I think most people in the world get married for benefits and love.

__________________
lambaste me not

Yes, I think most people get married for benefits and love. Why do you think most people get married?

But that's beside the point. The point is, why does the state provide benefits to married couples?

A little more precision -- stop using marriage as a proxy for other things -- and the problem goes away. Religions can define marriage anyway they want, and the state can design its benefits program to specifically promote the societal good it seeks without discrimination based on religion.

I already have. Courts used the 14th Amendment to break down discrimination against blacks in the south and eventually courts will use the 14th amendment to break down discrimination against gays.

In a nutshell: States provide heterosexuals the right to marry. Since gays are denied the same right, they will sue under the Equal Protection clause of the 14th amendment. It is clear that gays are discriminated against, but not all discrimination is legally actionable.

To cut to the chase, courts will have a choice of how they decide to persue the case of gay marriage under the 14th Amendment: either it is a deprivation of a fundamental right (marriage) and that will mandate that the court apply the "strict scrutiny" standard -- to be upheld, the law must be NECESSARY to ACHIEVE A COMPELLING GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST or it is discrimination based on gender and that will mandate that the court apply the "intermediate" standard -- to be upheld, the law must be SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO AN IMPORTANT GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST.

Now, I don't see how laws judged honestly under either standard can be upheld, but time will tell.

Can the government show a compelling governmental interest or even an important governmental interest in banning gay marriage? I doubt it.

powergrid - i think were all in favor of you and your beloved chicken getting married

__________________
support search and rescue... Get Lost

go Coast Guard

No change in marriage law would support bestiality because the animal could in no way be considered a consenting adult.

All the laws PJ034 cites say is that the state must show a compelling interest before it can regulate actions between consenting adults, or discriminate against them. That's a classic conservative position: small government that keeps its nose out of my business.

If the government can show a compelling interest, well then, great, go ahead and discriminate. All PJ034 was saying is that he doubts the government could show such an interest. Maybe you think otherwise; but in any case, what's wrong with requiring the government to prove it?

Another thing that burns me about this administration, and increasingly Republicans in general, is how they claim all sorts of lofty arguments about small government, personal liberty and state's rights -- until they start to lose on certain issues, and then it's all about "the states can't be trusted to do this" or "it'll be a mishmash of laws."

Before you jump all over me, the Dems do the same thing on their issues. Hypocrisy isn't pretty no matter who's side you're on. But I do think it's a matter of degree. Many Republicans and conservatives have shown a staggering ability to be hypocritical on things that are fundamental to their ideology:

1. Small government, while presiding over expansions of the federal government;
2. State's rights, except when states use those rights in ways the government doesn't like, such as gay marriage or medical marijuana;
3. Fiscal responsibility, then going ahead and exploding the deficit.

These aren't small things like "I supported the bill until it wasn't politically expedient to do so," or, "I supported it when my president did it, but I oppose it now that your president is doing it." That's bad enough, and both parties do that. But that's not betraying principles that you claim are fundamental to your beliefs.

Thank you, thank you. The civil rights struggle struggle continues.

__________________
lambaste me not

why does it have to be human raytri? what laws or morals are you referring to? the animals do consent, i would think powergrid knows his chicken better than the government. what compelling interest does the government have to stop powergrid from marring his chicken?

__________________
support search and rescue... Get Lost

go Coast Guard

POWER TO THE PEOPLE, NO DELAY!

__________________
lambaste me not

Not sure why I'm spending the time, but here's a mish-mash of responses:

The law recognizes that even minor human children are incapable of giving consent. It recognizes that mentally disabled or insane people can be incapable of giving consent. There are laws against bestiality on the books, competely outside the context of marriage. It's an animal cruelty issue.

And human law governs human actions and rights. It would not be illegal to limit the state's recognition of marriage to two humans. A chicken may have rights assigned to it by law, but they are not human rights. We discriminate against animals freely, murdering them or enslaving them for our eating pleasure. We may reach a time where we as a society decide to change that, but it won't be anytime soon and it won't be because of gay marriage.

So a chicken would not be recognized as able to consent to a marital relationship with a human, or consent to sex with a human. It doesn't matter that powergrid knows his chicken (even in the Biblical sense....) better than the state. Sex with animals is illegal.

Of course, under my solution, the Church of the All-Loving Chicken would be free to marry powergrid and his pullet if it wanted to. But that would be a private religious issue, not a governmental one. Even if the church got IRS recognition — and that's doubtful; more likely, the Church would be shut down for abetting illegal behavior —bestiality would still be against the law.

I think this all gets down to society preserving itself by setting a certain standard for itself regarding behaviors it cannot allow.

__________________
lambaste me not