I don't believe that marriage ceremonies are any different in the eyes of the law. Not that I know of anyway. It's really a difference in semantics I suppose.

However, when it came to polygamy... why couldn't laws be enacted? Why is polygamy any more/less damaging to society than homosexual union? (I'm by no means Mormon, but would suggest that the LDS church would surely see things in their own light)

I've ventured to guess that on this matter, the public should speak regularly and vote on this every four years or something. Maybe let the states handle it. Whatever happened to the notion of democracy?

Sure, why couldn't they? They most certainly could. But laws would have to be created to prevent polygamy-specific abuses. And this is how the situation differs between same-sex marriage and polygamy. Civil Marriage as it stands today – being regulated by a network of laws – would actually have to change in order to accomodate polygamy. The Courts have no authority to do this. So, polygamy could only become legal through additional legislative action. This isn't the case with same-sex marriage. There are no laws which have to be created, nothing in civil marriage as it exists today has to change. Return the legal definitions of marriage to what they were pre-1973 and let 'er rip.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, substantial in the Civil Marriage contract that needs to be created or changed in order to accomodate same-sex marriage.

In California this might work. The laws are not the same in every state. You continue to rely on decisions by judges in Massachusetts and gender neutral wording of laws in California as if they apply nationally. Which they don't.

Are you saying that all states should be forced to adopt the legal definition that California had pre-1973? How would that represent the will of the people in, say, Mississippi?

Did we forget that you'd have to add reverse constitutional amendments in some cases to allow same-sex marriage? (i.e. Louisiana?)

Oddly.... the only people I've found that are opposed to letting it come to a state-by-state vote are gay marriage advocates. Hmmm....

So, now that the notion that polygamous marriage would require little or no more work, what again would make it different? Oh- popular American society as a majority doesn't agree with it. I hate that it comes down to that, but it's frankly the fact of the matter.

Oh, and polygamy-specific abuses? Guess those are a ton different than other relationship abuses? I'm not a polygamy advocate... but don't really see the logic.

The need to create laws to accomodate polygamy and the lack of that need in order to accomodate same-sex marriage – the context in which I made the statement you quote, Amlord, does apply nationally. Can you point to a single law that is a part of the network of laws governing the marriage contract that needs to change in a significant way in order to accomodate same-sex marriage? (You might want to toss in one related exclusively to procreation, too... as that is the first question in this debate.) You don't just have to remove bans on polygamy in order to accomodate polygamy – you have to add laws in order to accomodate it.



California did not have a gender-specific legal definition of marriage until 1977. No State in the country had a gender-specific legal definition of marriage prior to 1973. Maryland was the first state to legally define marriage as being between a man and a woman in 1973.



Reversals are not additions. An amendment that repeals a previous amendment is still a repeal.



Is the State required to accomodate polygamous marriage if doing so requires the restructuring of the civil marriage contract in order to accomodate it? Can the courts require the States to pass new laws to accomodate polygamy?



Well, I listed a couple of polygamy-specific issues above. How do you deal with them if not by preventing polygamy or altering the civil marriage contract to accomodate polygamy?

The point is this: There is a difference between the issue of same-sex marriage and polygamy such that allowing same-sex marriage does not mean that a ban on polygamy becomes arbitrary. That is the point I'm making. Polygamy has issues unrelated to same-sex marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage does not make those issues disappear and suddenly the ban on polygamy becomes arbitrary.

You were wrong when you made this claim before, and repeating it doesn't make it any more correct. The fact that laws "must" serve a state interest doesn't mean they do. And the Court simply does not need to concern itself with whether or not unchallenged laws do. They're irrelevant. If a court can strike down a law on the grounds that it allegedly doesn't serve a state interest, then that means that the court's saying that the legislature is not empowered to determine what the state's interest is. It would mean that its interest is defined by something other than what the legislature enacts. That means that the laws a state has on the books are not evidence of the state's interests.

Blackstone, you are making absolutely no sense. All laws must serve a valid State interest. The Court has to assume that the State knew what it was doing when it passed the adoption regulation, Blackstone.

The state can't claim that it has no interest at all in considering sexual orientation when it comes to raising children and then say, "Yeah, well... we don't take sexual orientation into consideration at all when it comes to raising children... it makes no difference... it does make a difference, however, when it comes to whether or not we allow same-sex couples to marry – we can't let same-sex couples to marry because we have to consider sexual orientation when it comes to raising children." What? It either makes a difference or it doesn't. They either have an interest in considering sexual orientation when it comes to raising children or they don't. It can't be both, Blackstone. Your argument is patently absurd.

OK, so let's say they don't. Would that mean that the adoption law you've been referring to is invalid?

This is what I'm not getting about your argument. We have two laws we're looking at: A and B. Law A defines marriage according to its generally accepted definition (1 man + 1 woman), and Law B prohibits taking into account the sexual orientation of a couple that wishes to adopt. Now you're saying that the Court should regard Law B as prima facie evidence of the state's "interest", but that's a completely arbitrary choice. Why not regard Law A as such?

Because Law A is the one whose validity is being challenged, law B is not. It's not arbitrary at all. Law B is accepted by the Legislature as being valid – they passed it, after all – and the validity of Law B is not being challenged by the plaintiffs in the case. There is no dispute in Goodridge as to the validity of Law B. There is no question before the court regarding the validity of Law B. The State can't say we have an interest in considering sexual orientation when it comes to raising children and the law in dispute proves that – especially, when there is another law related to the issue of sexual orientation and raising children that is not in dispute and provides evidence that the State does not have that interest at all.

I see, so it's just a matter of who actually gets to the court first. If a heterosexual couple that was upset about Law B, the adoption law, had gotten to the SJC before Goodridge et al., then the SJC would have been obliged to regard Law A a prima facie evidence of the state's interest while striking down Law B. Do I have that right?

And how would a heterosexual couple prove that they are injured by the adoption regulation? They are not specifically injured by the regulation. A heterosexual couple would not have standing to challenge the adoption regulation.

And if a homosexual couple is denied an adoption because the state official responsible for assigning the adoption felt the law was unconstitutional, would that couple similarly not have standing to challenge that action, because they're not specifically injured?

Sorry for not directly addressing the question of this thread I feel that I need to comment on the content of the past 19 pages of discussion.

First to even get into the argument that the state or federal government has even the slightest interest in the well being of children and the environment they are raised in you would have to be living in a cave.

Have you seen who is raising children today… how could even the most delinquent homosexual couple introduce anything into the world of parenting that is not already being done every minute of the day all over the country. Seriously this is an argument of semantics, with a national divorce rate in the 50% range and with it as high as 75% in many urban areas how could things get worse if homosexuals got married. Before anyone can even talk about laws to “protect families” you need to take you head out of the sand and look around you. Just the other day I saw a mother smack an infant!

At least homosexual couples that adopt a child WANT that child, which can not be said for a huge number of “oops” children. Many of these “oops” children are raised in deplorable situations that would make most parents cringe.

I know blanket statements about one side or the other are inflammatory, but I just can not find a legitimate motivation for the anti-gay-marriage crowd, except that they just don’t feel comfortable with the entire subject of homosexuality and need a platform for a righteous rant.

There is no possible way for you to have read this entire thread and not see a reason why some of us disagree with gay marriage without having YOUR head in the sand.

Don't agree with our stance? Fine...that's why we're here. But to say we don't have a reason other than your pre-conceived notions is pretty narrow-minded.

But what I find particularly humorous about your rant, is that you seem to have a problem with the government not criminalizing parental behavior/responsibilities. Some parents are bad and the government does nothing, so marriage can't be about children. Your opinion is much like the argument that marriage can't be about children because we're not jailing couples who fail to have children for one reason or another.

There's a big difference between attempting to do what's best for children and criminalizing behavior as it relates to marriage and children. But you've just lumped them all together in some self-righteous rant.

Typical.

OK you caught me.. I skimmed it



Maybe to me it just "feels" like some are over complicating the issue and arguing the most minute details of parenting in order to hide the more simplistic fact that they don't like gay marriage because it's "icky".


I do try to be funny!



I don't believe that the government should be in any way in involved in criminalizing how people raise their children, I just think that it's pretty damn hypocritical to use so much energy to defeat gay-marriage "for the sake of the children" when heterosexual parents are doing such a bad job now.



hmm sure feels like lots of people want to "criminaliz behavior" (homosexuality) for the sake of "marriage and children".

I hate it too when people put words in my mouth.

You're not the first dime-store psychoanalyst to come on this thread, and you probably won't be the last. But if you really want to know why people have the views they do on same-sex marriage, then by all means, start a thread asking that question. This thread is about the constitutionality of such laws. If you don't have anything to add to that discussion (which is becoming quite obvious), then please don't keep disrupting it.

Actually I don't see the word "constitutionality" in the original question, but then I guess we all get a little OT now and then.

I'm guessing a more "on topic" response would be.


No, mostly because at the time of the marriage it’s self there is no other entity besides the 2 people involved in the marriage, and all obligations and benefits are declared at the wedding ceremony. Even assumed paternity is not an obligation in the absence of a child. If you look at marriage as a contract, which in the strictest sense it is, try and imagine a clause that obligates the parties to something that does not yet exist, and has no guarantee to exist.


As a continuation of the above: you can not deny or grant marriage based on something that does not exist (a child). A couple is just as much unable to have a child if they choose not to, as a couple who is medically unable. Also for you to be able to deny marriage to couples that can not have children either by choice or inability you would have to first find a way to force those that are able to create children to do so.


.

Well, let's put this question in context (I did this earlier, but I'll state it again). The question as posted is not exactly the question I meant to ask and I did correct it later (but not in time to change the post itself.)

In the question posed, I refer to the marriage contract itself. Are there obligations and benefits in the civil marriage contract that relate exclusively to procreation. Assumed paternity relates to procreation, but, as you correctly state, only if and when a child is present as a result of procreation between married couples. If the child is conceived before marriage or the child is adopted, assumed paternity is not an obligation. And even this obligation is going the way of the dodo.

There used to be more benefits and obligations related to procreation in the civil marriage contract, however. A married couple had to allow for the possibility of procreation in marriage (they couldn't use contraceptives), they couldn't engage in any sexual activity that was not conducive to procreation, they couldn't have sex with someone other than their husband, marriage was the only relationship in which one could legally have sex, and if a child was born in a marriage it was legally assumed to be the child of the husband. All of these related to procreation and all are unenforced or gone except for the last – which may disappear itself, soon.



What, to you, is the purpose of civil marriage? Why does it exist?

I make these clarifications and ask these questions so that you can understand the context of this debate. It does relate to the constitutionality of the laws. The second question in particular.



I personally believe that deep down, people are disturbed by homosexuality and this is why they can't accept same-sex marriage. There are people who know and love homosexuals who still can't accept the idea of same-sex marriage. They are willing to grant them anything they want but that. This is, in my mind, irrational, but it is. Simply telling an otherwise rational person that they are being irrational is useless, for the most part, and so we have these debates. To me this debate is about debunking the arguments against in order to illuminate that irrationality. And, being that civil marriage is regulated by the State, debunking the State's claims for banning same-sex marriage makes the most sense. Society can believe what it wants about homosexuals, that is their right. The State, however, is bound to and limited by the Constitution.

That statement brings up an interesting point. What “marriage is” has been and always will change with time. People like too make it out to be this unchanging rock that only a fool would mess with. But just look at the last 50 years of marriage, women are finally becoming equally partners in what was traditionally a submissive role. This is a major change, and it is most likely the cause of such high divorce rates, but it is still for the better. I personally view the addition of same sex marriages as a less dramatic change.


Having recently married this is a question that is still somewhat fresh in my mind. Marriage is a binding lifelong commitment of love and support between two people. That’s it. No more, no less. I know the states may have laws that concern my marriage, but they were not one of the parties there on that day, and luckily the state did not go on the honeymoon. The state has absolutely no say in my marriage, it is between me and my wife. Yea they ask for a lot of paperwork, but at the end of the day it’s just about 2 people.

I would love to go into a rant on the irony that a party that prides it’s self on wanting less government seems to want it in every aspect of our personal lives…but that’s for another time.


Could not have said it better my self.

It is important to note here the distinction between the civil component and the personal, ceremonial component of marriage.

One can have a personal marriage – a religious ceremony, or not – and never have legal recognition of that marriage. In fact, same-sex couples can do this now. So, while I agree that there is this component, civil marriage is regulated and defined by a network of laws that grant benefits and impose obligations on a married couple. It is this component of marriage – the civil component, the State involvement (because it is involved) – that was the subject of my question.

Why does the State regulate civil marriage? To what end?

I do not understand Question #1. On Question #2, how would the government know that a couple cannot procreate?

Question #1 relates to the civil marriage contract – which is comprised of obligations and benefits established through a network of laws governing the institution. For instance, assumed paternity is (or was) an obligation (or benefit, depending on whether you are the husband or the wife and child). Any child born during a marriage is legally assumed to be the offspring of the husband and he is, therefore, legally responsible for the child. This obligation/benefit is going away, but still exists in most states. Another benefit of civil marriage is the equal distribution of assets. Are there any obligations or benefits in the civil marriage contract that relate exclusively to procreation?

Regarding Question #2, people put their age on their application for a marriage license. It is reasonable to assume that two people who are both over the age of, say, 55 will be unable to procreate. The government knows this the moment this couple applies for a license, just as they know that two men can't procreate and two women can't procreate. And in some States – under certain circumstances, you have to actually prove to the government that you can't procreate before they will allow you to marry. That's how they know.

entspeak:

A Romanian woman was trying to give birth at '67. In 2003, a 65 year old Indian woman gave birth. In 1997, a woman from the UK gave birth at 60. In July of this year, our gal in the UK was passed by her fellow subject of Her Majesty the Queen, who gave birth at 62. In the UK, 1 in 100 children are otherwise born to men over 50. Julio Iglesias, Sr., became a dad at 89. Rupert Murdoch had two kids while in his 70s. Charle Chaplin became a father for the last time in his 70s. Lastly, there's Des O'Connor, who was 72 when he stood there crying tears of joy while his wife gave birth to their fifth child.

So the government does not know that they cannot procreate at 55 and so it isn't reasonable to claim otherwise. And the standing rule for women otherwise is, the age of the egg is important, but the age of the uterus is not. And lucky for us, the miracle of modern science has made it so that the female can have an egg or two or three or four, frozen. So she does not even need a donor egg anymore, provided she takes the long term view and freezes some eggs that might otherwise have gone to waste. Lastly, with that in mind, are you otherwise suggesting that there be a place on the form for, yes or no, have you had any of your eggs frozen for purposes of later fertilization? If so, then I take it that you have no objection to some peering in that window for purposes of ascertaining whether any unlawful sexual intercourse [such as sodomy] is occurring.

Oh, and entspeak, Algernon would have realized by now that there's no way out of the box. Time for you as well.

In Wisconsin, first cousins can marry only if the woman is over 55 or one or both parties are unable to reproduce. So, this state will legally recognize the marriage of a couple who is unable to procreate. Can it then prohibit same-sex marriage on the grounds that a homosexual couple will be unable to procreate?

In Illinois, first cousins can marry if both parties are over 50 or one of the parties is unable to procreate. Can Illinois then prohibit same-sex marriage because homosexual couples are incapable of procreating?

In Indiana, first cousins can marry only if both parties are over 65. Why the age restriction, Kivrot? Just some random age restriction or does it have to do with a generally accepted age at which procreation is unlikely? Does the State expect or hope that these couples will procreate? No. They set these restrictions to discourage or prevent procreation.

How then can marriage in these states be about encouraging procreation to the extent that it needs to exclude same-sex couples from marrying because they can't procreate? Hmmm?

Does the State feel that it is invading a citizen's privacy when it looks at the age on the marriage application? Does it feel it is invading a citizen's privacy when it asks them to prove they can't procreate? How can a State claim that it has an interest in recognizing marriage for the purpose of encouraging procreation when, for certain couples, it only allows them to marry if they can prove that a: they are unable to procreate or b: they are beyond an age where it is likely that they will procreate? That sounds to me like a State that does not view the ability to procreate as a criteria for legally recognizing marriage.

And there are no fertility clinics in this country that will knowingly perform IVF on women in their late 60's. I defy you to find me one. So, yes, the government can feel pretty confident that a woman in her late 60's will be unable to procreate – certainly a woman in her 70's. And this information is readily available on an application for a marriage license. No privacy issue. So, if marriage is to be reserved for those who can procreate, why isn't there an upper age limit for marriage? Why has there never been an upper age limit for marriage?

I'm not the one in the box, Kivrot.

When I see debates like this, I am first and foremost stunned by comments like, "If thus and so were important, shouldn't we regulate for such and such?" The answer is NO and HELL NO, as our government should have very little to do with one's private life and nothing in the Const mentions all of these "things to be regulated."

Long before the US existed under this Const, we had marriage, defined in the West for centuries under Christian auspices. What we have in our law about marriage at the state level derived from that tradition and indeed you cannot really discuss marriage in the US absent filtering one's discussion through this fact.





As far as benefits, most scholars I have read have agreed, even if somewhat begrudingly, that heterosexual marriage provides the best platform for raising children. The poster above cites a number of sources.



As I said above, marriage really derives from Christian practice in the West. Our entire debate today emanates solely from a modern trend to look at marriage as some legal construct rather than what is has been for centuries in the West, long before the US existed. In reality, the legal construct derives directly from the religious precursor in this culture.

If you choose to "divorce" marriage from its Christian roots and look at it solely as a contract of social utility, we can rapidly move into eugenics and who-knows-how-many considerations of "social utility", which is very dangerous ground in light of our Const rights.

This moves me back to my very first comment--the state should have little or no say in this at all. Marriage was a religious insitution long before it became a US legal construct. I would suggest we leave marriage where it is.

If the majority in any state believes they need some other kind of social contract, I guess they could create same, but I would be very, very careful that the state doesn't lapse into some kind of social science analysis that tramples over privacy rights.

The reality is, people can live together as they choose, without state sanction. The state should just stay out of it. If people wish to draw up a partnership agreement of some kind, then they should feel free to do so, without any governmental interference, just like any other contract. They should not quibble that they do not get the exact same benefits as marriage, as marriage, as I have stated, is de facto much more than a governmental construct and the US should not be forced to uproot millenia of tradition because of some johnny-come-lately social science theories.

Quick,

You have it backwards... marriage was a legal and cultural construct long before it was ever a Christian institution. And, civil marriage is not bound to religion. One can have a civil marriage without participating in the religious institution and people have been able to engage in marriage contracts since long before Christianity existed. The two are separate entities. In Catholicism, for example, you can't simply get a divorce and have the Catholic Church recognize it -- in most cases, in the eyes of the Church you are still married even though, legally, you are divorced.



Is this true to the extent that it is necessary to exclude other types of couples from participating in it?



Well, as I said above, this is not true. Marriage contracts existed long before Christianity.



Just so we're clear, marriage does not have "Christian roots," it is not "derived from Christian practice," and the legal construct does not "derive directly from the religious precursor."

Excuse me quick, but what does eugenics have to do with the question of gay marriage?



http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Huma...ary.html#embryo

Here's another link.

http://www.eugenics.net/

Entspeak in times before unions under Christianity were homosexuals permitted in making legal unions with one another? Also as i understand many homosexuals do not want a legally binding union, they want the term "marriage" , which to many in this nation has religious connotations, that run deeper than the recent secular view of the term "marriage"

What about religious homosexuals that want to get married to conform to there interpretation of faith? Would denial of that not be breaking some basic grounds of our constitution?

Also, from your viewpoint how is it possible really to deny them the right to obtain marriage? Is it a trademarked intellectual product of some company? Not to be to silly I just don’t understand how its possible to deny them the ability to obtain marriage in any rational or legal sense. A man that was a child rapist at some point still holds the ability to obtain marriage, but you cant if you happen to be a homosexual? What standards is that overall?

Also, if marriage is to be for procreation purposes, then marriage should only be allowed to exist on that purpose, so for hetero couples that do not have children, they should not longer be able to be married right? I mean if that’s what marriage is about.

Also, if marriage is indeed a religious event, and not secular, what is it doing with federal or governmental laws around it, that to me would seem like another breech of the constitution, the part about no laws respecting the establishment of religion and all.

I know its just the constitution, and public will and majority will pretty much does what it wants, but where is the morality in all of it? Pretty soon it becomes America for a select few and not really Americans, pretty biased culture I would say.

So then we would have overall religion in government, mandating religious views via governmental fashion against Americans they hold bias against, because of sexual preference adults make in there home with there lives, and such people then cannot with liberty and justice for all attempt to live a normal life, one that allows for marriage, regardless of there take on it, religious or not.

Actually, I'm not sure you'd get a lot of argument from people with that premise.

The problem is, do you criminalize it? Did they "knowingly" not have children? What are the penalties? Etc etc etc...

I agree, but I don’t agree with the idea that homosexuals cannot obtain marriage because marriage is only for procreation when heterosexual couples obtain marriage and never ever have children, just seems like some logical short round really.

This isn't really core to this debate but....even if marriage is recognized by the state, that doesn't mean that it will be recognized by a given religion. That is, I don't think the US could compel (for example) the Catholic Church to marry homosexuals as it's against church dogma.

It seems that if the debate in question is regarding political/legal recognition of marriage, religious recognition would probably be pretty difficult to legislate and I don't think we should even if we could. I'm in favor of gay marriage but I'm also in favor of letting religious institutions be against it (even if I think they're small minded, bigoted and wrong).

Just my .02.

(edited to remove an extraneous sentence)

Were women allowed to hold public office? Did children have the right not to be worked to death? As I have stated before, just because it hasn't been legally allowed before does not give justification for not legally allowing it now. There is constitutionally no valid reason to exclude same-sex couples from marriage. To give them civil unions instead is called "separate but equal" and is also discrimination. Civil marriage is not religious marriage... connotations do not lend constitutionality to the law. And again, the concept of secular marriage is older than the religious one... so it can hardly be called recent.

I agree with TheCook that religious organizations should not be forced to recognize same-sex unions... that would be equally unconstitutional, but to ban it because of religious connotation is likewise unconstitutional.

Connotations or no, you do not have to have a religious marriage in order for it to be recognized.



Well, for one thing, you could prevent laws that only allow certain people to marry if they can prove they are unable to procreate. You'd think that would be a start, wouldn't it? You'd think if the State had this interest in reserving marriage for those who could procreate, such laws wouldn't be on the books... and yet they are. How does one explain that? So, you can marry and not be able to procreate... but only if you're heterosexual.

Let me turn this around:

--What do homosexuals WANT from "marriage"? Why do they care? Is it just so they can get differing tax treatment or engage estate laws? None of the male homosexuals I have known wanted any kids, in fact they couldn't stand kids, as a rule. Is this really a pervasive homosexual desire, to adopt kids? Most of the legal benefits of marriage could be engaged by contract.

--Why should the state have any say about marriage at all? Would everyone feel better if "marriage" were solely a religious construct, or a construct of one's imagination? Would homosexuals feel better if marriage were wholly private and had no state sanction? Homosexuals could then define their "marriages" any way they want.

--Why do homosexuals feel the need to twist, badger, coerce and compel the established church to recognize their "unions"? Why don't they start their own churches or denominations? We have freedom of religion in the US.

I look forward to the responses.

I do not wish to speak for the gay community any more than I want to speak for the Black community, but I have some thoughts. I haven’t known any openly gay males since I retired from teaching in 2002. I can’t dispute what you are saying any more than you can substantiate it with statistics. It does seem to me that you are doing broad brush strokes, probably with an inadequate random sample.



The original questions had nothing, per se, to do with religion. I think all marriages should be sanctioned by the states. What the various religious organizations recognize is up to them. I can’t fathom why one would give a continental damn what a church sanctions. Yet I can well understand how someone who grew up in a particular religious tradition might crave the blessing of that church.

Is there another obligation or benefit in marriage that is associated exclusively with procreation apart from assumed paternity?

If the government allows a couple to marry that it knows can't procreate, can it deny marriage to a same-sex couple because they, as a couple are unable to procreate? If so, why?



For your information, that has already been done.

During the 70s, I was board member at First Unitarian Church of Fort Worth. A proposal came to the board to allow the Metropolitan Community Church to use our facilities on Saturday in exchange for monetary and custodial services. This arrangement lasted until First Unitarian Church merged with Jefferson Unitarian. I voted for the proposal. The merged church was named First-Jefferson Unitarian Church.

I’m not sure where Metropolitan Community Church moved after this, but I think the built or bought a facility of their own .

http://www.mccchurch.org//AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home

Edited to add



Again quick, I don’t understand your use of the words “eugenics” in the above paragraph. How does a couple, who cannot procreate, alter the gene pool?

This looks like a "slippery-slope" argument in which legislating from "social utility" is the only relationship between GM and eugenics. If one relatively harmless law can be made on a particular basis, then other more harmful laws might be made on the same basis. I'm not a big fan of slipery-slope arguments, but I recognize them when I see them.

The more common GM slippery-slope argument is the "first gay marriage, then polygamy" argument. The state made polygamy a felony on the basis that it could be easily abused to commit immigration fraud, underage marriage, etc. The state could easily conjure similar arguments if it really wanted to ban gay marriage, too. (Potential insurance fraud, tax fraud, etc.) I don't really care whether or not homosexuals consider themselves married so long as the government doesn't give them the same tax breaks intended to encourage responsible families.

I am in a government-recognized marriage, and I have never had any desire to produce or adopt children. What do I want from marriage? Hundreds of legal benefits, for one thing. Taxes and estates and many, many other things having nothing to do with children are important issues.



The very fact that there is even a debate about adoption by same-sex couples -- the very fact that it is forbidden by law in some states -- shows that it is not an extremely rare desire. My personal experience has been that the majority of adults, regardless of sexual orientation, want to raise children. I'm considered a freak because I don't.



But many of the important ones involve a contract with the government; in fact this is what legal marriage means.



Many people have suggested that government get out of the marriage business. The major objection to this idea is that the chances of it happening are exactly zero. In addition to that, there seems to be general agreement that legal recognition of marriage offers benefits to society. (People in marriages tend to healthier, better off financially, and so on. Children raised by married people also benefit.)




I do not know of any serious effort by anybody to force any sect to recognize same-sex marriage. (There is some debate within some sects about the issue, but this is a matter of internal politics.) I would oppose any such effort, since I am a strong defender of religious freedom, and the absolute separation of church and state. As far as I am concerned, any sect has the right to perform, or to refuse to perform, any marriage; but this has nothing to do with legal marriage.



You fail to note that there are already some sects which perform same-sex marriage ceremonies.

entspeak:

Still at it? Let me end the debate re question no. 2.

After I recite a brief factual summary that includes the statement of your claim, and then recite Rule 12((6), FRCP, I then report in my memorandum in support of my client's motion to dismiss your Count II:

On what basis can the Court grant any relief to Plaintiff entspeak? Assuming that there could be a remedy here, there cannot, but assuming there could be, the remedy would not be giving Plaintiff entspeak a benefit to which he is not entitled, the remedy would be to exclude those not entitled but who have erroneously been included, i.e, the infertile heterosexual couple. And so Plaintiff's entspeak's Count II fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

That's the problem with claims of underinclusion. According to you, the State's net didn't sweep broad enough so as to ensnare Mr. and Mrs. Infertile along with Adam and Sam and Mary and Jane. Do you see why that can never win? It's like saying, judge, let me off. Why? Because they didn't catch all the looters, just me. You otherwise run a huge risk when you plead Count II [as it were]. Someone might think that you raise Count II because you know that the State has it right with respect to Count I [i.e., that this is all about procreation]. And the State's going to gladly accept your invitation to speak to procreation, 'cause the State gets to talk about how just one look at Adam and Sam and Mary and Jane says all that need be said about whether Adam and Sam will be the natural parents of that child, ditto Mary and Jane, and, counselor, weren't you in this Court just this past week speaking to this Court about privacy in some other matter, and so is the State not being rather rational and eminently reasonable here, since as concerns your and my privacy, on the one hand, just one look, and on the other, time to sneek a peek at someone's medical records or have them undergo some testing, and so the State's dividing line here, counselor, seems rather rational and eminently reasonable to this Court....and so you lose, big time, and you run the risk that Count II gets taken as your own subconscious admission that the State has it right re Count I. You lose because you can't win, since the remedy is not your inclusion but the exclusion of those wrongfully included, and no reason that I can see why one would want to give the State a chance to show how rational and reasonable it is when it comes to privacy, medical records review by persons other than patient and physician, and medical testing when there is no medical need for the same, and never mind the cost, in dollars, for all of that. So drop Count II. Stick with Count I, and then argue for those benefits that don't have much to do with procreation, and say something about your inclusion being the only remedy available that will not end the benefit you seek in its entirety, i.e., the remedy for school inequality was not to end all schooling, as that would have been absurd, and so too you argue here.

Lastly, you do see the irony here, yes? What do most of us think about the infertile couple? Poor them? How about Adam and Sam? Poor them as well? So if you're wondering why the one jurist might have more sympathy for some than some others, well, you are the one who is saying that with some all is normal, and the one jurist isn't saying that about Mr. and Mrs. Infertile. So why do you object again to his [the State's] showing pity and having the good grace to not remind anyone about anyone else's infertility? Is that how you want it to come across before the Court? But that's another risk you run by going anywhere near Mr. and Mrs. Infertile. Normal you is complaining about the erroneous inclusion of poor them. Sound about right? And better you were black than gay, since black is more melanin and gay is state of mind, and the one not being able to correctly identify the gender to marry and reproduce with is going to make sport of infertile them? Might I now ask how many levels you desire to lose on? And so for our last level, the State does play the sympathy card, and so notes how painful it is for the infertile couple who want that child of their own and then the State simply reports that the State isn't in the business of crushing the spirit of its people by branding them infertile. And what do you say to that? You can't say anything to that, because you're normal and its your choice, but there's something wrong with one or both of them and it likely wasn't their choice and they wish their circumstance was otherwise. So the State will also argue that it is not only privacy, but also the desire to not crush the spirit of its people, that the State decided to include all who might otherwise be able to reproduce absent some defect in body and so avoid having to brand and painfully remind some of their infertility. That about says it all.

My problem with altering marriage is that ....


1) What prevents additional groups from wanting to marry? Pedophiles could, and do argue that age laws are discriminatory. Polygamists do the same with laws that currently prevent multiple marriages even when all parties consent. Also, Claudia and her Schaeferhund is a completely consentual relationship. what prevents them from marrying?Claudia hat nen schaeferhund lyrics

2) It appears that Gay marriage is just as (or more) unstable than heterosexual marriage ... Gay couples that just got married a few months ago in MA are already trying to file for divorce. Gay Divorce If you are going to use the divorce rate as a reason FOR same sex marriage maybe you should make certain gay couples are more stable in their relationships. for every gay gouple that has been together for 15-20 years i can give you 10 heterosexual couples who have been together for 40+

We've been around and around and around with this here at , so let's deal with this quickly.

