And the purpose for banning the gun in the earlier scenario was to prevent murder. Being that there is a fundamental right to own a gun, in order to ban them the State must have a valid State interest (which in this scenario is to prevent murder) and the ban must be necessary in order to fulfill that interest.

So, again... banning the guns is related to preventing murder... murder is legal. How can it possibly be necessary to ban guns to prevent something that is legal? You say to exact a lesser degree of punishment for an act that is now... not illegal.




*le sigh*... so the whole strict scrutiny thing still does not register with you? As regards fundamental rights and laws that infringe upon them... the laws must be necessary in order to achieve that goal. So, the court in that case does determine if the measure is adequate - it must be necessary.

If everything were done via rational basis, your argument might make some sense. But it isn't... so your argument doesn't.



Apart from being a pretty good argument for a right to privacy, I don't understand how this is even relevant. If there is no human law to correct them for a certain act, they are also out of the reach of human law - because none exists.



And is it necessary? What do children learn from non-procreative heterosexual parents? How to adopt? Do they learn how to have sex? Man, I hope you aren't arguing that children should watch their parents have sex so that they know how to procreate.

Adequacy is not the same as necessity, and no court to my knowledge has ever held so.


It's relevant when you replace drunkenness with incest. Even though we're not talking about committing actual incestuous sexual activity in public, public recognition of an incestuous relationship through the public recognition of such a marriage would still set the "bad example" that Sir William referred to.


I'll just quote from you to answer that:


The same "objection" that you made against my statement is equally chargeable to yours.

And if a law is necessary in order to fulfill a valid State interest, does the law adequately meet the standards necessary for the government to violate a fundamental right? And if the law is not necessary in order to fulfill a valid State interest, is it true that it does not adequately meet those standards and therefore the government can't violate that fundamental right?



But you can't simply replace drunkenness with incest. You are twisting his words to fit your argument. For, if we use his argument as yours... a drunken couple could be prevented from being married because we don't want to grant public recognition to drunken behavior. Such a law would certainly not survive strict scrutiny. And, might I add, while our Constitution is influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is not the English Bill of Rights... the two are not the same and "no court to my knowledge has ever held so." - for what little that statement is worth.



First, how does my quote make it necessary to ban same-sex marriage?

Second,



How so? Did you actually read what you just quoted from my post? How was I arguing that we watch our parents have sex? Did I just say, "even though we never see our parents having sex?" Didn't I say that? Then how is my "objection" to the possibility that you were claiming that parents should allow their children to watch them have sex in order to learn to procreate chargeable to mine - in which I very clearly say... we never (hopefully) watch our parents have sex? Or perhaps you are referring to some other "objection"... in which case, be more specific.

The answers to your questions are obvious enough to the both of us. The only problem is with your premise. In the example you've provided, the law is necessary. If you want to stop murder, it can indeed be plausibly argued that it's necessary to prohibit murder using a gun. Of course, it's also necessary to prohibit a lot more than that, but like I said, necessity and adequacy are not the same thing.


Except you never argued that drinking is something protected by the marital bond. You did argue, however, that sexual relations were quite necessarily protected by it. You simply can not compare the two. Marriage between two individuals implies very heavily that the two spouses will more than likely be having sex. Public santion given to a marriage is essentially public recognition of that fact.


That depends on whether the behavior learned from same-sex parents is equally applicable to opposite-sex relationships. To assume that the answer is yes would involve assuming that there's no substantial distinction between the sexes to speak of. Like I said very early in this thread, that can have very profound implications that we need to carefully consider before rushing headlong into this idea.


My point, just to be a little clearer, is that your statement is essentially no different from mine. Just as your position doesn't depend on children actually seeing their parents have sex, neither does mine.

Are they? I wonder. I mean, I thought the concept of strict scrutiny would've been obvious to you... apparently, that wasn't the case.



Yes, it's necessary to prohibit a lot more than that in order to fulfill an interest in preventing murder – it's actually necessary to have a law stating that murder is illegal. Because if it's not illegal, it is legal and a ban on guns in order to prevent what is now a legal act is unnecessary.



