax flowing back into texas.

rahl · Mar 29, 2013

drbwh said: ↑

what sounds more like seperate but equal?....... traditional marriage vs gay marrige or marrige vs civil unions
Click to expand...

What is traditional marriage? it's changed countless times since it's inception.

Eighty Deuce · Mar 29, 2013

dixon76710 said: ↑

States have no rights to determine who is eligible for FEDERAL tax breaks and governmental entitlements. Texas couldnt allow marriage between a cowboy and his horse and then demand that the federal government award the tax breaks and governmental entitlements of marriage to the cowboy and his horse. If they strike down DOMA Im going to suggest texas do just that. Get some more of that federal income tax flowing back into texas.
Click to expand...

While the notion is absurd, sometimes it takes such, and the logic trail is correct.

If SCOTUS can say that the Feds must wipe their hands of such, and turn it back into a State's Rights issue, then it let's that horse out of the barn (pun intended).

Shangrila · Mar 29, 2013

Thread has exceeded its limits. Feel free to start #2 or 3 ....

Shangrila
Site Moderator

Log in or Sign up

Support for same sex marriage at an all time high

dixon76710 Well-Known Member

Archie Goodwin New Member

drbwh New Member

dixon76710 Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

Shangrila staff Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Support for same sex marriage at an all time high

dixon76710 Well-Known Member

Archie Goodwin New Member

drbwh New Member

dixon76710 Well-Known Member

rahl Banned

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

Shangrila staff Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches