DOMA found unconstitutional by 2nd Circuit

I still don't understand why you think state court decisions have any relevance here at all. that isn't constitutional law by the way.

your procreation argument has been refuted over and over and over and over................................

 

Actually, two of the three are US Supreme Court cases and the 3rd is the State Supreme Court who quotes the US Supreme court to justify its rulings.

 

Loving and Skinner both list marriage as a fundamental right and a civil right. They in no way link to the gender of the couple. The third dealt with preventing a person from entering into a new marriage if there were existing court order for support based on children from a previous marriage, in other words it dealt with government intrusion into marriage.

In the end Dixion, these cases support the ideal of marriage being a fundamental right, not dictating the gender of the couples.

Sorry, but you still don't have a leg to stand on.

 

And when where those Supreme Court Cases and State Supreme Court quote to the US Supreme Court rulings rendered?

 

If marriage was limited to people who can procreate, we would all have to pass a fertility test before obtaining a marriage license! And, people past their "child bearing" age would no longer be able to obtain a marriage license either!

And even then, it would be ridiculous, as many infertile people (or people married to a person who cannot procreate) now have access to a variety of medical development, from in-vitro fertilization to the use of surrogates to carry the baby!

This was pointed out to you several time. You choose to never answer. . .probably because you can't denigrate that argument, but the fact is that that argument will not go away.

 

Right on!!

 

You obviously have no understanding of property law or the privileges granted by the institution of marriage.

 

Marriage between two people of the same sex didnt exist and was irrelevant to "the very existence and survival of the race".

 

in vitro fertilization also didn't exist when the decision was made. There's an interesting thing about court decisions and precedent where judges acknowledge that their decisions must be understood within the context of time and knowledge. This includes understanding that marriage, for all intents and purposes, was a heterosexual institution even if it wasn't explicitly stated as such in law. To that extent I would agree with you. But in fairness, the significance of such statements must also be understood in the context of time where in vitro wasn't an available technology, fundamentally changing the landscape of sex and reproduction for the human race unlike ever before in history. As a legal institution, marriage has changed where sex is no longer explicitly tied with marriage, with the lifting of laws against adultery. Differences in legal, social and technological circumstances warrant a re-evaluation. Now, today, in the legal and technological context of society, two women can use anonymously donated sperm to get pregnant, and the legal context of their union establishes parental rights and obligations between the two of them.

While the courts did recognize specific and essential functions of marriage in the past, they have also issued rulings in more recent history that recognized marriage simply as a fundamental right, listing a variety of purposes sufficient for the protection of marriage independent of procreation. Certainly procreation is still among them, but the key is that it is not the ONLY sufficient purpose which has been defended. The cases you site do not establish procreation as the EXCLUSIVE purpose of marriage, and the context of time must be considered as well.

 

marriage between two sterile heterosexuals is also irrelevant to "the very existence and survival of the race" which is why your procreation argument is idiotic, and has been thoroughly debunked.

 

I think there is merit to the argument that laws do not have to be perfect in executing their stated purpose... in other words, there are acceptable degrees of unintentional over-inclusiveness and under-inclusiveness. One could argue that steril couples fall under this unintentional, yet acceptable over/underinclusiveness.

However, this simply doesn't hold water. Firstly, I don't think I've ever heard anyone sincerely suggest that steril couples should not be allowed to marry, and that the fact that they can simply represents an un-intentional over-inclusion. Quite the contrary, I'm willing to bet there would be protests in the street if some legislature tried to make such a law. The right of steril couples to marry despite being steril would vigorously defended both independent of their ability to reproduce, and in light of their ability to adopt and use procedures like IVF. The marriage of steril couples is protected, defended and celebrated just as much as anyone else's, not simply tolerated as an acceptable over-inclusion. Common law and statutory law explicitly provide for these couples in facilitating joint adoption and in facilitating the establishments of parental rights and obligations for both married individuals when they use IVF. Marriage facilitates their family unit both before and after children are brought into their relationship just as much as anyone else's. Steril couples do not represent "unintentional over-inclusion". Such an assessment can only be considered insincere or ignorant to legal and social support explicitly providing for such couples.

What is more, Turner v Safley provides a SCOTUS precedent by which the right to marry was defended in SPITE of the inability of those effected to reproduce. In their decision, the right of prison inmates to marry was defended. Although these inmates are unable to reproduce due to confinement, the court explicitly recognized several purposes for marriage independent of their ability to reproduce, and struck down the restriction on their marriage as an unnecessary infringement on their fundamental rights.

In both of these cases, those who are unable to reproduce are not just "unintentional but acceptable over-inclusions"... Quite the contrary, they are EXPLICIT and INTENTIONAL inclusions. Which simply begs the question: If opposite-sex couples have had their right to marry explicitly sanctioned, celebrated and protected in spite of inabilities to reproduce, how can you justify using the inability to reproduce as a reason same-sex couples can't or should not be included in marriage?