Yes. But if the State removes the incest laws, what does it matter if the State grants public recognition of incestuous sex? And how could the desire to prevent public recognition be a valid State interest given the fact that the State just gave everyone the go-ahead to engage in incest. "We think it's okay for everyone to have sex with their family members, we think it's okay if they have children, we just don't want to publicly recognize the occurence." That's absurd. The repeal of incest laws (being a public act) would be public sanctioning of it's occurence.



Children learn about procreation in one of a few ways. They are told about it, they witness it, they experience it. Now children raised by heterosexual parents do not learn it from their parents (unless a crime is being committed) by witnessing it or by experiencing it... they are told about it. It is just as easy for a same-sex couple to explain procreation to a child as it is for opposite sex non-procreative couples (or procreative opposite sex couples, for that matter). And in Massachusett's it is illegal to take sexual orientation into consideration when it comes to allowing a couple to adopt. The case Amlord cited mentions an equality between families with children that are same-sex and those that are opposite sex. So, your argument falls apart right there.

Besides, you are now talking about a completely different interest. What happened to marriage must involve procreation? Have we now slipped into marriage must be between opposite sex couples because of the manner in which gay couples may raise their child? Is it necessary to prevent a couple from marrying because of the manner in which they may raise their child? Unless you live in Florida, the answer is no.

You tell me. We had a whole discussion of why it is that sibling couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, and you very heavily implied, at #158 which I quoted above, that the (legally enforced) celibate nature of their relationship would render them less fit to raise children. So yes, according to the principles you've laid down, the manner in which they'd raise their children is quite relevant to this discussion.

Blackstone, you brought up the "what about siblings", all I've ever stated is that it is irrelevant. Incest laws give the State a valid State interest and the government can prove that preventing incestuous marriage is necessary in order to further that interest. That's all I've ever stated. I never stated that they were less fit to raise children.

So, how is procreation the valid State interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage and why is the prohibition necessary in order to further that interest?

And you premised that statement with the assertion that a celibate sibling couple would provide a less fit environment for raising children than a non-celibate unrelated couple. Are you now saying that's not the case? If you are, then tell me again why sexual privacy is such an essential component of marriage, if it has no effect on the proper environment for raising children?

Please provide the quote where I stated that. I don't recall ever stating that.

From your own #156:

And how does this quote assert that sibling couples are less fit to raise children? I don't even see a mention of sibling couples in that quote, Blackstone. Is incest illegal? Yes. Are sibling couples legally able to engage in the same type of intimacy found in marriage? No. If incest is legalized, then the situation changes. Any statement that I made regarding sibling couples and their fitness to raise children was made in that context, Blackstone.

So, what is the valid State interest related to the restriction of marriage to opposite sex couples and how is the restriction necessary in order to further that interest? Does it have to do with procreation? Does it have to do with the being fit to raise children? What's it got to do with Blackstone? You're contradicting yourself all over this thread, your answer is unclear regarding this question and you are exhibiting a rather extreme ignorance regarding the manner in which fundamental rights are protected in this country. Accepting the fact that strict scrutiny is the manner in which laws that infringe upon fundamental rights such as marriage are examined, answer the above question – clearly and concisely would be best and appreciated. Thank you.

Of coarse not. My aunt was engaged to her husband when they found out they could not have children.
They were very religious so they went to their pastor to talk with him about it.
Their pastor said, well this is a blessing in disguise, now you can help a poor innocent child who has no family, by ADOPTING!
So, no they would not deny marriage to a couple who could not procreate. That is not a law.

It might give the State at least some support for their claim that marriage is about procreation. In the eyes of the State, civil marriage is a legal contract comprised of a network of laws... this is how they regulate marriage and how they define it. If there were some benefit or obligation in the contract itself that related exclusively to procreation, they might have a valid State interest in preventing same-sex couples from marrying. They might not be able to prove that a ban on same-sex marriage was necessary on these grounds. But at least, they might have some ground to stand on.



Do you believe that your aunt and her husband still had the fundamental right to be married even though they could not procreate?

