I don't understand why gays want to marry

The government does recognize partnership contracts which is all that a marriage really is. The government recognizes both statutory and common law related to contracts and always has. Contract law is non-discriminatory and protects the Rights of the Individuals involved in the contract and protecting the inalienable Rights of the People is the primary reason for government as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Those that oppose same-gender marriage oppose the protection of the inalienable Rights of those individuals denied marriage solely because of personal and/or religious beliefs. It is very "unAmerican" to oppose the protection of the inalienable Rights of all People as that was the expressed reason for the government in the United States.

 

Yeah, none of the motives behind government regulation of marriage have ANY applicability in the case of a gay marriage.

 

Should have been OBVIOUS form my answer. YES.

 

In the court decision in Baker v Nelson the court expressed a government interest in the raising of children in a stable family and that was a primary purpose of "marriage" under the law. Between 25% and 30%, depending upon source, of same-gender couples are raising children and the State has an inherent interest in providing the legal institution of marriage for the benefit of the children of these couples.

Additionally the government has an inherent interest in ensuring the equal protection of ALL People under the law and, in fact, is mandated to do so under the 14th Amendment.

To state that the government has no motive to recognize same-gender marriage under the law is blatantly false.

 

If marriage is solely about procreation and raising children (which is is not) then what possible argument can be given for affording opposite-gender couples the legal institution of marriage when they can't or don't have children?

What about the same-gender couples that are raising children? Why should they be denied the legal institution of marriage when the court has ruled that providing the legal institution of marriage for the purpose of raising children is an "interest" of the State?

This is one problem with opposing same-gender marriage. To do so a person has to assume a hypocrital position on the issues. They can't say why opposite-gender couples that are incapable of children or that don't have children should be afforded the rigth to marry when same-gender couples are denied the same right. They cannot say why a same-gender couple raising children, an expresed interest of the state for the legal institution of marriage to even exist, should be denied when opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry in the identical situation.

 

Nooooo, the interest is in them raising THEIR children, as opposed to somebody elses children.

Probably more children being raised right now by single mothers and grandmothers, than have ever been raised by gay couples. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay that would warrant such special treatment. Being gay doesnt endow one with special child raising skills.

Yeah, and special treatment for gays because they happen to be gay is antithetical to that goal.

 

Because most often it is not known. Why do birds build nests for eggs that never hatch? The POTENTIAL of procreation.

 

That isn't what marriage is exclusively about.

 

Another in a series of ignorant posts that "paints the floor leaving leaving the argument stuck in the corner" so to speak.

The apparent piont of the argument is that marriage is exclusively limited to promoting procreation and only relates to the biological parents raising children and that the legal institution of marriage exists for no other reason!

First of all, in Nelson v Baker, Justice Peterson made the following statement:

It establishes two primary reasons but not exclusive for the institution of marriage with the first being "procreation" and the second being "rearing of children within a family" but it does not state that the "family" needs to be the biological parents of the child. The statement in the decision is not, "rearing of children within the biological family" as that was not the intent of Justice Peterson's statement. In fact the laws indicate that the State has an interest in non-biological parents "rearing children within a family" as indicated by adoption laws.

While I don't believe it's the case today when I grew up the laws established that a only married couples were eligible for adoption. They State had an interest in the "rearing of children within a family" and based upon that insisted that a couple be married before they could adopt. These were never the biological parents but instead non-biological parents for the child.

Next is mentioned the fact that there are single women raising children. This is true but if marriage relates to only the biological parents of a child establishing a family by marriage then logically they would be denied the right to marry anyone other than the biological father. If marriage is only for biological parents to raise children within a family there is no reason to allow a single parent to marry anyone other than the other biological parent of the child. This criteria would become really interesting if a woman had two children from two different fathers of course. Instant polygamy.

Finally this isn't legally about "gay" marriage although "gays" (and lesbians) are often referred to because they are the one's predominately affected by the discrimination. It's an issue of gender discrimination under the law. Gay refers to behavior but the laws are based upon gender and not behavior.

The argument can be made that non-homosexuals would also get married when gender discrimination ends under the marriage laws. Two women, for example, that are not lesbians but that are both single mothers could choose to marry solely for financial reasons that would mutually benefit their children. This serves both the State's interest in children be raised in a stable family as well as the parenting of the children were two individuals raising a child are superior to one. No homosexual behavior would be involved at all and it would be purely about what's best for the children.

 

Why do impotent individuals marry if there is no potential for procreation? Why do 80 year olds marry when there is no potential for procreation? Why do we allow it at all in these cases?

 

Yes. A church should be able to refuse to conduct the rites of holy matrimony for any couple it deems unfit.

If a church decides to do so as the product of racism, it's still the church's purview. Government has no place in dictating actual religious practice.

It's repugnant. But within the church's rights.

 

If government recognizes the existence of a contract and gives it the force of law, then government is still involved. Stopping he practice of issuing marriage licenses doesn't make the government uninvolved if it is still looked to for enforcement, and enforcement - regardless of what entity takes that on - is a form of governance.

The point being, contracts are worthless without the ability to enforce them, and enforcement is governance. I see no point in shifting that to some other authority.

 

I stated this in another thread, but I'll repeat it here. Because in order to determine whether a heterosexual couple has the ability to procreate would require a gross invasion of privacy by the State. With homosexuals, obviously, that is not the case.

 

Ridiculous. Gay people aren't sterile. They can and do procreate.

If the basis of legal marriage is to ensure possible and safe procreation, then the invasion is justifiable.

 

Theirs no requirement for heterosexuals to reproduce in a marriage this is bull (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

The Ku Klux Klan is a church and I don't think they marry black people, least not last time I looked!

 

Talk about ignorant. After all this time and you still, havent yet even begun to grasp my view. Marriage isnt to promote procreation. Procrration continues just fine without marriage and likely only inhibits it.

 

Got to wonder why you bring up procreation in a marriage discussion then. One has nothing to do with the other. Marriage is little more than a contractual arrangement, with tax benefits legitimized by the state.

To deny any group the opportunity to partake in this contract is inherently discriminatory unless the state has some interest to prevent it, I've yet to hear a legitimate interest of the state in this arrangement other than social engineering.

 

Then why even bring procreation up?

 

.................

 

It's gross invasion of the state to deny marriage licenses to 80-something year old couples seeking to marry? :/

 

Did Kentucky explicitly bar same-sex couples from marriage in 1971?

Obviously at the time "same-sex marriage" didn't exist anywhere in the world. However now it's very much established in numerous states and jurisdictions around the world - proving marriage is whatever the state wants it to be. The history of the world itself is entirely irrelevant.

 

???? Because only when procreation occurs, is there a child whose wellbeing the government is concerned about.

 

(emphasis added) In which case the government would have no interest in marital unions unless and until procreation occurs. Obviously, the government has taken an interest in non-procreative marital unions.

You just defeated your own argument. I expect you'll try to rewind now and claim the government interest is in the potential for heterosexual couples to procreate, but you can't have it both ways.

 

A contractual arrangement only applicable in the case of a man and a woman.

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;