Why is the government in marriage at all?

Feels as though we're going around in circles..

YES procreation is fundamental to the survival of the species. The relevancy to SSM is not clear though. There is no current legal precedent for thinking marriage and procreation are instrinsically and unseperably linked (otherwise sterile couples would be explicitly barred).

 

A summary would be lovely seeing as you've obviously read all 63 pages.

As ashamed as I am to admit it, I haven't actually read Walker's decision in full, but here's the link anyway...

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/Prop8ruling.pdf

 

ALL the court cases cited are current legal precedent.

 

Exerpts. And Ive read them all.


DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.2 Accordingly, there is no violation of the privileges and immunities clause.
There also is no violation of the state due process clause. DOMA bears a
reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests—procreation and child-rearing.
Nor do we find DOMA invalid as a violation of privacy interests protected by
article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution. The people of
Washington have not had in the past nor, at this time, are they entitled to an
expectation that they may choose to marry a person of the same sex.
Finally, DOMA does not violate the state constitution’s equal rights
amendment because that provision prohibits laws that render benefits to or restrict or deny rights of one sex. DOMA treats both sexes the same; neither a man nor a woman may marry a person of the same sex.
….
Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be
a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing…..

t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been
placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to
procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .
t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with
respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the
decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family
in our society….
Loving, Zablocki, and Skinner tie the right to procreation and survival of the race. Plaintiffs have not established that at this time the fundamental right to marry includes the right to marry a person of the same sex. ……


But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally
linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis….

encouraging procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage is a legitimate government interest furthered by
limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples……

 

That and other laws which restrict the rights/liberties of homosexual people, are being reviewed and revised... as we post.

 

I am beginning to think dixon isnt anti-gay marriage at all. He is just screwing around with us.

Dixon do me a favor if you will: post only YOUR reasons for being against gay marriage. Don't cite anything or mention anything else. I am trying to get a grasp of your opinion so that I can understand.

 

That thought has crossed my mind too. It seems he's more interested in "defeating" people by taking control of the dialogue and leading them away from the real issue with his multiple strawman arguments, circular reasoning and ridiculous semantics debates. I've already asked him to summarise his views on SSM so we can have a relevant debate on the subject, and like a lot of what I say he completely ignores it. Any post like this he ignores. He's used to it. He likes to be hated.. It just makes him feel like he's doing his job properly... Pissing people off. I don't think he takes himself 100% seriously. He just likes to compensate for whatever he lacks in real life by doing what he does here.

Don't let him get to you, as much as what you would do to him if he was standing in front of you. The Internet has that lovely benefit of hiding behind your keyboard...

 

I am against unconstitutional discrimination. You cant disregard the requirements of equal protection because it will help gays feel better about being gay.

 

Peanut gallery never had anything relevant to the topic of discussion, so they always revert to their FAVORITE topic. ME!

I would respond in kind but would be summarily banned for doing so.

 

So we keep hearing.

And I do address the vast majority of your "points", simply so that no one "lurking" would think you actually had one to begin with.

 

????

SSM and "gay" rights (which are actually rights for everyone) don't violate the equal protection clause. Under SSM, anyone will be able to marry a member of their own gender should they so choose. There is no requirement to be gay.

 

Nah, you would be the champion of srawmen and irrelevant tangents, used to AVOID the points YOU choose to respond to.

 

And then there is the real world where all 6 states with SSM, still annul or dissolve platonic marriages and prohibit closely related couples from marrying. Only extending marriage to gays, to correct for past and present animus towards gays. No animus towards mothers and grandmothers raising children so no constituional rights to marriage in their view.

 

Because baseless counterclaims are fun!

 

no state dissolves or annuls platonic marriages. not one.

 

In the real world there is no state department or agency that goes around making sure married couples have had sex. Disproving that a couple have "consummated" their marriage is essentially impossible. Annulment (*)is something you seek in court when filing for divorce, the state doesn't impose them. We've been through all this before.

The fact remains that ANYONE can have a same-sex marriage and being gay isn't a requirement for SSM. No violation of the equal protection clause. You haven't said anything that contradicts these facts.

Reasonably withheld for reasons already discussed. But not beyond consideration as a SEPARATE issue.

 

You are against unconstitutional discrimination AND against gay RIGHTS. You know the Constitution said that EVERYONE was born with certain unalienable rights, right? It doesn't say only heterosexuals.

 

Usually consists of the testimony from one of the couple. Easily done.

Never claimed otherwise. And its one or the other, annulment or divorce. Never both.

 

Yeah, the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

 

So in other words you have no point in bringing up annulments.

Just want to throw that out there, eh?

 

No. My point remains the same. 6 states with same sex marriage still annul or dissolve platonic marriages.

 

no they don't.

 

Not unless the couples seeks said annulment.

 

As the above have already said and has been pointed out by myself and others repeatedly... No. No state department or agency seeks or imposes them based on a lack of consummation.

 

Just like you have the right to marry someone of the same race.
Just like you have the right to marry someone of the same religion.

Sure, no discrimination there.