Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Why do you not then favor abolition of marriage for post-menopausal or otherwise infertile couples?

 

Where is procreation mentioned in the constitution. Please, lets see this.

 

Clearly it is.

Husbands are always men, wives are always women. Not because of some nefarious plot to exclude the gays from the institution of marriage, but instead because fathers are always men and mothers are always women.

It supports my argument and the argument used in dozens of court cases upholding the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples. And in 44 out of 50 states.

Nonsense. No more discriminatory of homosexual people than it is any two consenting adults who might choose to marry. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexual.

 

A literal interpretation you say? So then are we to assume you think the 14th Amendment was ratified with the intention of legitimising interracial marriages? lol

I'll say right off the bat even as you attempt to dismiss me as a "royal subject" that you are misrepresenting the facts completely... Nearly all the states which ratified that amendment at the time had laws against interracial marriage - so clearly this was not the original intention. This is merely how it was interpreted some 99 years later - despite a previous Supreme Court ruling that concluded that anti-miscegenation laws do not violate the Equal Protection clause on account of the equal application of the laws (and equal punishments). Loving Vs Virginia broke precedent with a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

Because it is easy to determine which couples are made up of a man and a woman, and dificult to determine with any accuracy which couples are fertile. And before government jumped on the marriage bandwagon, society, culture, tradition and religion limited heterosexual relations to married couples. There has been no such limitation to homosexual relations.

 

Ah, that old chestnut. It's easier... Is the law (and more to the constitution) based on what is easiest to enforce?(*)Or is it based on what is just and fair?

 

LOL!! Ha-Ha! (You've GOT to be kidding me!)

dixon, what in the HELL has that really got to do with allowing homosexual couples to marry?!

 

Nonsense. Each one can be determined with certainty through the use of biological examinations, but each one is usually assessed with reasonable accuracy using self-reported information (sex and age voluntarily given to the clerk upon application for a marriage license).

The oldest woman ever to give birth was 70. The oldest woman ever to give birth without use of IVF or other fertility treatments was considerably younger. It would be just as reasonable for the law to assume a woman of 70 or more years old is infertile as it is for the law to assume that the person in front of them who checks "male" in the box is in fact a male (which is, again, just as impossible to determine without a medical examination).

Regardless, we do not make just laws based upon ease of enforcement. At least, people who aren't merely covering for their own thinly-veiled bigotry do not.

Of course, we've been through this before, and you always without fail ignore the obvious error in your argument: It is possible for homosexual couples to create new Americans, thus serving the alleged purpose of your marriage laws.



A hypothetical: Suppose with the wave of a $5, widely-available wand, it was possible with 100% certainty to determine which persons are fertile. Would you then support a prohibition on marriage for infertile people? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice.

So what? Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy and therefore an invalid argument.

 

If marriage is solely to be based on procreation then why wasn't it limited to couples where the woman was already pregnant or when the child was born? Even 5000 years ago they could tell if a woman was pregnant (i.e. fertile) but it was not limited to that. They also knew that a woman past menopause could not have children so why allow them to marry?

Once agian, the inclusion of same-sex couples under the marriage laws to eliminate the documented denial of equal protection under the law does not infringe at all upon the "government's" interests in procreation. It doesn't affect procreation in "marriage" at all.

As I have noted previously the government should simply get out of marriage completely but that not being the case then it has to ensure equal protection for all individuals that are involved in the same basic personal/financial partnership that is inherent in the legal institution of marriage. It cannot discriminate against same-sex couples that can't procreate as a couple if it doesn't include that discrimination against opposite-sex couples that can't procreate or that choose not to procreate.

In reality the interest is in the children and not the potential children and same-sex couples are raising children. None of the government benefits or privileges of marriage are related to the "potential to have children" but instead many related to actually having children and same-sex couples do have children.

The inclusion of same-sex couples within the legal, not social, institution of marriage about equal protection under the law and nothing else. No one's Rights are infringed upon by the inclusion of same-sex couples under the marriage laws but the Right of Equal Protection under the Law is infringed upon by their exclusion.

There are no logical arguments to oppose same-sex marriage and many conservatives and liberals that have deep religious beliefs where they believe the social (religious) institution of marriage should be limited to a man and a woman now endorse eliminating the discrimination under the law by allowing same-sex marriage.

