Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Marriage between a man and a woman is a Constitutional right,because



Not marriage and butt sex with your boyfriend.

---

Yet those who can't or won't procreate marry everyday.

Sorry, your argument on procreation is still bunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Dont be silly. 14th amendment applies to all citizens.

---

But you know possibly as well as I do that a higher level of scrutiny has been applied by the Supreme Court in both cases than what due process normally entails.

And if gender can apply as has already been established by SCOTUS, then the argument that marriage discriminates by gender/sexuality may easily stand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

Yet those who can't or won't procreate marry everyday.

Sorry, your argument on procreation is still bunk.

---

Your silly logic has been addressed repeatedly by the courts.


Quote:
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.’”...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

Quote:
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Your silly logic has been addressed repeatedly by the courts.


Quote:
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.’”...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

Quote:
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

---

Nice, doesn't really make much difference.

Quote:

---

fail rational basis review on the grounds of over- or under-inclusiveness;

---

Over inclusiveness is fine. Guess gays should be able to marry.

Quote:

---

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

---

Look at that, there is no reason a couple should have to prove the ability or willingness to procreate. You just proved that nicely for me. So homosexuals need neither prove ability nor willingness to procreate.

You keep destroying your own argument.

Keep up the good work.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

Over inclusiveness is fine. Guess gays should be able to marry. .

---

Youve been arguing for a month that marriage limited to heterosexuals is unconstitutional because its over inclusive, including sterile couples that cant procreate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

Look at that, there is no reason a couple should have to prove the ability or willingness to procreate. You just proved that nicely for me. So homosexuals need neither prove ability nor willingness to procreate.

You keep destroying your own argument.

---

You evidently dont yet comprehend my and the courts arguments. What youve quoted is Baker v Nelson. Supreme court precedent upholding the constitutionality of limiting marriage to a man and a woman, and youve interpreted it as deciding precisely the opposite of what they did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Youve been arguing for a month that marriage limited to heterosexuals is unconstitutional because its over inclusive, including sterile couples that cant procreate.

---

Procreation is irrelevant, dixon. And I'll remind you of that, virtually every time you mention it.

Quote:

---

You evidently dont yet comprehend my and the courts arguments....

---

dixon, you haven't convinced most people here, that what you are saying is relevant. But you EXPECT them to comprehend points that don't really matter. Really, your arguments are terrible man. Come on... you mention "procreation", as if it makes your argument in a way that negates the valid points of others. All the while, I and virtually everyone else KNOWS that what you're claiming or alluding to where procreation is concerned... is barely relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johnny-C

Procreation is irrelevant, dixon. And I'll remind you of that, virtually every time you mention it.

---

Irrelevant to frustrated homosexuals. Determinative in 44 states with marriage limited to heterosexuals and determinative for 1000s of years of marriages history.

[quote]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dixon76710

Marriage between a man and a woman is a Constitutional right,because

---

2 rights not depandant upon eachother. this doesn't affect my argument in any way.

Quote:

---

Not marriage and butt sex with your boyfriend.

---

It's hilarious, and pathetic, when you are getting your ass handed to you in these debates, you have to resort to this sort of bigotry.

how many times do you need to be told, that not everyone who disagrees with you, is a homosexual?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Osiris Faction

Yet those who can't or won't procreate marry everyday. .

---

Yes they do. Why they marry and why government chooses to license and regulate those who do is two different issues. They dont know which couples will procreate but they do know that all who do will be exclusively heterosexual couples. Thus the encouragement of heterosexual couples to marry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rahl

It's hilarious, and pathetic, when you are getting your ass handed to you in these debates, you have to resort to this sort of bigotry.

---

My court precedent wins out over your emotion and hormones.