Will Gay Marraige Set a Precedent For Polygamy?

Nonsense. If cat owners demand dog licenses for their cats, and they find some court to declare owners of cats have a constitutional right to a dog license. And the people respond by referendum to define in the statute the term "dog" to be limited to animals of the canine species, the purpose of limiting dog licenses to only owners of canines, isn't changed from intending to limit the licenses to dog owners, into an intent to exclude the icky cat owners. It is still intended to exclude owners of parakeets, hamsters, pot bellied pigs AND cat owners. The cat owners just happen to be the ones that were whinning the loudest.

 

I am sure there is a point in here somewhere.

 

well that is the whackiest analogy I have heard yet.

I think you are saying that the Constiution is like a dog license.

I disagree

 

I'm surprised the minority who want the federal government to impose a rigid definition of marriage upon all the sovereign states would advocate for such intrusive federalism.

Ideologically, I'd expect them to be enthusiastically unfurling and waving their flamboyant "States' Rights" gonfalon, upholding the long-standing tradition of the central government's deferring to each State's legal definition.

Given that they can offer no evidence of adverse impact, it appears their irrational, visceral loathing even stimies their deep-seeded ideological dogma.




.

 

It's an analogy. You wouldn't understand

 

Wow. Are you lost. Under DOMA states are free to define marriage however they please. You are the ones insisting the federal courts to declare that all 50 states must accommodate gay couples into their states marriages

 

You are only demonstrating your ignorance as to what has occured in California that has lead to the case before the supreme court

 

Sadly yes. The argument of 'equal marriage' can be applied to polygamy. In fact it can be applied to any kind of marriage as long as consent is present on both sides.

 

The thing is that it's about human rights. It's actually kind of dsturbing that you think human rights should be up for a vote and dependant on where you live. It's no different than saying that the Voter Rights Act usurped states rights by denying Mississippi the right to deny black people the right to vote. If it's a human right, it's a right, and the government is supposed to defend it. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the majority would make good decisions on the rights of a minority in all cases, in fact, that's a recipe for bad things to happen.

The problem is that people move around. So you could easily wind up with a situation where someone who is married in California ends up moving to Alabama for a job and ends up not married. Which might affect things like health insurance or other benefits, as well as other things that happen when you interact with the government. If you go with state's rights, what happens with an IRS audit -- in CA you're able to file as a couple because it's legal but you move away and you can't, so to a bean counter, you just cheated on your taxes because you claimed to be married and you apparently weren't.

read the rest, it's kind of obvious.




.[/QUOTE]

 

Seperate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. And they don't have civil unions in every state, and none of them are recognized at the federal level

 

.... and if the federal government respects each state's definition of marriage, as it had always done in the past, married couples, as defined by each state, would be deemed married in every respect by the federal government

It's not that difficult.

 

So if you live in a state, that doesn't have gay marriage or civil unions, you are free to move about to a state that does.

However, you support Obamacare, which doesn't allow people from any state to move to another state to get away from not having to live under that law.

see what I just did there?

 

About an equal number of states recognize marriage between cousins as being legally permissible as those that do not. Yet, cousins marrying in Alabama are recognized as being married by Arkansas if they move there. Gender is just another factor like consanguinity, state laws differing, but states respecting other states' marriage contracts, even when they do not comply with local definitions. Of course, the federal government accepts whatever each state regards as a legal marriage.

 

Still, YOU are the one that wants the federal government to impose on the states THEIR definition of marriage while currently the federal government merely defines who is entitled to federal tax breaks and federal governmental entitlements while the states are free to define marriage as they please. And every single one of those federal govenmental tax breaks and entitlements were enacted at a time when all 50 states defined marriage as between a man and a woman. If Texas were to legalize marriage between a cowboy and his horse tomorrow, absurd to think that federal entitlements of marriage must follow. If they strike down DOMA I could imagine states creating marriage for federal purposes for any state citizen wishing to take advantage of federal tax breaks and entitlements.

 

Because the color of ones skin has no rational relation to the governmental interest in an educated populace. While the sexes of the couple determine the potential of procreation. Stable households arent needed for a cozy place for lovers to shag each other and are instead needed to provide and care for the children heterosexual couples create.

 

Many gays raise adopted children. You do not need to keep rehearsing this same tired line.

 

Not a single thing you posted even attempted to address my post

 

And yet procreation remains completely irrelevant to marriage. Thats why there is no requirement for the intention or ability to procreate in order to marry.

 

Why only heterosexual couples? Gay couples are capable of having children as well.

I am not sure where you got this idea that gays are sterile. Most of them are just as fertile as most straight people.

 

Sure it did. you just don't want to listen.

 

Many couples made up of platonic friends and closely related couples raise adopted children.Grandmother down the street, living with her daughter for a decade raising their children and grandchildren together adopted her grandchildren a few years ago. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay. Rubbing genitals doesnt render them more capeable of raising children. What possible justification could government have for prefering homosexuals over ANY TWO PEOPLE who can join together to raise children? An answer would be nice for a change.

 

Wrong. Quite the contrary. I want the federal government to respect accept each state's recognition of marriages, as it had always done prior to DOMA, and for each state to recognize marriages performed in other states, even when it has different requirements and definitions.

 

Just like the formation of stable homes is to marriage. Thats why there is no requirement for the intention or ability to form a stable home in order to marry. Funny how all these rules you like to apply to heterosexual marriage, disappear once homosexuals are included.

- - - Updated - - -

????? Thus subjecting the federal definition of marriage on all states.

 

The fact is that around 30% of same-sex (gender) couples are raising children and one of the two principle reasons cited in 1971 for marriage was that it provided a stable relationship for the raising of children. We can note as well that there are literally hundreds of other reasons that are "financial" that rationalize and support the legal institution of marriage. The merged income, assets, and liabilities of a couple are all relevant to the "legal institution of marriage" under federal law and justify the inclusion of non-child bearing and non-child rearing couples under the legal institution of marriage. Property Rights alone (and "conservatives advocate Property Rights) drive the requirement to include same-sex (gender) couples under marriage.

A person cannot support "property rights" and deny marriage to same-sex (gender) couples because property rights are protected under federal law based upon the legal institution of marriage. Joint bankruptcy protection, inheritance, and joint tax filing status all related to the merged income/assets/liabilities of the couple regardless of the gender of those involved.

 

I feel you girlfriend.