I support gay marriage

Its like you didnt even read what you chose to quote and respond to.

 

It is "apples and oranges" with respect to the fact that a same-sex couple would not have standing in court to fight for you and your brother to be able to marry, as that restriction comes under different laws.

However, the good news for you is that if they win, then the same-sex couple restriction will be removed - that's one less obstacle in your way for the marriage you seek with your brother. The next question for the court to consider (if you or someone in your situation who has standing) is whether there is a sufficiently important state interest at stake to block your marriage with your brother. If no such reason exists, then I support all the happy days of marriage with your brother that you can have.

It's somewhat odd that you don't have a woman in your life that you'd rather marry, but to each their own. Personally, I would not want my brother to have full power of attorney to execute legal, financial and medical decisions on my behalf, but perhaps your relationship is different.

 

Sure they could have. They could of fought for the right as the class of people denied marriage who are not heterosexual couples. But of course, their animus towards homosexuals argument wouldnt have applied.

 

Ive known my brother all my life. My girlfriend Ive only known for 7 years. 20 years from now, if I'm still alive, I know my brother wll still be my brother. I cant say the same for my girlfriend.

 

Which would assume that there are NO good reasons for ANY other restrictions. Why must they argue on behalf of ALL other cases, related or otherwise? When has such an argument ever been taken against ANY civil rights group in history... except gay people? Did women have to fight for the rights of criminals to vote? Did blacks have to fight for the right of GAY's to marry? No, women arguing for their right to vote was independent of criminals not having the right to vote. No, arguing for blacks to marry the woman of their choice was independent of people being able to marry the gender of their choice.

 

That's what divorce is for

But again, to each their own. For what purpose would you want to marry your brother if I may ask?

 

Because marriages limitation to heterosexual couples is NOT intended to exclude homosexual couples and is instead intended to include heterosexual couples, the only couples that have the potential of procreation.

 

Not sure of your point. I could also divorce my brother if permitted to marry. Why does the fact that I can divorce my girlfriend make her more suitablle to have "full power of attorney to execute legal, financial and medical decisions on my behalf"?

 

If that is how the right was defended you might have a point. But it's not. That's more like a facade that sounds like a nice argument, disguising the reality that marriage was and is defended as a right independent of procreative purposes.... even before gay's got involved.

 

You said you'd rather marry your brother because you've known him longer. I assume (and could be wrong) that you intended this to mean you have more faith and trust in your brother than your girlfriend. To which I respond, a divorce (and good prenup) could be a fine enough protection in case you made a mistake so the issue of trust is not quite as big a deal.

So why would you want to marry your brother? Would it represent a special commitment of love and support you two share? Or would it be purely a business decision intended at making it easier to transfer assets?

 

Yes, because the marriages of geriatrics is no longer allowed.

Yes, because the marriage of infertile couples is absolutely taboo.

 

???? Nooooo. Marriages of geriatrics and infertile couples are allowed.

 

Why? They can't procreate (physically at least).

And why can't you marry your sister? You can procreate with her. How strange. I mean it's like marriage isn't actually based on procreation or something...hmm.

 

Because the ability or willingness of a couple to procreate isnt determined on a case by case basis and is instead a classification of heterosexual couples, because only heterosexual couples procreate. It would be impossible to deternine which individual couples will or will not procreate. But it is a known fact that all who do will exclusively be heterosexual couples.

Same reason I can marry my girlfriend, THE POTENTIAL OF PROCREATION.

 

How it was defended is irrelevant. The intent of the legislature or the voters who enacted the law is the only relevant intent.

 

The potential? Well homosexuals also have the potential to procreate and they often do so through a variety of means, just as do heterosexuals.

But you CAN procreate with your sister. You both have the parts, so why not let people marry their opposite sex family members too? Potential of procreation, right? That's what it's all about, right?

 

Right, since there's no such thing as the constitution in this country and we've never had scotus strike down a law before for being in violation.

Laws have been struck down even with no evidence of animus, and purely on the basis that their effect oversteps their bounds... For example, again see the scotus case where past due payments on child support could not be used as a reason to block a person from marrying. The court recognized both the right to marriage and the need for child support as legitimate interests, but struck the law down anyway for being unnecessarily restrictive of the right to marry. Legitimate intent is not the only concsideration.

 

I and a rock could use those means, but its not the rock and I procreating. When a child is born, only two people in the world are obligated by law to provide and care for the child. The mother who gave birth to the child and the man who fathered the child. Marriage seeks to encourage those two people to do so together in the home. Because, the most frequent alternative is the single mother, on her own, frequently struggling to provide and care for the child. And while heterosexual sex has a strong, natural tendency to lead to procreation, homosexual sex has no such tendency to lead to artificial insemination or the use of surrogate mothers. WHAT POSSIBLE justification could government have in prefering two homosexual people over ANY TWO CONSENTING adults who could join together to raise a child? Biological parents arent preferred because they have sex with each other. They are prefered because they are the biological parents. THE ONLY two people in the world obligated by law to provide for the child. Without them the child is dependant on someone voluntarily stepping forward and assuming that responsibility.

 

Way to miss the point.

Yes, but it is possible to exclude those we know will not procreate - geriatric couples, infertile couples, homosexual couples... If marriage was about procreation, the law would imply that, and we would have some basic controls in place to exclude all couples for whom we know cannot procreate. We know that a couple who is 70 cannot procreate. We know that a couple that has been sterilized cannot procreate. We don't know that a lesbian couple cannot procreate - IVF means that one of them can actually give birth to the biological child of the two of them! The argument that marriage is about procreation does not hold water.

 

You need to read it again.

This has NOTHING to do with homosexual couples. Its like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It just doesnt fit.

 

You need to read it again.

This has NOTHING to do with homosexual couples. Its like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. It just doesnt fit.

 

So if you have a heterosexual couple and the woman is infertile or cannot carry a pregnancy to term and they use a surrogate and a donated egg the surrogate and the man who provided the sperm are the only ones legally obligated by law to care for the child? Or is it that, based on their situation and their means of procreating and the contract they have signed with the surrogate that the couple and NOT the surrogate are the legal parents of the child?

And when the infertile realize they cannot have children naturally they often seek out other means to do so, but here you are saying that if they use another man's sperm or a surrogate they are not really the legal parents of the child or obligated to raise the child. Do you have any facts to back this up?

 

Who said it had to do with same-sex couples? The question is the basis of defense and if intent was important in their decision. Intent was important, but a legitimate intent alone was not enough to stop the law from being struck down. The bases of their decision also separated the need to provide for child welfare from th right to marriage.

The case doesn't have to have anything to do with same-sex couples for the court to give reasonings that apply to them just as well. The cases in question established distinctions between the purposes for marriage and procreation, defending marriage independent of procreation. Such a conclusion is obviously quite relevant to the case of same-sex couples if their lack of ability to biologically procreate is being considered as the reason marriage rights don't apply to them. This is a denial of equal protection if the right was defended for others in spite o procreative purposes, but used as a basis to deny to same-sex couples with no other good reason.

 

Silly logic. The law is simply over inclusive. Nothing wrong with that.

 

??? Intent is irrelevant in ZABLOCKI. Nobody was making the argument that the statute was motivated by animus, like they do in the gay marriage cases.