Of coarse I believe they have the right to marry.
As do I believe Same-sex couples should have that same right.

You just answered your own question. Sibling couples can not engage in the same type of intimacy as unrelated couples, and so that makes them less fit to raise children, according to your own statements on this thread. And so that answers the question you asked back at #255: "Is it necessary to prevent a couple from marrying because of the manner in which they may raise their child?" Your statements have clearly answered that question in the affirmative.

I've already explained the context of my statements, Blackstone. They relate solely to the illegality of incest. You may choose to ignore this, but any claim that I have asserted to the contrary is a gross manipulation of what I've very clearly stated.



I am not long dead and unable to defend my statements from your manipulations – as a certain namesake of yours is, Blackstone. I am very aware of what I stated and have expressed very clearly the context of those statements.

So, the restricting the choice of who we marry to an individual of the opposite sex is related to what valid State interest and how is the restriction necessary in order to further that interest?

I haven't claimed that you asserted the contrary. I haven't denied the context of your statements. I'm only pointing out that regardless of the reason why siblings can't engage in the same type of intimacy as unrelated couples, the fact remains that they can not. Agree or disagree? Does or does not that fact make them less suitable for raising children? I'm asking this so that I can answer the bolded question you've been asking me, because otherwise, we'll just end up coming back to this very point.

Provided that they aren't engaging in illegal sexual activity, they are equally as "fit" to raise children as an unmarried unrelated heterosexual couple. The unmarried, unrelated heterosexual couple can marry... there is no reason why the State should prevent them. The State, however, has a valid interest in prohibiting incestuous marriage and they can prove that the prohibition is necessary, so unlike other unmarried couple, an incestuous couple can't get married. That would be the difference between a sibling heterosexual couple raising a child and an unrelated heterosexual couple raising a child. So, the ideal, stable framework that is created by marriage (that is the hope, anyway) is denied them. It's not about their "fitness" to raise children, it is about a legal barrier that makes it necessary to prevent them from marrying. Should that change, however... should incest laws be repealed, there is no reason why a sibling couple should not be allowed to marry.

Then why is intimacy in marriage so necessary, if the purpose of marriage is "to create an environment in which children can be raised" (you at #143)? If lack of sexual activity doesn't make a couple less fit to raise children, what's the point of giving it any kind of extra protection from the state, over and above the protection afforded to the sexual activity of unmarried people?

I stated that they were as "fit" as an unmarried couple, Blackstone. Marriage is about creating this ideal environment... the benefits and obligations of marriage also play a role in that. If a couple is not married, it can be argued that they are, to a degree, less fit – in the eyes of the State – to raise children. This is why married couples are preferred over unmarried couples when it comes to adoption. So, the fact that sibling couples can't marry makes them, to a degree, less fit – in the eyes of the State – to raise children. As I have stated, many times before, if incest were legalized, sibling couples would then be able to be married and then, in the eyes of the State, they would be as "fit" to raise children as any other married couple.

That's completely circular. I'm talking about the reason why they can't get married. If it's simply because they can't have sex, what does that have to do with raising children, if that's what the purpose of marriage is about? The only possible answer is that their legal inability to have sex makes them, in some way, less fit to raise children. What other answer can there be?

No, it's not. Marriage provides an ideal environment in which to raise children, anything less than marriage, in terms of an environment in which to raise children, would be, ipso facto, less ideal. In the eyes of the State, any unmarried couple would be considered less "fit" to raise a child than a married couple. Which is why married couples are, generally, allowed the benefit of jointly adopting a child while unmarried couples are not. It tends to be easier to adopt a child as a married couple than it is as an unmarried couple.

As for why sibling couples aren't allowed to marry, it's because incest is illegal. It's that simple, Blackstone. No need to make it any more convoluted. If incest weren't illegal, it would be unconstitutional to prevent a sibling couple from marrying. To attempt to go further into a discussion about why incestuous couples aren't allowed to marry would require an examination of why incest is illegal. I have no desire to debate that in this thread... it's off topic.