1. Legalization of same-sex marriage does not imply that any other form of marriage will be made legal.

2. Young children cannot consent to marriage, for the same reasons that they cannot consent to other contracts; lack of knowledge, experience, and so on.

3. Non-human animals cannot consent to marriage, if for no other reason than they have no understanding of the concept. This is the same reason that people with severely disabled mental functioning cannot consent.

4. I'm one of the minority who would make genuinely consensual group marriage legal. However, this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.





I don't see the relevance of this. I certainly don't say "Not all opposite-sex marriages work out, so we should allow same-sex marriage;" that doesn't follow. I do say that it would be a good idea for the government to allow same-sex couples the same benefits and responsibilities of marriage as opposite-sex couples. Not all such marriages will work out; such is life. But wouldn't it be nice to give them a chance?

1. Legalization of same-sex marriage does not imply that any other form of marriage will be made legal.

please explain this to Tom Green ( no, not the comedian ) and others like him in both the polygamy and incest camps

2. Young children cannot consent to marriage, for the same reasons that they cannot consent to other contracts; lack of knowledge, experience, and so on.

and yet they can get abortions without their parents knowledge or consent... methinks the logic does not meet somewhere...

3. Non-human animals cannot consent to marriage, if for no other reason than they have no understanding of the concept. This is the same reason that people with severely disabled mental functioning cannot consent.

merely the rantings of a speciesist ( i think that is how they spell it) who degrades the ability of the wonderfully intelligent german shepherd.

4. I'm one of the minority who would make genuinely consensual group marriage legal. However, this has nothing to do with same-sex marriage.

See #1



My point is that you give legal validity to many many other things that would be detrimental to our society as a whole by altering one of the core building blocks of human society. ( The family )

While not perfect, heterosexual marriage is the best enviroment for raising children (which is the WHOLE reason for the governments interest in marriage) because heterosexual unions are the ONLY way to beget children it is the only form marriage that the government has a compelling interest in creating and or preserving. otherwise the government should get away from the marriage business.

I agree with VS this one has been done to death. There is NO logic to the assertion that legalising gay marriage will inevitably lead to the legalisation of marriage between a man and a corpse, or a man and a Volkswagon Jetta, or a man and the west wind. There is no legal reason why if the state recognises gay marrige it MUST therefore recognise all other types. The very same arguments were used by people opposing interracial couples, the famous 'what's next' argument. And yet, decades after blacks were allowed to marry whites, it is still not allowed for a man to marry the Jovian moon of Io.

Yes, there are wingnuts in the sidelines who think they should be able to marry their 8 year old cousin or the family hamster, so what? there are also nutjobs who think man never landed on the moon, that aliens killed JFK and that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. that doesn't make any of those anything more than a joke.



Sounds like agreat reason to make it legal, its the same as heterosexual couples. What was your point?




And how does this alter the nature of marriage? Exatly what impact will this have on the tens of thousands of heterosexual couples who get married every day? Do you really think that two straight people will read in the new York times that gays are allowed to marry, and thus decide NOT to get married themselves?

Besides, the idea of marriage as a static institution is absolute fiction. If there is anything traditional about marriage through history, it is how much it changes. Polygamy is now illegal, inter-racial marriage is legal, divorce is legal, marriage age of consent laws have changed dramatically, rights of women inside marriage have changed, property rights in marriage have changed, marriage changed from a secular tradition, to a religious one and now is reverting to secular... and so on...

Kivrot,

Take a "sneak peek" at medical records? Invade privacy? At what point, counselor, did I mention doing that? Let's see... Oh, yes... not at all.

Age is right there on the application, isn't it? Are you saying that the State can't look at the age of a couple as it relates to their State interest in regulating marriage? If two 90 year olds decide to marry one another, are you saying it's an invasion of their privacy to look at the age on the application? I don't think so. Can two 90 year olds procreate? Again, I don't think so. Can the State reasonably expect that two 90 year olds will not procreate? I think so. Does the State tell two 90 year olds that they can't marry? Only if they are a same-sex couple.

And in some states, the legislature has laws that allows first cousins to marry if and only if they can prove that they can't procreate or are of an age where procreation is unlikely. Do these states feel that this is an invasion of privacy? Apparently not.

This has already been stated in this thread... it was, in fact, the last thing I posted in response to you... you didn't respond to that post. You are, of course, free to address these things now. Perhaps, you will this time around.

And, counselor, the court can't remedy the situation by invalidating laws not challenged in the case at hand. Nobody is challenging the law allowing first cousins to marry, nobody is arguing that 90 year old heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to be married. What is being argued is that because these couples are allowed to marry, the State does not have a valid interest in regulating marriage for purposes related to procreation such that an exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage - because they are unable to procreate - could be considered reasonable - let alone necessary. It, in particular states, specifically requires some couples to prove that they are unable procreate before allowing them to marry. How can a State claim that it has an interest in reserving marriage for those who can procreate if it goes out of its way to allow specific couples to marry only if they prove they can't procreate. This isn't a case of passive under-inclusion, counselor - it is a case of active and unnecessary exclusion.

There is plenty of logic to suggest that any group of legal age consenting adults can marry. Just because you can't understand the logic does not mean it doesn't exist.

The whole idea of pedophiles getting married is bogus because they are all not consenting adults. For the same reason, marrying pets, inanimate objects, etc should not be permitted - not all consenting adults.

However, as much as you hate and deny it, there are many other arrangements between consenting adults that could take advantage of gay marriage because it would clearly be discrimination and highly subjective in not affording them the same opportunity.

So no, it hasn't been done to death because as much as we've debated this, you still don't grasp your opposition's logic. Don't agree? Fine. But don't act like you're right either because you're not...

There you go again telling the world what is logical... lol. I agree it is not logical that corpse are not considered capable of making decision. I agree Herbie the car should not be able to marry, your logic is supreme. Oh and who can forget... the moon of Jupiter.... talk about a long distance relationship, by the time someone says "I do" and the moon says "I do" back again... spot on, oh mighty Socrates.


However, not to repeat Dayton Rocker.... please explain why some arguing that consenting adults should not be prevented from marrying, are saying that these out of the norm marriages should happen, ye these out of the norm marriages should not happen... are logical??

