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

?????? Ooooook what does all that have to do with the claim that it is instead

 

It's very much true, your uninformed opinion to the contrary notwithstanding. The amendment says "for ANY purpose". They even considered passing a law that would have put funeral arrangements in the hands of blood relatives, however estranged, and overriding any of the person's expressed last wishes concerning the same. That's how specific and deep the desire to discriminate runs in Michigan.

 

I'm a Bahai too, and my argument here is religious. I do not believe it is possible to accept that citizen's privileges (or immunities) can be a matter for individual states to decide without any oversight. Shoghi Effendi (Guardian of the Bahai Faith, which is to say, he was its head and official theologian) wrote:

That is, he envisions a world commonwealth that both unites states, and protects citizens from infringements of their freedoms by their own governments.

 

unless he cant so same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) out of you

 

as you can tell from being on this site were not the smartest critters and progress is made slowly

 

greater justice and equality as we set precedents for not allowing bull(*)(*)(*)(*) just because its popular with some people?

 

apparently by all are requirements theirs no need for their to be a husband or wife just 2 people

as we let people who cant have their own kids marry gender based persecution of gay people and discrimination between couples who cant reproduce

 

um

con·sum·mate (kns-mt)
tr.v. con·sum·mat·ed, con·sum·mat·ing, con·sum·mates
1.
a. To bring to completion or fruition; conclude: consummate a business transaction.

b. To realize or achieve; fulfill: a dream that was finally consummated with the publication of her first book.

2.
a. To complete (a marriage) with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony.

b. To fulfill (a sexual desire or attraction) especially by intercourse.

gay couples can do that and as we don't require any 1 to do that more importantly let people who cant even do that marry making it a requirement doesn't make sense

 

Not exactly true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

So we have 13 states, the District of Columbia, and five Native American tribes that have all established under the law that same-sex marriage is a right of the People.

The US Supreme Court has recently ruled that "marriage is marriage" under federal law and those same-sex couples that are legally married under state law are entitled to federal benefits, protections, and privileges afforded to "married couples" under federal law and that the previous discrimination against them under DOMA Section 3 was unconstitutional.

The issue is really why should same-sex couples that are legally married under the laws of 13 States, the District of Columbia, and five Native American tribes will received these federal benefits, protections, and privileges afforded to "married couples" under federal law while same-sex couples throughout the United States that are prohibiting same-sex marriage should be denied. There is an obvious denial or "equal protection under the law" because of the discrimination under the marriage laws of different states.

We can also note that lawsuits related to "equal rights" for same-sex couples are now advancing in Federal Court because of the Windsor decision by the US Supreme Court.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2013/07/after-windsor-michigan-same-sex-partners-benefits-suit-advances/

As noted this is about equal protection under the law not technically related to Michigan's State Constitutional provisions that prohibit same-sex marriage or the denial of recognition of legal same-sex marriages from other states but it really hinges on that prohibition. The Michigan couples cannot receive state benefits because they cannot get married in Michigan and one of the couples is legally married but that marriage is being denied because of the Michigan State Constitution.

This could be a huge case if, as expected, it results in the federal court declaring the provisions of the Michigan State Constitution prohibiting same-sex marriage and denying recognition of the legally married status of same-sex couples that move to Michigan from other states as unconstitutional. Based upon legal precedent the case is very solid from the plaintiffs standpoint and it's hard to find anyway that it won't succeed based upon the equal protection clause of the US Constitution.

 

and this is relevant how? arguing for the necessity of something that's not necessary and arguing for the need of a potential we don't require people to have is not simply stupid how?

- - - Updated - - -

and that matters how?

 

Actually the reason only women take birth control pills was because of gender bias in medical research. It always made more sense biologically to develop a male birth control pill because men don't suffer from the menstrual cycle women go through every month. Men are biologically more stable in this regard. There have been relatively recent developments related to producing a male birth control pill.

 

Because you claimed that supposed inability to consummate marriage was a reason for past non-recognition of gay marriage. This claim fails because of irrelevancy; consummation, as I discussed, was not a requirement for marriage, the law just made explicit that consummation was legally allowed in marriage. You therefore have not offered a viable alternative to some level of 'homophobic animus' as the explanation.

 

Everyone should be covered by universal single payer like civilized countries do.

Then you wouldn't have to worry yourself about this.

 

right. it doesn't say only a man and woman nor does it say consummation is required.

fail

 

There are no laws requiring consummation of a marriage so this has absolutely nothing to do with the marriage laws in the United States.

 

It is no more persecution of gays than it is persecution of the single mother and grandmother who have joined together for over a decade to raise their children / grandchildren. Government can't have a preference for gay couples raising children without some justification for doing so. Biological parents are preferred because they are the only two people obligated by law to provide and care for the child upon the birth of a child. If they are unable to do so, Any two consenting adults could join together to raise the child in place of the biological parents. Nothing special about gay couples that could justify such discrimination. Biological parents aren't preferred because they are sexual. They are preferred because the biological parents are the only two individuals morally or legally obligated to care for the child.

 

they always had the right to marry

 

Well, since we are talking about the "first couple of centuries" and the law, a legal definition from the 1800s is more relevant.

 

???um

But I'm sure you people will argue that the existence of men inserting their penis into a womans vagina when either one of them is incapable of "reproduction" is proof that homosexuals are excluded from sexual intercourse motivated by animus towards homosexuals.

 

With a simple establishment of the fact that the states limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, originating from the states founding and first promulgated marriage statutes, is now and always has been motivated by an intent to include all couples with the potential of procreation and has never been motivated by an intent to exclude those who are homosexual. And courts creating out of thin air a right for homosexuals to marry each other and the resulting response by state legislatures and people to prevent courts from creating these homosexual rights, DOES NOT change the intent of the legislation. Had courts instead created a right for platonic friends, closely related couples and homosexual couples to marry, the response would have been tailored by the legislatures and state populations to prevent the courts from creating those rights. Crazy for the courts to create the focus on homosexuals and then invalidate laws enacted in response because they mirror the courts focus. Would be like courts creating a right exclusively for Muslims to polygamous marriages, and state legislatures and constitutional referendums in response are enacted to prevent Muslims from exercising a right to polygamous marriages, and then courts striking down those laws because they are alleged to be motivated by animus towards muslims when in fact they were enacted to preserve a fathers resources so they can be devoted to the children of just one wife, instead of being thinly allocated to caring for the children of 5 wives.

 

Why? WTF motivates this centuries old transfer of rights, assorted guarantees and financial benefits? Gay marriage wasn't even considered when these rights began. What is the historical reason we as a society do that?

What does society expect for these benefits?

At this point I understand that the gay mafia can't touch these questions. They completely undermine all of their contentions. But I'll keep posting them until SOMEONE comes clean.


.

 

What did they expect? More happiness and approval from the populace, I imagine. Continuation in power and other political benefits. Most things done by leaders are politically-motivated.

 

They do now.

 

It is about "equality" under our republican form of Government.

 

actually it is more persecution against them there in a closer situation to heterosexual sexual marriage as we have it now identical other then an arbitrary restriction based on gender alone your arguments to show the discrimination faced by others doesn't justify the discrimination faced by gay couples

we let couples raise kids where 1 or both parents are not related to said kids in a household where the couple is married so still discrimination based on gender alone