So, perhaps it would be best if you would explain how what you are getting at relates to same-sex couples. Are you claiming that same-sex couples are unfit to be parents? Are they less fit? Is this fitness what you are now claiming is the valid State interest in restricting the choice of who we marry to an individual of the opposite sex?

As I've stated before, in the two States that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage (though one is currently going through the appeal process at the State Supreme Court level), a same-sex couple is seen by the State to be as equally fit to raise a child as a heterosexual couple.

No, it's not that simple, because it doesn't explain why the fundamental purpose of marriage would necessitate the free option of sexual relations between the spouses.

The only explanation you've come up with so far is that not having that option would make the couple less able to provide the ideal environment for raising children - that is, it would make them less fit to raise children. Do you still stand by that answer?

Perhaps, I'm not being clear enough, Blackstone. Sibling couples aren't kept from being married because they can't legally have sex. They are kept from being married because the type of relationship marriage establishes would be illegal between siblings. This thread is not about debating incest laws. Incest laws prohibit the sex, the existence of those laws gives the State the interest in restricting marriage. That's how simple it is. Incestuous relationships are legally banned. Marriage creates the type of relationship that, in the case of siblings, would be legally banned. When it comes to sibling couples and the ability to marry that's as far as we need to go. Why? Because the next step would be to examine sibling sexuality and that isn't the issue here.

If you have a point here regarding same-sex couples, please make it.

It sounds like you're saying it's illegal for them to be married because it's illegal for them to be married. Otherwise, what exactly is this illegal "type of relationship" (if it's not a sexual relationship), and how does it relate to marriage's fundamental purpose?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm not sure if I'm getting an accurate impression impression of what you think that fundamental purpose is. If the fundamental purpose is raising children, and if sibling couples would be operating under some kind of handicap that would render them less fit to raise children (whether this handicap is imposed by law or not), then that could only mean that an acceptable criterion for determining whether or not a marriage should be legal is the degree of fitness of the couple to raise children. Do you agree?

Pardon me for interrupting this debate, but...

I don't agree with the "premise" that the fundamental purpose of marriage is rearing children. I don't think I've ever attended a wedding where the vows had anything at all do with kids. Instead, we have such as love and honor, though thankfully "obey" has gone bye-bye. (unless you were Southern Baptist a few years ago ) The married people I've known were, at least initially, more concerned with their love for each other, than for potential children.

I think the purpose of marriage is the pleasure, happiness and/or whatever utilitarian value it brings the persons involved - whether they are of the same or opposite sex. If children enhance the marriage at a later date, that's fine, if not that's fine too.

Some of the responses to this thread have become so nitipcking and repetitive to the point of redundance, that it is beyond usefulness.

Nope. It's not what I stated at all. I stated very clearly that it's illegal for them to marry because there is a law that bans incest.



Exactly what we aren't going to discuss, Blackstone. This thread is not about the nature of incest or the law that bans it. We are not debating why incestuous marriage is illegal. It is. And I've already explained repeatedly how that relates to the ability of the State to prohibit incestuous marriage. If you want to discuss the nature of incestuous relationships, start a thread dedicated to that topic.



Blackstone. Marriage is meant to create a "degree of fitness," is it not? Isn't that the definition of "providing a framework to ensure that parents can be fully responsible" for their children? How could one argue that a "degree of fitness" could be an acceptable criterion for determining who can marry when marriage itself is intended to create a "degree of fitness?" Are you now claiming that this is the valid State interest in restricting the choice of who we marry to an individual of the opposite sex? Are you claiming that the restriction is necessary in order to fulfill this interest?

And then you undermined that "clarity" by saying that there's something more to the reason than the mere fact that the law bans incest. It also bans some unspecified "type of relationship" that they'd have, above and beyond a sexual relationship.


If you make generic statements about the nature and purposes of marriage, be prepared to face up to the consequences of those statements.


Then why prevent incestuous couples from marrying? It's not enough to say that incest is illegal, if lack of incest doesn't prevent the couple from "providing a framework to ensure that parents can be fully responsible" for their children. If you're saying that it does prevent them from doing so, then that means you are asserting that they're less fit to raise children as a result of their legally imposed handicap.