Incest is illegal and as long as it remains illegal, incestuous marriage will be illegal regardless of whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed. It makes no sense to legalize a relationship when the activity between members of that relationship is illegal. To argue that allowing same-sex couples to marry will lead to incestuous marriage is patently absurd. If anything will lead to sibling marriage, it would be first cousins marrying... oh no, too late.

Bigamy... also illegal for reasons beyond simply being perceived as socially unacceptable.

These types of relationships have their own battles to fight... battles that have nothing to do with same-sex marriage. It is completely illogical to assume that simply because same-sex marriage is legalized... these other types of relationships should simply be included as well... this completely ignores the reasons why these particular types of relationships are banned in the first place.

entspeak:

How many 90 year olds get married? Next to none? Do you really wish to go to court on the claim that the State has grievously erred because it has not also excluded the literal handful of 90 year olds who might wish to marry? Is that going to be your claim? And, no, you didn't say, sneak and peek, I did, and so I forced you out to the extreme and so now here you indeed are, at the extreme, found speaking of 90 year olds getting married [by the way, what is the average life expectancy for females and males here in the US, so forget getting married, as I'll just be happy to still be alive should I hit the big nine zero, though such is idle dreaming on my part, since we counselors have a lower life expectancy than most, call us proof positive that stress kills, and say that I've voluntarily assumed the risk].

Re first cousins, well, why the need for their promise? Because we don't want mutant children? So we ask them what their intentions are, though I wouldn't be so trusting in this regard. But they still don't help, and never mind the no objection of some. Here's your problem:

"And, counselor, the court can't remedy the situation by invalidating laws not challenged in the case at hand. Nobody is challenging the law allowing first cousins to marry, nobody is arguing that 90 year old heterosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to be married. What is being argued is that because these couples are allowed to marry, the State does not have a valid interest in regulating marriage for purposes related to procreation such that an exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage - because they are unable to procreate - could be considered reasonable - let alone necessary

Your argument does not follow. Having a valid interest is not the same creature as implementing that valid interest in a proper and appropriate manner. The State will simply argue underinclusion, i.e., the State does have an undeniable interest in regulating the fruit of the heterosexual womb, both before and after the fact of birth, and all the State has done is to underinclude when it comes to the prohibitions on persons eligible to marry. And so you lose, big time, since the interest in undeniable and the law on underinclusion says that you don't get to complain about any underinclusion if you are otherwise properly the subject of the prohibition. Re first cousins, the State will simply say that it has no shortage of children in need of adoption and so while these two first cousins won't be having children of their own, they might adopt, and the State has these adoption incentive payments to facilitate that end, and the State otherwise believes that the nature of things is that each one of us has a mother and a father and so the heterosexual first cousins can marry and adopt while the homosexual couple cannot, and such is in the best interest of our children, and the State, as parens patriae [father of us all], is indeed solemnly charged to see to the best interest of our children. The remainder of the argument is simply that the homosexual couple has never enjoyed the fundamental right to marry, and no one, not hetero and not homo, has the fundamental right to adopt another's child. Sorry, the State will add that just because first cousins won't be procreating, does not mean that they have don't have a desire for children, and so they indeed might adopt and otherwise receive their fair share of the monies allocated for adoption incentive payments.

But that will be the State's argument, and the State wins. And if the State were truly smart, the State would also add that it doesn't marry people to improve their psychology, and so, well, why can't homosexual you just be homosexual you, and happy, and never mind any perceived psychological approval coming from the State's recognition of your marriage. But wait, you say, it isn't about any of that, it's about all of those benefits that come with marriage. Do you truly wish to go there? Re your question no. 1, well, we have retirement benefits for surviving spouses because the assumption was that fine woman that she is, model to us all, she stayed home for part of her life to care for the little ones, and that cost her, and so she doesn't have the same salary and retirement package as the hubby over there, and if she's old school, she probably doesn't have any salary or retirement package at all. And so, because the State is parens partriae, protector of our children's best interest, it wants mom to devote her life to the little ones [dad too], and in recognition of her having done so, we'll only do what's fair and give her the retirement that her husband would have shared with her were he still alive. Now that we've added mom more to the work force, maybe he plays Mr. Mom, and so he gets her retirement when she dies before him. And how do we justify it all? Kids aren't cheap, and heterosexuals can have them while homosexuals cannot, but where they do, they too do get the child care credit, the dependent exemption, some family medical leave when the need arises, and if you wish to limit your claim for retirement benefits to those homosexuals having raised a child or two, then I have no problem with my Congress and/or my more local legislature amending its laws to provide you with due credit for having sacrificed to raise the little one[s]. The only reason why we don't make a more particularized inquiry isn't any discriminatory animus, but it costs too much and we're too lazy, and there are those privacy concerns. Didn't say it was ideal, but it isn't quite as sexy without the discriminatory animus, now is it? We could otherwise solve all of your and my problems if we simply did what I suggested, to wit, get the State out of the marriage business. Then we could leave homosexuals to their own devices and make it a felony for persons not believing one or the other to be infertile to engage in penile-vaginal sexual intercourse should these persons also be first cousins. And then we can provide by law that such things as retirement benefits are only contingent on reaching the age of retirement and so once vested can be passed on to others via appropriate testamentary or other sufficient instrument, etc. Will that work for you? Or do you need me and the State to validate your existence? I know that I don't want that power over you, so you can have it back, and I wouldn't otherwise trust the State [according to the principle enunciated by that one Standing Order of Rogers' Rangers, to wit, never take a chance you don't have to].

