A rationalist point of view on gay marriage

If they turn in their business license and designate their property and their services as a religious institution they wouldn't even have to rent the space.

 

Actually, they explicitly identified them as "ONE" right

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

 

exactly....

- - - Updated - - -

not all couples can have children, some adopt, it was never meant to say people that can not have children can not marry

 

No one claimed they can. No one claimed it was. You can let go of the strawman now.

 

oh I thought that was what you were trying to say, that sense same gender couples can't have children they should not be able to marry, apologize if I was mistaken


.

 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html
Skinner, your first SCOTUS quote, is about FORCED STERILIZATION. The right discussed is the right to PROCREATE.
Here's whats after what you quoted "The power to sterilize, if exercised, may have subtle, far-reaching and devastating effects. In evil or reckless hands, it can cause races or types which are inimical to the dominant group to wither and disappear. There is no redemption for the individual whom the law touches. Any experiment which the State conducts is to his irreparable injury. He is forever deprived of a basic liberty."
He could still get married even if his dick no longer functioned as a procreative appendage. The liberty being denied is the right to procreate.
You think I've never studied skinner? I've taken 2 different sections of con law, I'm taking another in the fall. You're going to have to try harder than that.

Your 2nd quote, Zablocki v Redhail, is about a wisconsin statute barring a wisconsinite (wisconsonese?) from marrying either in Wisconsin or ANYWHERE ELSE without a court order from Wisconsin if they have child support unpaid.

Here's whats after your cherry picked quote: "Under the challenged statute, no Wisconsin resident in the affected class may marry in Wisconsin or elsewhere without a court order, and marriages contracted in violation of the statute are both void and punishable as criminal offenses. Some of those in the affected class, like appellee, will never be able to obtain the necessary court order, because they either lack the financial means to meet their support obligations or cannot prove that their children will not become public charges. These persons are absolutely prevented from getting married. Many others, able in theory to satisfy the statute's requirements, will be sufficiently burdened by having to do so that they will in effect be coerced into forgoing their right to marry. And even those who can be persuaded to meet the statute's requirements suffer a serious intrusion into their freedom of choice in an area in which we have held such freedom to be fundamental.

"

As discussed it was already established he had a right to procreate. Also as established wisconsin only allowed sex inside of marriage therefore (marriage being recognized as a separate right all of which is discussed a few paragraphs ABOVE your quote) to exercise the right to procreate one must first exercise the right to marriage. <<

Now run along and play.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/zablocki.html
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html

 

You must forgive me for not accepting anecdotal evidence as evidence to support your argument. What % is "most gays" you know? do you know a lot of them?
Most gays I know NEVER even thought of marriage to the opposite sex.

You seem to be implying that "sexual gratification amongst consenting adults" is a bad thing. Hmmmmmmm.

 

They have equal rights to get married to a person of the opposite gender.

 

Roberts already said churches are going to come out on the short end of the stick with this ruling.

 

I have a law degree. And you havent yet got around to contradicting a thing Ive said, so not sure what you are going on about.

I know what all the cases Ive cited are about. Did you have a relevant point?

 

Yes actually. Re-read the posts you've quoted. This time try to understand what they say. Horror of Horrors you might actually have to go back and see the other posts for context. O the huge manatee

 

I did. Nothing there contradicts a thing Ive said. I made no representation as to what the fact situation was in the Skinner case AND the court did in fact state that

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

 

Yes and then the rest of the quote reveals that the right being taken away is the RIGHT TO FUNCTIONAL GENITALIA, not the right to assign spousal rights to another. The "legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man" is the legislation which requires those in commission of certain felonies to be STERILIZED BY THE STATE. The "one of the basic civil rights of man" is PROCREATION, PROCRATION being the right taken away by the aforementioned legislation.
I really hope you're lying about that law degree

 

When you enter into the secular business world, you do that with hopefully understanding that it is not governed by your religious beliefs, but falls under secular law. Anyways, render unto Caesar.....which allows the religious to live in a secular or Caesar's world. Good advice.

 

When you enter the secular business world, your religious beliefs are protected by the constitution. The state cannot force Religious people to do things contrary to their religion, like forcing Muslims to serve non Halal meet.

 

You are still not contradicting a thing I said.

 

Employers are not required to offer insurance coverage for spouses.

 

A "rationalist"? Not hardly. Your point of view is mostly emotional.

 

We've had that discussion before.​

​

 

You said that marriage and procreation were considered the same thing. Demonstrably they are not. The quotes don't support what you want. You tried some sneaky (*)(*)(*)(*)er (*)(*)(*)(*) and got caught, move on dude.

 

Muslims aren't the ones running massive media campaigns alleging that I'm somehow corrupting children by my very existence.

You can't make your group the most visible and then complain when people treat it like it's the most visible.

 

Most of those self righteous hypocrites don't seem to care much for those going into a 2nd or more adulterous marriage.
Clean your own house, then worry about the neighbors.

 

How is that participation in the gay marriage. LOL. It' selling insurance. sheesh.

And if you mean the person works for them, why did they hire the gay person in the 1st place.

 

Yes and gay is not a skin color.

 

It's about human rights and dignity... not "skin color" per se.