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

Only a husband can cause his wife to become the mother of his children. Not the same situation. Two gay guys living together is no different than two closely related adults living together or even two platonic friends. No potential of procreation. The fact that two gay guys rub genitals like a real mom and dad doesn't give rise to the same governmental concerns that frequently arise in the case of heterosexual couples

 

So you're saying gay folks getting married somehow touches mothers being mothers, fathers being fathers, and mothers and fathers being married if they so desire?

How?

 

Not all women are capable of giving birth to children, nor are all men capable of impregnating women.

Not that it is relevant, since procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

 

Why did we do it just for str8s? For the first couple centuries it was str8s only. Why did they get the benes?

 

Homophobic animus.

 

I believe Article 4, Section 2 is a rational choice of law in any conflict of laws, in the US.

 

No.

Why did we give out the benes? What did society expect to gain?

 

Oh the gays will have a tough time keeping up with the whiney liberals racing to the front of the charge to prevent the gays from being offended. From the 1950s amercan communist party


25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."....
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

 

Why distinguish between part-time and full-time employees, merely for the sake of the wealthiests', bottom line?

 

Well, by definition they are always missing either the husband or the wife. Missing either a father or mother necessary to create a nuclear family. Matrimony, Latin root of the word MATER, mother. Only women become mothers and only men cause them to do so. BIOLOGY! Not persecution of gays.

 

How does that work with civil Persons in our republic?

 

From 1872 California

"Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage... "

BECAUSE only a man and a woman are capeable of "consummating marriage". Not persecution of gays.

 

No. ..........

 

Must be a language issue. Misunderstanding of the word "only". My statements that only women give birth and only men cause them to do so has no implication whatsoever that "all" women and men do so. Only women take birth control pills because of the potential of procreation. The fact that my ex wife took birth control pills for years, only to find out with her second husband that she never had the ability to procreate, doesn't change the fact that only women take birth control pills because only women have the potential of procreation.

 

Which is all completely IRRELEVANT to the issue of marriage equality.

 

Thousands of years. In ancient Mesopotamia a husband was due a refund of the purchase price of his wife paid to her father if she doesn't bear a child. Fathers didn't sell sons and men didn't buy sons for marriage not because of intent to persecute gays but instead because only men and women could create a family.

 

There is no such thing as states rights when it comes to the rights of others.

 

already refuted. procreation has nothing to do with who can marry

- - - Updated - - -

except the potential of procreation isn't needed or required in order for anyone to marry

 

not sure how you think posting a statute that doesn't limit marriage to only a man and a woman helps your failed argument. consumating a marriage is not required in any state

 

It is not. Marriage is an agreement to form a social and economic union, making it contractual in nature. PERIOD. No religion required.

On what planet?

 

Well, they can't in my state. Our amendment bans the recognition of any agreement (as in contract) other than one man/one woman in a marriage or similar union, for any purpose.

Nevermind that for a contract to be enforceable, it needs the weight of law behind it, which doesn't exist when the government bans recognition of the very contract (marriage) that the parties are trying to establish.

 

If by equality you mean constitutional equality, here's various supreme court precedent directly refuting your claim.
Do you have anything other than the ability put in all caps the claim of "IRRELEVANT"?

 

You can't comprehend what you read. "male...and...female" should have been your first clue. And an understanding of the meaning of consummation would have been your second.

Consummation of the marriage, according to Dr Lushington in D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039, requires "ordinary and complete" rather than "partial and imperfect" sexual intercourse, including erection and penetration but not necessarily leading to orgasm. It certainly need not result in conception, and the fact that the husband may be sterile or the woman barren is legally irrelevant.
http://www.lawteacher.net/family-law-resources/Non-Consummation-Marriage.php

 

That's not true. You can legally combine your income through a contract. Own property jointly by contract. Define the terms of dissolution including payments of public support. Even make sexual monogamy a requirement. Wills to pass your estate, medical power of attorney etc and have the ability to enforce them all in a court of law. Only thing you can't do by contract is make one of his kids your kid as well or vice versa for him.

 

The point of that is that the state was saying it is LEGAL for persons as described to consummate marriage. It's government permission for them to engage in sex. It is not a requirement that they do so.

I trust that as a freedom-loving conservative you are relieved to realize the state is not telling anyone who to (*)(*)(*)(*), and when. Indeed, you may be somewhat disturbed, I would think, with the thought that free people need the state's permission to do it.

Lack of consummation may be grounds for divorce or annulment, but that is at the option of the partner who chooses to make that claim. Unless or until such a claim is made and the court rules in favor of it, the marriage is legal, and continues.