And whether they're of the same family or not?

This is debate isn't about incest, it's about same sex marriage. My post above that you quoted was in that context. You are continually dragging this discussion off topic, confusing the iussue with unrelated matters, incest, for example.

Have a look at entspeak's original intro and questions. Is incest part of the equation?

Just in case you missed it the first time I said it, BoF, if you make make a generic statement about the nature and purpose of marriage, be prepared to face up to the consequences of that statement. Otherwise, you're not really making a point.

I don't think the debate is about the "ick factor" in an incestual relationship. The point of incestual relationships in the gay marriage debate is that there can be same-sex relationships there as well. So, without the possibility of procreation - just like same sex relaitionships not of the sibling variety - it would be discriminatory to disallow those marriages. There appears to be nothing in the state's interest to recognize relationships no matter who they are. Conversely, it is in the state's interest to provide the best environment for children since they have no other advocate in a non-abusive environment.

If marriage is not about procreation, then sex has as little to do with marriage as holding hands walking in the park. They are both arbitrary acts. Denying marriage to anybody seems to be entirely subjective if the intent to procreate is not a factor. This includes siblings.

Excuse me for interupting the "Entspeak v.s. Blackstone debate" , but I still don't get it. Why all the fuss about gay-marriage? Why would gay-marriage harm the marriage institution? Why should somebody need to procreate in order to get married? Why are there no problems (as discussed in this thread) in Holland, the first nation that allowed same-sex marriage?

I think BoF precisely points out what marriage should be:

I agree that protection of children is within thye scope of a state's powers, but I would argue that it has to be done after, not before, the fact.

Sex and procreation are not synonyms.



Other than bring up the off-topic, smokescreen issue of incest, you have done nothing to nullify my point. It is you who is out looking for one, not me. This is a debate board, not a place for fantasy camp, court room cross-examination type, quibbling.

Part of debating is being "cross-examined" on one's views. That includes being expected to address the consequences of those views.

If you believe that the purpose of marriage is merely to bring "pleasure, happiness and/or whatever utilitarian value" to those involved, and that that's what should govern our marriage laws, then you've just opened the door to incestuous marriage, regardless of how hard you try to run from that fact.

No, that statement was made within the context of a debate on same-sex marriage. You are grasping at straws.

Blackstone,

I have made generic statements regarding incestuous marriage solely because this thread is not about incestuous marriage. You keep asking me why incestuous marriage is banned. And, it is irrelevant to this debate. Simply irrelevant. The reasons that allow the State to prohibit sibling marriages are unrelated to the same-sex marriage issue.

I will say it one last time, Blackstone. Hopefully – though, considering your still on the fence about how the courts apply strict scrutiny, I think I hope in vain – you will actually pay attention.

The State can restrict the fundamental right to marry if it has a valid State interest related to the restriction and the restriction is necessary in order to fulfill that interest.

Regarding incestuous marriage:

There is a separate law on the books that deals with incest. It is a ban on incestuous relationships. Why it exists is irrelevant to this debate, why it is still on the books is irrelevant to this debate. It exists. While it exists, the State has an interest in upholding it. The State has a valid State interest in upholding the laws of this country. That answers the first part of strict scrutiny.

As for the second part – is it necessary, we look at the marriage and marital intimacy. We already covered this, Blackstone, but since you seem to have forgotten that already, I'll state it yet again:

Civil Marriage exists to create an ideal environment in which to raise children. While the state can no longer regulate procreation through marriage, this is still the fundamental purpose of civil marriage. Even though sex (without a contraception) is likely to lead to procreation, sex plays another part in this fundamental purpose.

Sexual intimacy has many facets, some more subtle than others. As children, we see our parents interact sexually even though we do not see them have sex. We see their sexual attraction for one another. To expound upon an example from DaytonRocker, we see the cuddling on the couch... to add to it, we see the way they look at each other... we see an aspect of their sexual intimacy. We learn from that. We take what we learn into our adult lives. In this "ideal environment", a child gains a healthy understanding of how to attract a partner, how to communicate with them and how to maintain a long-term commitment to another person. This aspect of marital intimacy plays a role in raising a healthy child.