 

Excluding old people to appease gays is neither just or fair.

 

If the sole argument for prohibiting same-sex marriage is the inability of the couple to procreate then excluding old people because they cannot procreate makes absolute sense. It uses the same logic.

Of course it would be neither just or fair to exclude old people from the legal institution of marriage because they share the identical personal/financial partnership as same-sex couples share so both should be included in the legal institution of marriage. They can still be raising children even though they cannot bear them and they certainly deserve the same tax filing status, bankruptcy protection and Social Security benefits that they paid taxes for.

 

Ive addressed your simplistic argument with legal precedent, repeatedly.

 

When the court applied the criteria of "Strict Scrutiny" under the law the California State Supreme Court declared Prop 22 unconstitutional, the District Court declared Prop 8 unconstitutional, and in Gill and Massachusetts the District Court declared DOMA was unconstitutional.

While several cases have been dismissed for numerous reasons when the Court has actually heard the arguments and applied Strict Scrutiny related to the laws prohibiting same-sex marriage those laws have been declared unconstitutional. FACT!

 

Absurd to argue that sexual orientation must be subjected to an even higher level of scrutiny than gender.

 

The fact that "legal precedent" exists on this question is irrelevant. The legal precedent does not change the fact that homosexual couples can create new American citizens, and therefore serve the alleged purpose for marriage as stated by you.

I'm addressing the principle from a logical standpoint. Judges are perfectly apt to be illogical when, like you, they are grossed out by gays, and unwilling to simply admit that. We are arguing that the law is wrong, therefore, you citing the law (either case or statute) is not a substantive refutation.

You did not address any of my other questions. In particular:

 

It's perfectly fair if we are to believe that ability to procreate is the sole reason and the only government interest in granting rights to couples.

However that's demonstratably not the case.

 

Ok then, what's the rational basis for such inequality? Here we have someone drawing a conclusion without any explanation... Unless there's more you's care to share from said ruling?

A lower age limit is not deemed "unrealistic or offensive via the Griswold rationale" so why would an upper age limit be?

These rulings are clutching at straws to justify a glaring inequality and a gaping hole in the reasoning put forward in order to avoid any controversial divergence from the status quo. Procreational ability is DEMONSTRABLY not a good enough reason, Constitutionally, nor even a legal prerequisite to allowing thousands of rights to one group who does not fit the "requirement" and not to another (who are by the stated criteria identically situated) based simply on their genders.

 

Actually, its a physical impossibility.

 

Only heterosexual couples procreate.

What part of "would be neither unrealistic nor offensive" didnt you understand.

??? Demonstrated repeatedly in court cases upholding the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples.

 

But in the very practical sense a good many thousands of Americans owe their very existence to the coming together of two parents of the same-sex and their joint decision to create a new life using a donor egg/womb or sperm. The majority of those individuals would not exist today had their parents remained single - since couples of a romantic and committed nature are more likely to seek offspring than any other type of "couple" would (I.e non-sexual or related "couples").

In the very practical sense you could say that homosexuality often creates new life.

 

That's not a rational basis for allowing those who blatantly cannot conceive 1000's of rights which are supposedly reserved for the purposes of encouraging responsible procreation. The reasoning put forward implies they are currently awarded those rights for no other reason than what genders they happen to be - one would only assume because they resemble a couple who procreate - even though they cannot in fact do so... Ludicrous.

Offensiveness by itself is irrelevant (*)since the vast majority of gay people find themselves offended by the status quo and not being able to attain any legal recognition. Obviously no one arguing for their rights is asking for SSM to be legalised because a refusal to do so is "offensive"... It's hardly a good argument.

And an upper age limit is no more unreasonable than a lower age limit.

It's been addressed specifically twice according to your citations, and both do not give the kind of consideration such a point demands. In both instances it was either dismissive or drawing on its own conclusions without addressing the Constitutional question.

 

Nonsense. Most of them were unmarried and one of the couple and a third party procreated. Not the homosexual couple.

 

Great news.

That was such a dumb idea, anyway. I hope it continues to be igored!

 

No where near as ludicrous as including gay couples because they rub genitals just like couples who do procreate.