New Jersey Gay Marriage: State Senate Passes Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the wellbeing of children is such an interest.

 

And then the state "will annul of dissolve a marriage for a failure to consumate" .

 

Thanks Rahl.

The problem with making the leap from race to Gender though, is that marriage has always been abpout 1man and 1 woman. So when a Blakc man couldnt marry a White woman or vice versa...we knew something was afoul. they fit the criteria perfectly...except for racism, which we all now we had a problem with. This HAD to be stricken down. This was classic racial discrimination..and this is what was decided with loving. (rightfully)

I just cant make that same leap with regards to SSM. There isnt the same violation I see going on with this.

I do believe you are right that this will head to the USSC.

back to Loving though, they didnt quite stop at simply calling it a basic right of Man....they went a bit further by saying it was a basic right, that can not be infringed on basis of race. Now this could leave the door open to infringing for other reasons...such as criteria. They were clear to mention "race" repeatedly, when they might not have had to if the door was wide open with regards to the criteria. They could have simply stated its a fundamental right of man and left it there. Leaving everything open to interperetation.

Heres the quote on it...it's Wiki, but accurate far as I know.

 

but marriage doesn't do that, and not all marriages produce children. procreation is not a requirement of marriage.
so, like I said. failed argument.

 

after a party seeks the action. the state couldn't care less whether a couple consumates or not. there is no requirement of consumation in any state.

 

Again, in 1950, the same logic could apply to interracial marriage. Black men and white men had NO difference in the law. A white man could only marry a white woman and a black man could only marry a black woman. The law was 'equal' for everyone.

That was struck down as unconstitutional and so will gay marriage. Deal with it.

 

Red herring. A 'lifestyle' has nothing to do with equal rights.

 

I didn't know simply requesting the same marriage right as heterosexuals was a "special right."

 

you're welcome!

not so. marriage has meant one man one woman, one man many women, one woman many men, one man and one man, one woman and one woman.

there shouldn't be any difference between race or gender as far as the law is concerned.

why not? racial discrimination. gender discrimination.



.

yea, this is one reason I hate lawyers, and legal speak in general. I guess SCOTUS is going to be the only recourse.

Heres the quote on it...it's Wiki, but accurate far as I know

 

In 1950 a black man was free to marry any black women, just as a white man was free to marry another white woman. SAME rights as opposed to special rights provide for the people who want interracial marriage.

 

Yup, just a matter of time.

 

Any right not made available to any two consenting adults would be a special right. Marriage has been extended to heterosexual couples for thousands of years of human civilization because only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. What special circumstance exists among homosexual couples that could possibly justify such special treatment.

 

Because purifying the white race isnt a legitimate governmental interest. Improving the well being of children is such an interest.
As well, while both homosexual and heterosexual men are free to marry the women of their choice. On the other hand, a white man was free to marry a white woman, the black man was not.

And it always seems odd to see a libertarian INSISTING that government MUST license and regulate homosexual relationships, that have never been licensed and regulated before. That improving the well being of children doent justify discrimination by the government, but helping gays feel better about being gay does justify such discrimination.

 

There is no legitimate government interest in denying gay marriage. Just bigotry from the religious right.

 

Of course it does.
If your lifestyle carries heavy fines, taxes and scorn...while other ones carry promotion and reward....and both have been shown to carry unhealthy side effects...theres an issue of someones rights getting stepped on.

 

Lets see EVEN ONE EXAMPLE in all of our nations history. And thats a request Im not expecting you to fill, but instead a request made to demonstrate that you cannot.

 

Marriage has existed long before this nation. You'll whole procreation argument is a nonstarter since reproduction nor the ability to is not a requirement for marriage.

 

What constitutes marriage has changed several times in our nations history. There is no reason why it cannot change again. The only thing stopping gay marriage is religous bigotry.

 

they are similarly situated to heterosexual couples who procreate, and IDENTICALLY situtated to those who can't.

 

The legitimate interest is served by making it available to heterosexuals. The interest is not served by extending it to platonic couples, closely related couples or couples of the same sex. The interst isnt served by denying them to anybody and is instead served by making them available to heterosexual couples.
The governmental interest of tax breaks and governmental entitlements made to owners of small businesses isnt served by denying the benefits to large businesses but is instead served by making them available to small businesses.

But youve identified the fiction used by the courts. The claim that marriage isnt limited to heterosexual couples because they have the potential of procreation, but that it has instead been limited to heterosexual couples for thousands of years for one reason, heterosexuals are not homosexuals. ABSURD! My sister and I are both heterosexual but we cant marry. My platonic friend John and I are both heterosexual but we cant marry. I cant marry my sister because of the harmful effects of the potential of procreation. Cant marry John because of the impossibility of procreation.

 

I don't need to. it's irrelevant. nothing prohibitted same sex marriage prior to the 1970s

 

Like most Libertarians, I do not believe that the government allowing something is promoting it. Hell, look at your smoking habit. They sure as hell don't promote that. And even if they were promoting gay marriage would you marry a dude? I don't think so.

Given that gay marriage does not harm the life, liberty or property of another, nor does it put anyone in eminent danger of such, I believe it to be an inalienable right. And I believe that inalienable rights are not subject to a majority vote (although I realize in this imperfect world they actually are). Otherwise it allows the majority to decide anything. The tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. That's why you can't smoke outside in lots of places.

I wish the government would stop doing that, too. But that includes picking only heterosexuals to marry!

 

platonic couples can and do marry.

the possibility of procreation is irrelevant. the ability or intention to procreate is not required for marriage. that's why couples with no possibility of procreating can and do marry.

 

So are ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS who might choose to marry. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexual that could possibly justify this absurd demand for "Gay Marriage"

 

You are operating on the false assumption that procreation has anything to do with marriage. Garbage in, garbage out.

If this were the case, then a 80 y/o man would be unable to marry a 75 y/o woman. Next.