Gay lobby’s next target: Benefits in all 50 states

jus not the same right do to the discrimination inherit in the rules like with inter racial couples back in the day

- - - Updated - - -

unless its not in force today then its not

 

kicks the for reproduction bit right out of there true

otherwise just don't see the relevance

why did you cut this bit out?

Other forms of penetrative sexual intercourse include anal sex, oral sex, fingering, and use of a strap-on dildo

- - - Updated - - -

still sensible and fair treatment and the better conditions to raise some of are children under for the benefit of society

 

I am a Heterosexual Male and although I don't enjoy seeing two Gay Men French Kissing I would not presume to either try to stop this by creating laws nor do I think it is anyone's business.

As well since the majority of Gay and Bi-Sexual Men and Women exist as such due to their Genetic Disposition...any attempt at trying to exclude these people of rights and benefits enjoyed by others is morally wrong as well as an act of ignorance.

AboveAlpha

 

Can anyone translate this into English?

 

Since we are talking about the first couple of centuries, what is in place today is irrelevant. But if you insist

 

Gays dont need tax breaks and governmental entitlements in order to French Kiss, they are free to french kiss without it. And heterosexual couples arent encouraged to marry because they can french kiss but instead because heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. And if you want to limit marriage to those who french kiss, you will need some rational justification for doing so.

 

You still have the "Sexual intercourse, or copulation or coitus, is the insertion and thrusting of a mans penis into a females vagina" part. Which of course has no relevance whatsover to what it is that two people of the same sex do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

 

No they are not. Heterosexual couples arent encouraged to marry because they have sex. They are encouraged to marry because when heterosexual couples have sex, children are frequently the result. If you want to limit marriage to sexual couples, you will need some justification for doing so. What governmental interest is only served in the case of sexual couples?

 

But no limitation to heterosexual couples existed until the 1970s. And procreation continues to have nothing to do with who can marry

 

Oh I don't know, maybe because of equality? Inalienable rights? Civil liberties? Any of them do the trick for ya? If not, then how about they should be able to get anything that anyone else are able to get. Why stop one set of folks from getting something while allowing others?

And here I thought segregation was over after the 1968 Supreme Court ruling...

 

The courts and the real world disagree.

 

Actually they don't. Until then, there was no prohibition in the law, or from any court decision. That will never stop being true no matter how many times you pretend otherwise

 

Minnesota was last a territory in 1817.

 

No prohibition existed in 1817

 

You cant comprehend what you read. The prohibition existed from the territorial days of Minnesota.

 

no it didn't. no prohibition existed anywhere in the law until the 1970s

 

You cant comprehend what you read. I suspect the others can.

"We hold, therefore, that Minn. St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited." "It is unrealistic to think that the original draftsmen of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense."

Use of the term marriage in the law was a prohibition "in the law" of 50 states. Just as "Any male.... AND any female" in the 1872 statute prohibited a marriage between two people of the same sex.
Minnesotas law wasnt changed by the court decision. The statute prohibited marriage between two people of the same sex long before the court ever pointed out that fact.

 

and yet no prohibition existed anywhere in the law prior to the 1970s.

that is never going to stop being true

 

Where in any Constitution is there any social Power delegated over a purely private Act and natural right? Our several States do not enjoy "natural" States' rights, but only those specifically enumerated in their Constitutions and supreme laws of those lands.

 

Heterosexual couples perpetuate the human species. Homosexual couples do not. Only a woman gives birth and only a man is obligated by that birth to provide and care for the child. Not equal at all. Sure, they rub genitals just like a mother and father, but this thousands of years old institiution of marriage hasnt evolved because heterosexual couples rub genitals. It has instead involved because when a man and woman rub genitals, children in need of someone to provide and care for them are frequently the result.

Thats why only a "man" -

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage; ....

Not a llesbian lover. And only a woman becomes a mother.

 

This, among all else is one of the stupidest arguments against homosexual marriage.

So the infertile and sterile should be exiled from the right to marriage, correct? Because the only purpose for marriage is for reproduction. How many Heterosexual couples were tested for ability to produce offspring before getting their marriage license?

 

This is the 21st century. Homosexuals can engage in any act they like with each other. Marriage is no longer required for sexual relations or cohabitating. Tax breaks and governmental entitlements are not rights.

 

I, the courts and the historical record disagree.

Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=316&invol=535

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis...

"Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

i]t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .

t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=434&invol=374

In addition, within limits, a statute generally does not fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness; “[a] classification does not fail rational-basis review because ‘it is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequity.’”...

Under this standard, DOMA is constitutional because the legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to survival of the human race, and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by the children’s biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing....

But as Skinner, Loving, and Zablocki indicate, marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple....

And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/co.../759341opn.pdf

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

In substance, the relationship proposed by the appellants does not authorize the issuance of a marriage license because what they propose is not a marriage.
http://ky.findacase.com/research/wfr...0029.KY.htm/qx

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

 

Article 4, Section 2 refers to privileges and immunities; as a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws, in the US.

 

Courts and historical records also have the Solar System revolving around the Earth, and that the Earth was flat, and that if anyone who went against that was a witch or was ran out of town. Obviously we became smarter and learned, don't be that moron in the village.

No one is disputing that, but neither are they the only type of couple able to raise children.

Right, I get it, people need to bang, but how does Same-Sex marriage prevent the human population from producing exactly?

You're invoking the book of Genesis, which also told the tale of a talking snake. Do you not see how asinine it sounds to cite Religion for a political discussion?

The actual institute of Marriage was about ownership over women and their property. Fathers often sold their daughters to marriage for farmland and goats. Guess what happened over the years? We the people changed the institution of marriage. Why are you so absorbed in the idea that definitions can not be changed?

Oh and the 14th Amendment can easily cover Same-Sex Marriages. If you deny someone rights based upon their gender, that is unconstitutional.

Except one's sexuality has absolutely nothing with family relationships and child rearing.

What makes no sense are these absurd arguments that homosexuality is somehow ruining the lives of heterosexual couples.

Again with the Oh we need to think about the human race and their ability to procreate

I'll tell you what, once we have no orphans, and every single orphan is adopted and brought into a loving home, I'll drop the whole gay marriage thing. Until then, don't preach that only Heterosexual couples are the only and just way for parenthood.

Source for this please, and please don't quote the Book of Genesis.

Again, no one is denying this but the ability to procreate has never come into question with sterile men or women when they wish to marry.

I'm stopping here, because you're just on a whole different plane of reality. In your world up is down, and down is up. Gays are spawns of Satan, and if they get married they'll shoot brimstone out of their rear ends and begin to turn churches into orgies and straights will be driven to live in the sewers and abandoned sport stadiums.

When you come join reality, I'll gladly talk to you about this topic.