Using the same theory as the other cases that many of you deny. Using the animus directed towards gays as the sole purpose of marriages limitation to heterosexuals. A constitutional right to what animus towards a minority has denied.
You seems to suggest that they can marry without sex. If so why close-relative of the same gender can't get married. Why you deprive them equality?
You did notice I said (a very long time ago) "not to mention incompetence". The only argument the Prop 8 defense forwarded was cuz, cuz, cuz, cuz that's the way it's always been and cuz, cuz, cuz, they're GAY!!!!!!!! Add that to a clear basis in animus and it's easy to see that they just didn't have a case.
Noooooo, those are the only arguments the gay judge chose to address, summarily dismissing all others. Declared as a finding of fact that marriage has no relation to procreation and insisted upon other justifications.
If close-relatives of the opposite gender were permitted to marry and not same-sex close-relatives, THEN they would be being denied equality. But the restriction on close-relation marriage remains so as to discourage incest. It is however completely equal by standards of gender and sexuality.
I see, when inequality does not affect you, you fully support inequality. That is why marriage was extended to gays only. Besides, I think close related couples would agree to have civil union, with 100% of equal rights to married couples. Civil-union does not encourage incest, it is made strictly to support equal protection. In any case your arguments for discrimination does not hold the water. Same sex marriage is a special right, no matter how you turn it.
If you will notice, that is not the question I asked. I know it is difficult for you to be honest enough to not try to spin everything but your statement was a flat out LIE, I asked you a question to prove your statement was a LIE, you deflected on the typical incest theme. Next you will bring up animals as these seem to be the only things you can cycle between.
Gay marriage is already legal in all states...... All you have to do is to to a canada, get married and go home......A state legally has to recognize the marriage.
Not meaningful within the context of marriage rights for ALL Americans. (You should know this, by now.)
No, marriage for all heterosexual couples regardless of procreative ability is a special right that's being unjustly withheld from a group identically situated to old, barren and sterile heterosexual couples.
Youve obviously never read the case. Revealing that it doesnt as much as cause you even a moment of hesitation to proclaim as fact, about something you know nothing about.
Whether it takes 2 or 20 years... DOMA will either be done away with or revised in such a manner that it does NOT arbitrarily discriminate against 'homosexual' people (as it does now). It may take a Constitutional Amendment to get the legal effect I just shared, but it WILL happen.
Identical in that they rub genitals, just like a real mom and dad. Absent the potential of procreation, rubbing genitals really has no relevance to the formation of stable households.
No more arbitrary in the case of the single mother and grandmother down the street, raising their children /grandchildren for nearly a decade, than it is two gay guys. Get over your gayness. It really has no relevance here. No justification for special treatment for the gays. Your eagerness to ape heterosexuals in marriage has no relevance either.
Right right, continue to ignore the fact that gay couples raising children need and are deserving of the same rights as married heterosexuals. You have no argument so you attempt to dehumanize the situation and marginalize the fact that homosexuals are raising children are in the same situation as heterosexuals.
Noooo, I just also recognize that couples made up of any two consenting adults "raising children need and are deserving of the same rights as married" homosexual couples would. You cant allocate governmental entitlements to couples because they happen to be "gay", without some legitimate purpose for doing so.
Elderly, sterile and barren couples do not have the potential for procreation. As I said - identical.