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

I said nothing about anything being "stipulated". Whether they require a "husband" and "wife". male and female, bride and groom or man and woman, marriage in 37 states require one of both.

 

goalposts successfully moved. well done

 

which is odd to note when you say you don't care about increasing births of nay kind and by the way so dose gay marriage if we include bi sexuals which we would

also increase kids being raised by 2 married parents instead of single parents including lessening the number kids being raised by single fathers

 

o just shut the (*)(*)(*)(*) up idiots post now and then that gay marriage would be limited to people who are gay but no one ever says that

oddly the same idiots are often the ones that say gay people are not discriminated against because they can marry some one of another gender

so these lunatics understand the concept that you don't have to marry some one your attracted to

 

that's why I only advocate marriage be extended to 1 gander couples duh

we don't require nuclear family's and gay marriage will support 2 parent family's and decrease 1 parent family's

- - - Updated - - -

its just they have no sensible reason to hence why that number is going down

 

Marriage between any two conenting adults would do that and yet you only advocate for "gay marriage". If you want to give gays preferential treatment you need SOME justification for doing so.

 

That would be YOU moving the goal post to require that it be stipulated.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

and that's what you keep failing to provide for hetero sexual couples when it comes to gay couples saying that others are not being treated fairly is not an argument against treating gay couples fairly

 

Dozens of times
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

Let's se ANYTHING to support your assertion that marriage must be made available both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples

 

lets see

Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple.


that doesn't matter we don't require the ability to procreate or care if its obvious a couple cant

 

lets see

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.


according to you marriage is fundamentally about preventing some births gay marriage will do that and it will benefit the next generation and the human race in general as well so another failed objection

 

lets see

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...

are marriages are not uniquely involved with the procreation and rearing of children within a family you are trying to prevent some children from being raised in a married family and marriage is probably older then your preferred scripture and has of course changed many times already

 

lets see


"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

well marriage is not fundamental to the very existence of the species its useful at best the historic institution is irrelevant to are legal institution of marriage are other laws might be

so your empty appeals to tradition are not cause cause for treating people unfairly under the law

 

lets see

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.’”...


according to you the point of marge is to increase the population of kids being raised in a beneficial environment you don't give a dam if that happen in a marriage and your preventing it from happening with other people

your support of over inclusiveness that doesn't help your goal and support of under inclusiveness that directly harms it
its not rational deal with it



and your complete lack of concern for reproduction and child rearing takes away your ability to sensibly object to any ones marriage for those causes

 

lets see

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.....

no the legislature ha no reason to believe more people will have kids or kids in marriage by keeping same gender couples from getting married or that less people will raze their biological kids together and their only making it more difficult for some family's not encouraging family's so much for helping the human race

gay marriage wood only encourage more children having 2 parents supporting them in one household which is beneficial to the human race

- - - Updated - - -

lets see

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....


um yes it dose mean that

 

lets see

Let's se ANYTHING to support your assertion that marriage must be made available both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples

done see above

- - - Updated - - -

come and get it lad

 

The marriage laws in the United States were based upon the Christian traditions of marriage established by European nations over hundreds of years prior to the founding of the United States. People need to stop making up BS when it comes to the origin of the marriage laws in the United States.

 

The homophobe lobby will fail in its attempt to prevent equality for all Americans.

Progress is inevitable.