This isn't a blanket statement about marriage – it is not a generic statement about marriage.

Now, how does this apply to the strict scrutiny examination of the ban on incestuous marriage? Well, being that marriage is intended to involve at least some level of sexual intimacy, sibling couples would be allowed to engage in some level of sexual intimacy if they were allowed to marry.

The State can't allow that because it has a legal ban on incest – sibling couples are not legally allowed to have any sexual intimacy.

It is, therefore, necessary to prevent siblings from marrying in order to uphold the law banning incest.

To allow incestuous couples to marry without first removing the ban on incest would render that ban meaningless.

So, to summarize:

Prohibiting the choice to marry a sibling is related to a valid State interest in upholding the ban on incest, the prohibition is necessary in order to fulfill that interest. Strict scrutiny standard met.

The State can constitutionally ban sibling marriages as long as incest laws exist.

That is perfectly clear. We don't need to examine exactly what this illegal type of relationship is or how it relates to marriage's fundamental purpose. The fact is, it is illegal. And it is that illegality that allows the state to prohibit sibling marriages.



It is enough. If the State has a valid State interest – which it does – and the restriction is necessary in order to further that interest – which it is, then it is enough.

So... now, explain what the illegality of incestuous relationships has to do with same-sex couples – apart from the fact that brothers would not be allowed to marry each other?

And now, you apply strict scrutiny to same-sex marriage and illustrate how the State can constitutionally restrict the choice of who we marry to opposite sex couples. Note, I don't expect you'll be successful... you don't even understand the concept of strict scrutiny analysis, but, please... give it the ole college try.



Incest would still be illegal if same-sex marriage is allowed, DaytonRocker. If incest is illegal, incestuous marriage is illegal. You've yet to disprove this by any other argument than to continue stating your argument over and over. But your argument has been disproved. The State is allowed to discriminate – even to the point of violating a fundamental right, DaytonRocker. Every classification is discriminatory. But when it comes to a fundamental right, the discrimination must be necessary in order to fulfill a valid State interest. I've shown how the State does this with incestuous marriage. Nobody has shown how the State does this with same-sex marriage. Instead, we descend into discussing the nature of incestuous relationships. That is completely off topic and irrelevant. Incestuous marriage could become legalized even if same-sex marriage remained banned.


Participate, please... for the love of GOD, participate!

It took some real chutzpah to say that. You had cut off that discussion, and I repeatedly flagged you to it in order to invite you to continue with it, and you repeatedly refused. And now you turn around and act like it's my fault for bringing up something that we've "already covered".


Two questions spring to mind immediately from this:

1. Are you saying that a couple which is not able to have sexual intimacy, even if it's only because of a legal prohibition, is less fit to raise children than a couple that is? This shouldn't be that hard to answer. It shouldn't have to involve delving into the finer points of "strict scrutiny" or anything like that.

2. When you say that this environment provides the child with an understanding of how to attract partners and maintain relationships with them, is gender a relevant component of it at all? In other words, would seeing two men or two women together be just as useful to a child as to how to establish and maintain a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, as would seeing a man and a woman together?

Nope. Where we left it was as far as it needed to go, Blackstone. Then you started changing your position in such a way that further discussion on that matter was irrelevant. No chutzpah needed.



In terms of marriage... yes, I am. They are just as fit, in the State's eyes, as an unmarried couple. I've already stated this, Blackstone.



The important question here is not whether I believe that it's not a relevant component, or you believe that it is, Blackstone. It's whether the State sees it as a relevant component. As an example, it's illegal to take the sexual orientation of the couple into account at all when it comes to allowing that couple to adopt a child in the State of Massachusetts. It is likewise illegal in California to take this into consideration. So, these States does not see the sexual orientation of the couple as being at all relevant when it comes to raising a child.

I have also stated this previously, Blackstone.