 

We dont know which couples will procreate. We only know that all couples who do will be exclusively heterosexual couples. Its easy to determine the presence of both a man and a woman. It is impossible to determine the ability to procreate with any accuracy.

 

All US supreme court cases are decided in Washington DC and the dates, 1942 and 1978 are predominately displayed at the top of the case. Did you have a point or just stupiod questions?

 

Marriage doesn't need to be defended by the govt. This should be decided by individuals and their church or whatever it is they do.

 

Yeah, thats why instead we limit marriage to heterosexual couples. Not to mention that 30-40 years ago, medical science had even less ability than they do now to determine the ability to procreate.

 

So you're argument depends on 30-40 year old technology?

Not to mention, you can't tell if a gay couple with procreate or not. Just like you can't tell if a heterosexual couple with procreate or not.

Seems to me that they are similarly situated and deserving of the same equal right under the law.

Look at that, logic.

 

Youll need to actually put your point into words and I have a law degree.

 

Irrelivant. Way to ignore most of my post that specifically refuted this claim and jump right to the conclusion. You are suggesting that sterile couples are unintentional but over-inclusive. This is either an insincere position or a position ignorant of the legal and social support available for steril couples. I'venever heard anyone sincerely suggest that they should not be allowed to marry if we were able to identify them. No, the only thing I see is legal and social support for them, allowing them marriag despite their sterility and facilitating their ability to adopt and use procedure like ivf.

Also, again, we may not be able to easily identify all steril couples, but some certainly can: anybody born with genetic disorders rendering them infertile for example. Downs children. Many who do not know they are steril will become aware at a later date. Older women past the age of fertility. I've never heard anyone sincerely suggest limiting marriage in these scenarios. And, of course, the case of prison inmates who can not reproduce yet had their right to marry specifically protected.

 

Any two people can procreate with the aid of Invitro fertilization or a surrogate mother. This is nothing that supports all these arguments for gay marriage. Two people of the same sex who happen to rub genitals together are no more suited to raising children than ANY two people who might choose to raise a child together. And yet you insist that gay couples have the same preference given to biological fathers and mothers, without any justification for doing so.

 

Not at all. Just because the technology exists, the government isnt required to implement it. The idea is to encourage heterosexuals to marry. Impose the costs of extensive medical examinations on couples wuishing to marry would discourage them from doing so.

Actually, its a physical impossibility for two people of the same sex to procreate.

NOOOOOO,ANY TWO PEOPLE raising a child together would be similarly situated and yet you insist upon special treatment for "gays", seemingly for no other reason than the fact that they rub genitals, just like a real mom and dad.

 

Ive made no representations as to whether the overinclusiveness is intentional or unintentional. Thats your strawman youve fabricated to busy yourself with.

 

What about infertile straight people? YOu know like people over 50 who get married after their first spouse died of a heart attack? No woman over 55 can get pregnant, thus they should not be allowed to marry ... which is exactly how it doesn't work. No fertility tests are given for other marriages, thus fertility has nothing to do with the question. The real reason is the status -- two males or two females.

 

Exactly, any two peole can use IVF, so why do married couples get special treatment with laws that facilitate their joint custody and immediate parental rights and obligations for both th husban and wife, either or both of whom could b non-biological? Why do we only care about establishing parental obligations for kids of straight married couples and deny marriag to same-sex couples, thus denyin their child two obligated parents? Why all this special treatment available only for straight couples, they are no more special than anyone else in regard to thei ability to reproduce with IVF. Special rights for special people indeed.

 

Note: when I say "unintentionally over included", I mean that they were not meant to be included, but they are included strictly out of convinience because it's difficult to single them out from the non-steril. This is the position you have taken., suggesting that steril couples are simply a tolerated imperfection in the law. Which is a preposterous position to take. Nobody has ever sincerely suggested steril coulples should not be able to marry, that they are not the INTENDED recipients. Not all couples who are unable to reproduce can be easily identified, but many can... And those unions have been defended, protected, and celebrated just as much as anyone else's. there is no reason to believe steril couples are only included because they are difficult to idenify and just tolerated as an acceptable over-inclusion.

This is as opposed to being "intentionally included", where they are intended recipients of marriage rights, not just a tolerated over-inclusion, but an intended inclusion.

So which position are you taking? Those are the only two choices. The first position is untenable for reasons I've just explained.

The firs position is YOUR position, and it is untenable. And the second just concedes the argument to us.

 

What about them? My ex wife took birth control for years, only to find out in her second marriage that she never had the ability to procreate. An STILL, the potential of procreation is why women who engage in heterosexual sex take birth control. THE EXCEPTION, my ex wife, does not prove the rule.

And from a constitutional perspective,