Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

That's the excuse they keep using, all while ignoring the fact that we have children.

 

That's been one of the major benefits of marriage.

 

Marriage is an inanimate abstract institution, it has no feelings, ergo it cannot suffer.

Saying same-sex marriage impacts marriage is like saying when the slaves were freed, the whites were less free.

Trust me there'll be no change in how sanctified Rush Limbaugh's third marriage is. The sanctimonious son of a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) will still be a hypocritical blowhard since the Bible forbids divorce. It's "till death do us part" not "till thy mistress part her legs shall I part from this marriage."

Domestic partnerships are separate and unequal. Separate institutions are by definition unequal, which is itself violative of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Marriage is at its core a contract, therefore there is a reason for married couples to be treated separately from unmarried.

 

Because there is no functional difference between the government favoring a religion and establishing one.

The 1st Amendment and all other Amendments to the Constitution were applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.

 

If marriage is so damned important to producing children, then explain why 40% of children were born to unmarried women in 2012?

 

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry.

 

Another day, another 75 page thread with EXACTLY the same talking points as the last one!

 

This is not an answer to my question, and is in a different context.

The functional difference is a 20th century creation, and has no basis in the original intent of the Establishment Clause.

I think you are confusing the 14th Amendment's limited intent, and its application to the states only becoming a matter of law under the incorporation doctrine, created also in the 20th century.

 

So we should ban marriage between sterile heterosexual couples, yes?

 

Because they got rid of the laws that made it illegal for men and women to engage in sexual relations outside of marriage. Back when they were in place, encouraging marriage encouraged procreation.
The benefit of marriage is more children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them as opposed to the most frequent alternative of a single mother and an absent or even unknown father.

 

Apparently, infertile people don't count, nor do people who choose not to have kids.

 

Funny, I looked in the Constitution. Didn't see anything that referenced the 10 Commandments. Nothing at all. Not even a mention about murder or stealing. Can you quote the actual parts that contain the Ten Commandments?

 

We don't know which couples will procreate. We only know that all who do, will be heterosexual couples. And from a constitutional perspective-

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....

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......

 

Let's apply your argument to the 2nd Amendment:

Would you be okay with the government banning ownership of any guns that aren't single shot muzzle loaders? If not, why not?

 

Then why should the lack of homosexuals ability to procreate be used against them for determining if they are allowed to marry or not?

 

Yet same-sex marriages are banned (re: against the law) in most states, hence also a criminal act if one is conducted within a state that bans them. As we have seen before, whenever it does happen, there are consequences. My older sister conducted same-sex marriages in a state that did not allow them 10 years ago and was promptly arrested for doing so, spending a night in jail as a result.

Homosexuality also has a lot to do with pedophilia. Look up Harry Hay, an early LGBT movement advocate, who was also heavily involved in NAMBLA. That's "North American Man-Boy Love Association", for those that don't know about them.

 

And why were those laws repealed? Let's see, oh, it's a little concept called "invasion of privacy".

That's all fine and good, it still does not translate to a valid compelling state interest. In the United States it is impossible to legislate that a parent must pair-bond with a member of the opposite sex.

 

Is that how your determine the origins of the articles and clauses? That is your methodology?

What do you believe is the origin of this portion of Article 1, Section 7:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.​

Could it have had its origins in this:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.​

 

No because that was not the intent of the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and the Militia Act of 1792 applied to arms in the context of being equal to an opponent's arms. Arms were classified as "flint locks," "sword," "knives,' and "pistols," or any arm that could be carried. And neither the prefatory nor operative clauses limited the right to own or carry these types of arms. If the prevailing arms of foreign military were fully automatic weapons, then the Militia Act of 1792 would have required the possession of a fully automatic weapons. But there was a delineation between "arms," and "ordinances" in the 18th century, with the latter being cannons and the like, but there was no explicit restriction on ownership.

 

The Sunday exception was a nod to the convention that people didn't necessarily work on Sundays. It certainly makes no specific reference to the sabbath, which depending upon your religion, can be either Saturday or Sunday. It is at best an oblique reference, but not anything close to what I would call as being directly based on the Ten Commandments.

 

Homosexuality is not a crime. Pedophilia is a crime. Can someone be arrested for simply having sex with a member of the same sex?

BTW, what is your sister's job? Justice of the Peace?

The gay rights movement does not support NAMBLA, or anything resembling it. So I fail to see your point.

 

procreation is irrelevant to who can marry. and quoting an overturned court case doesn't help you. 2 federal courts have just ruled banning same sex marriage fails rational basis.

 

going to call bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on this. a marriage ceremony can be performed between a human and a dog, and absolutely nothing can be done about it. same sex marriages aren't illegal, they just have no government recognition in states which ban them.

no, homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia.

 

A blatant misrepresentation of reality and an obvious attempt to smear gay people by claiming that "homosexuality has a lot to do with pedophilia". Just because a couple of people who were involved with LGBT rights in the early days were attracted to children does not imply a correlation between the two.

Most men who abuse or are attracted to young boys are entirely fixated on children, not adults - most report no attraction to adult men and among those who claim to have adult attractions the most common format is being attracted to women and boys - probably because younger boys are somewhat "feminine". To say that there is any kind of connection between a movement advocating for the rights of consenting adults and organisations like NAMBLA is ridiculous.

 

It was a nod that people did not work on Sundays? The Sunday exemption was inserted because of the Ten Commandments, which was the basis for not only people not working on Sundays, but it being a criminal offense to do pretty much anything on Sundays other than related to worship. Example from Connecticut:

No one shall run on the Sabbath day, or walk in his garden or elsewhere, except reverently to and from meeting; No one shall travel, cook victuals, make beds, sweep house, cut hair, or shave, on the Sabbath day; No woman shall kiss her child on the Sabbath or fasting day; The Sabbath shall begin at sunset on Saturday.​

The same people who enacted these laws were the same people creating the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention. Your assertions are not based on the prevailing attitudes, reverence of Sundays, history, or anything related to the 18th century. The Sunday exception is has its origin from the Ten Commandments, and to attempt to dismiss it is intellectually disingenuous regardless if one is a Christian or atheist.