Lastly, what does "unnecessary" have to do with anything? The State does many things that are "unnecessary," including building swimming pools, so what do you mean by "unnecessary"? To anticipate your response, as I said, never has homosexual marriage been recognized as a fundamental right, so forget about strict scrutiny. Now for the hook that snares you, well, read up on the matter of our divorce law, as you see, you file that divorce petition and your children become wards of the court, and your and your wife's agreement respecting matters of custody and visitation is no longer controlling, since the Family Court, as parens patriae, will find and decree that custodial arrangement that it believes is in your child's best interest. And that's the trap, since the State creates the marriage and so you must see the State to end the marriage, and the penalty or the price that you pay for desiring the certain legal relationship and status is that your kids become wards of the court when you decide to end that relationship and status, and what you and the wife decide may not be what the Family Court decrees is best for your child. Is that what you want for yourself? I mean, I tell my friends, don't get married, and so long as neither one of you either commences a paternity action or otherwise abuses or neglects your child, then the Family Court will never get to override your mutual agreement regarding your child. As you can gather, maybe one could argue that the "ward of the court" scenario might tend to discourage marriage and so be tossed as irrational if the goal here is to promote marriage, but of course, that won't work, since the goal here is to have the marriage and when that fails to have supervisory jurisdiction over the child. The assumption is that so long as he and she are happily married, they'll do what's best for little Jane and Johnny, but on divorce, maybe not, and so now they're wards of the court. Re those unmarried, more or less the same, since married or not, living happily together probably means what's best for little Jane and Johnny, but if your relationship sours, you likely won't agree on custody, visitation, and child support, and so one of you will commence the paternity action and your child becomes a ward of the court. That's why we have marriage as a state sponsored institution, and paternity actions as well. And doesn't such speak to the consequence of procreation rather clearly and entirely? And since all procreation is heterosexual, in some fashion or another, the State reserves marriage for heterosexuals.

Oh, and don't ever donate to that sperm bank, since if no other male can be found, the Family Court just might declare you to be the natural father of the child that you are. I would. The child has a fundamental right to the care and nurture of his natural mother and father. We don't get to take that away, no matter how much "better" we think some other fictional parentage might be. Now, I didn't say that some other soul standing as parent for a while there shouldn't properly be estopped from disclaiming her or his responsibility for the child's care and nurture, but that's not owing to any delusions re just who the natural parent is, but more to notions of detrimental reliance.


Vermillion:

Re "wingnuts":

"McNeil declares authoritatively "The virus exists. People who don't have it in their blood don't get Aids". But the latest US Centers for Disease Control definition includes instances where Aids can be diagnosed "in the presence of negative results for HIV infection", and there are many cases of severe immune suppression where the victims do not test HIV-positive.

On the other hand, even Luc Montagnier, credited as the co-discoverer of HIV, announced in 1990 that he no longer believed that HIV was a sufficient cause of Aids. One of his colleagues at the Pasteur Institute, Simon Wain-Hobson, said in an interview published in Nature in 1995, "... an intrinsic cytopathic effect of HIV is no longer credible."
***
McNeil's tone of outraged hysteria is typical of the Aids establishment's response to any challenge. As Kary Mullis - another Nobel laureate Aids dissenting biologist - says, "If you ask for the scientific documents that demonstrate that HIV causes Aids, you don't get an answer, you get fury."

And "wingnuts". Sorry, but some have Nobel prizes in chemistry, and you don't, and so I'll take the wingnut with the Nobel prize for inventing the polymerase chain reaction [ironically enough, which now serves as the mechanism for our HIV testing], and the other guy, Duesberg, who was the first human to isolate a cancer gene.

Lastly, for more on "wingnuts":

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/AIDS_dissident

And so you get the point, from those claiming that HIV = AIDS:

""AIDS does not have the characteristics of an ordinary infectious disease. This view is incontrovertible." — Jaap Goudsmit (Goudsmit 1992)

"We are still very confused about the mechanisms that lead to CD4 T-cell depletion, but at least now we are confused at a higher level of understanding." — Dr. Paul Johnson, Harvard Medical School (Balter 1997)

"Twenty-five years into the HIV epidemic, a complete understanding of what drives the decay of CD4 cells – the essential event of HIV disease – is still lacking.... The puzzle of HIV pathogenesis keeps getting more pieces added to it." — W. Keith Henry, Pablo Tebas, and H. Clifford Lane (Henry 2006)

"The pathogenic and physiologic processes leading to AIDS remain a conundrum." — Zvi Grossman, immunologist (Grossman 2006)

"Failures are occurring right and left... They aren't dying of traditionally defined AIDS illnesses. I don't know what they're dying of...but they're just wasting and dying. While we are making good guesses, they are just guesses. We don't know what we are doing." — Dr. Michael Saag, AIDS researcher (Saag 1999)

"It is the rare person who gets up and strips himself of his personal agenda and articulates what we really do not know, because by saying that, they would diminish the impact of their own work, which is their agenda." — Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (Altman 2001)"

But we're wingnuts, and never mind Zvi speaking of a conundrum and Michael admitting that some don't know what they're doing and Anthony saying that agenda might be driving all of this. But better to be a wingnut than a fascist. But so I am clear, as crystal, here is how morally bankrupt your position on that other thread is:

"The evidence that AIDS is caused by HIV-1 or HIV-2 is clear-cut, exhaustive and unambiguous. This evidence meets the highest standards of science. The data fulfill exactly the same criteria as for other viral diseases, such as poliomyelitis, measles and smallpox:

Patients with acquired immune deficiency syndrome, regardless of where they live, are infected with HIV.

If not treated, most people with HIV infection show signs of AIDS within 5-10 years. HIV infection is identified in blood by detecting antibodies, gene sequences or viral isolation. These tests are as reliable as any used for detecting other virus infections.

Persons who received HIV-contaminated blood or blood products develop AIDS, whereas those who received untainted or screened blood do not..."

So you're right, the bold italics is no reason to worry about anyone bleeding on anyone else, and if we said that is, well, to you we're "wingnuts", to CR we're "just like racists", to droop we're "on the fringe"...as I said, morally bankrupt, the lot of you. Either the bold italics is true or it isn't. If it is true, then we better worry about just who bleeds on who, at least if we value human life. And I'm sorry, but it simply is not my fault that my penetrating her vagina with my penis does not cause the micro tears to her and to me that would allow transmission of the purported HIV that occurs during receptive anal intercourse. And that's what makes some and not others, high risk. It is what it is, our biology and some biochemistry. Anything and everything else is Orwell's Oceania. And so you get the point, with that open window, we don't know about anybody for certain, so how would you suggest that we evaluate the risk?


Edited to add, and your claim is otherwise fraudulent, unless, of course, some are lying to our children:

"Of the 40,000 new AIDS cases reported in the United States each year, 42 percent are men who have sex with men, 33 percent are men and women infected by heterosexual sex, and 25 percent were infected by injection drug use (IDU)."

So who is the primary risk group again? And not only did you get the raw numbers wrong, and called me a "fraud" in doing so, what are the percentages? Gay men are what % of the population that accounts for 42% of all AIDS cases? So who is the "fraud?"

See: http://school.discovery.com