Are there any other statements you would like me to repeat for you, Blackstone?

Is your position now that the State's interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage is not related to procreation but to a couple's fitness to raise children? What point are you making, Blackstone?

So then fitness to raise children is a valid criterion for determining whether or not certain types of marriage should be legal, correct?


You're making quite an assumption when you say that "these states" don't consider it a relevant factor. It's likely far more accurate to say that certain powerful pressure groups within these states don't consider it a relevant factor, and politicians have given in. That's the ONLY conclusion that can be drawn from these pieces of legislation so far. If it had been clearly stated at the time that enacting this legislation would inevitably mean that same-sex marriage would likewise become legal, I think you and I would both know that it would have been much harder for these pressure groups to get their agenda enacted. What you're describing is what's known as bait-and-switch, and there's no reason at all why it should be entitled to any deference.

The fact is, there has NEVER been an open public debate in either of those two states as to whether or not a same-sex couple can provide as good an environment for raising children as opposite-sex couples. Opponents have simply been stampeded into silence.

I've already asked you if this is the valid State interest you are now putting forth... since you seem to have dropped the interest related to a couple's ability to procreate.

If this is the interest – the protection of an optimal child-rearing environment, let's see if the restriction is necessary in order to fulfill that interest... the second prong of strict scrutiny. According to Goodridge:



This illustrates that it is not necessary. So any claim regarding that interest would not survive strict scrutiny.



I'd be careful how you toss around the word assumption Blackstone. To quote a movie: "I don't think it means what you think it means." The last time you made that claim, I handed you your hat:


Would you like another hat?

I've already explained the difference between the State and the populace. Being that the State is the one regulating marriage, it is the State's view and not the view of it's populace that is relevant. So the fact that there has never been an open public debate is irrelevant. The Massachusetts Legislature decided to consider same-sex couples equal to opposite couples when it comes to raising children. You can argue the lack of wisdom in that decision all you want, but – nevertheless – this is what it did. That being the case, can the State then argue that same-sex couples are not equally as fit to raise children as opposite sex couples in order to justify a ban on same-sex marriage? To quote the Massachusetts Supreme Court:



So – just to tie up one loose end regarding the ability of a couple to procreate question:

If the State allows a non-procreative heterosexual couple that it knows can't procreate to marry, can it constitutionally prevent a same-sex couple from marrying simply because that couple is unable to procreate?

The only thing against gay marriage is religion or bias. Besides that no real reason to hate gay marriage exists in logic.

Well, even the slightest preferment shows bias., gordo To prefer brocolli to spinach shows bias. Could you be more specific?

I'd love one, actually. I defy you to come up with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says that just because some state politicians had been manipulated/pressured/bribed/whatever into legalizing something to a certain degree, they're then required to legalize it the rest of the way (with the exception, of course, of cases where the limited legalization had introduced a degree of discrimination that hadn't existed previously - for example, an initially dry state legalizing alcohol for whites but not for blacks).

By the way, speaking of "hats", here's a further quote from the Goodridge opinion:

You know, if you became just a little more narrow-minded, you could probably eliminate one of your two choices.

Your statement is as false a statement as I've ever read anywhere on the internets, let alone AD. There are plenty of valid reasons - although you may disagree with - of why gay marriage is a bad idea. Maybe you could re-read some of the posts dealing with this subjects with a more open mind. It might surprise you that some of our intelligence levels are far beyond where you believe them to be.

You need to consider that, in order to violate a fundamental right, the restriction must be necessary. It's that whole strict scrutiny thing that you seem to have a problem with. While adoption may only be a statutory right, marriage is not. So, again, if the State does not consider sexual orientation at all when it comes to allowing a couple to adopt, can it use that argument to prevent the couple from marrying? No. If the State doesn't care about sexual orientation at all when it comes to raising children, it obviously isn't necessary to restrict to opposite sex couples for that reason. Next. Do you have another reason? That's two down.



Yes, and my quote was the majority's response to this dissenting opinion. If the legislature allowed same-sex couples to adopt, but also allowed the State take sexual orientation into consideration when examining the fitness of one couple vs that of another to raise a child, Justice Cordy might have a point. But they didn't. Not only did the Massachusett's Supreme Court rule that same-sex couples be allowed to adopt, the Legislature passed a regulation making it illegal to consider sexual orientation at all when it came to adoption.

Like I said, all you need to do is find a case such as I've described, because what you're obviously having a problem with is the word "necessary". As I've explained to you already, it is not synonymous with "adequate".

So two homosexual people cannot get married because of why? Because some people do not want them to because they are homosexual, that is bias, coming from religion mainly, I am sorry, there are no valid reasons save the biased ones people deem reasonable to discriminate against them. Homosexual marriages are legal in some countries, those countries have not fallen apart at the seems because of such, homosexual couples exist anyways, regardless if legal or not. Marriage has law attached to it granting parties involved many benefits regardless if children are present or not, why cant two people that love each other get such equal treatment, they cant because some people are bias against them, or don’t like them, I cant see any other reason they are discriminated against personally, if someone can come up with another name that bias in a different form like homophobia that is fine, but the root of it all is bias. If someone cant see the forest for the trees that is not my fault, people do not want homosexuals to have equal rights, people want homosexuals to be hated and put in camps, i cannot see where the grand intelligence in that is past it simply being bias. There is a lesbian couple in the house next to me, guess what, you would never know, they cant enjoy or embrace each other in marriage, because people hold bias against them because the are homosexual, marriage should only be between a man and a women, its a perceptual issue, and people only want that, which means homosexual couples cant, and why again, because people hold bias against them, and why, because they are homosexual, no other reason. People that cannot have children can get married, old people can get married, people of different creeds and races can get married, everyone can get married except homosexuals because they are homosexuals, that is bias pure and simple, I mean the debate topic is simply orbiting the fact of homosexuality being occurring in nature and people being bias against it, its pretty out in the open, no cover or concealment on that one. If you get offended because I am calling it bias, sorry, but that is what it is. Every argument put against homosexual marriages is weak, simply because other nations are not so bias against them, and if such argument were or are true they would have come to be, but they did not, nothing really changed in various nations that allowed bias against homosexuals to get married, save religious people got angry because there bias was not respected...

I am sorry if some people hate homosexuals or do not think they should have equal rights, but the simple fact is such comes from bias against them, nothing more then that, and it comes primarily from religion also primarily in every society that holds bias against them and tries to enforce such via the government.

I do not like religion, and I think the government should ban it because of various reasons I feel are valid, what would you call that?

I don't need to find anything, Blackstone. Just because necessary is not synonymous with adequate does not change the fact that it needs to be necessary.

Is the restriction of marrige to opposite sex couples necessary in order to fulfill that interest? It can't be necessary if the State, for whatever reason, already does not take sexual orientation into consideration at all when it comes to examining the fitness of a couple to raise a child.

entspeak,

Again and again you fall back upon your fundamental right argument and the strict scrutiny which accompanies it. However, you must acknowledge that no court has ruled that same sex marriage is a fundamental right.

When the USSC ruled that marriage was a fundamental right, the definition of such was implicitly one man and one woman. In addition, the ruling was "marriage and procreation" as a fundamental right. Other rulings have cited Skinner:



If we parse this sentence, it actually turns out to be false. Procreation is fundamental to the existence and survival of mankind, but marriage is not. Does that mean that the conclusion that marriage is a fundamental right is also false? Not necessarily, but it doesn't prove it either.

Loving does likewise:


We've been over this ground. I posted these quotes at Post #23

The courts have refused to acknowledge that same sex marriage is a fundamental right, even when facing that very question. Each court case has applied the rational basis review to these cases. Until a court (actually, until the Supreme Court) insists upon strict scrutiny, your line of reasoning is flawed.

And that's where you confuse "necessary" with "adequate". It may not be adequate for fulfilling that interest, if the state undermines it by letting same-sex couples adopt on the same terms as opposite-sex couples, but it is necessary, because it's impossible to fulfill that interest without doing it.