Washington State set to become 7th state to legalise SSM

Goes to wherever the constitution says it goes...Legislators (where this is allowed), the people by referendum (where this is allowed), and then judges in review against the new constitution. Depending on the law and state in question, some things can ONLY be changed by referendum, others only by legislators, others by either or, and yet again others by some process involving both.

We're a complicated mess.

 

ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS would just as likely have "two incomes". Nothing special about those couples who happen to be gay with two incomes.

They already can adopt and sometime do. Just like unmarried gay couples adopt. We, of course are talking about marriage.

 

Something tells me you know what I meant, but I'll spell it out:

They should be able to adopt...
Under the same merits as a heterosexual couple...
And be given the same financial benefits given a married couple...
And be given the same social/contractual rights as is applicable to the type of "union" or "couple" they are.

Sure a gay couple can adopt, as can a mother and grandmother. But the establishment of parental rights, next of kin, and any of the other financial, cultural and contractual benefits are still lacking, or are at least more difficult to establish and enforce.

I wish to "destroy" the special status that heterosexual, married couples have in raising kids by giving the same rights to those who adopt, particularly those rights that impact the family financially and contractually. How evil am I, I'll go slither away now...

 

And even then you can have some Federal Judge come along and declare that the Constitution, is unconstitutional.

 

And then if the decision of the judge is not liked, it can be responded to with an appeal to a yet higher court, a change to the federal constitution, and/or impeachment of the judge.

Isn't the system glorious?

 

State constitutions can and have conflicted with the federal constitution. See Romer vs Evans. No different to Perry vs Brown/Schwartzenegger really.

 

So you agree, s states shouldn't be able to deny marriage to same sex couples.

 

Thats what I said einstein.

There is the GLARING difference in that Californias constitution doesnt use sexual orientation to classify people into different groups. Whereas the California constitution did specifically that.

 

You didn't specify state constitution. You just said declare the constitution unconstitutional. Big difference between federal and state obviously.

You mean the Coloradan constitution did exactly that... Well let's look at the facts - both involve a right that was granted and subsequently removed. Both were approved by voters and then declared unconstitutional. The "glaring difference" is not as obvious or noteworthy as the glaring similarities. Removing the right of same-sex couples to call their union a marriage can only be motivated by an animus towards gay people. The institution of marriage itself was not designed to discriminate (which is why the judges didn't decide to impose a wider ruling and declare a constitutional right to SSM), but Prop 8 was.

 

Either one can be used to declare a law unconstitutional. Not sure of your point. Perhaps my mistake is in assuming you had one.

Nonsense. Its a recognition that only men and women have the potential of procreation. Californias prop 8 limited marriage to heterosexual couples for the EXACT same reason that californias presumption of paternity is limited to heterosexual couples. A grasp upon reality.

7624. (a) A man is presumed to be the father of a child if any of the following apply:
(1) He and the mother of the child are married to each other and the child is born during the marriage.
(2) He and the mother of the child were married to each other and the child is born within 300 days ......
(3) Before the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, .....
(4) After the birth of the child, he and the mother of the child married each other in apparent compliance with law, .....

 

The presumption of paternity in marriage law isn't supposed to apply to everyone who gets married. You can't take it to mean those who can't reproduce or won't reproduce don't have the right to call their union a marriage. How absurd.

You keep posting this over and over like a maniac, I don't think you understand how irrelevant it is.

 

I never have. Run after that strawman! Run!

No relevance to your strawman.

 

Oookay... Then what is the point of posting the "presumption of paternity" ad nauseam? We've all heard you, we're all aware it exists... But what relevance that has to SSM - the use of the word "marriage" to describe a legal union between two men or two women - is definitely not understood.

 

So...

Premise: If a child is born in wedlock, the husband is presumed to be the father.

Conclusion: Therefore, marriage is the recognition that only men and women can procreate.

There's a flaw in that logic... the conclusion does not follow from the premise.

The premis does prove some things... like it proves that society thinks the husband is generally the father of a child born to his wife. It proves that society believes children are generally born in wedlock enough that establishing this default for married couples helps with the legalities of establishing paternity.

It's a convenience, establishing defaults for what is generally true among heterosexual married couples... but it's not an explicit denial that homosexuals can't also marry. Marriage can recognize and support other things, while still establishing default presumptions that make sense, such as the presumption of paternity among heterosexual married couples.

 

___Exactly.___

 

Heterosexual couples and ONLY heterosexuals because only heterosexual couples create their own children. Limited to heterosexual couples for the exact same reason marriage has always been limited to heterosexual couples. They are the only couples who procreate. Not because of animus towards homosexuals but because of the biological requirements of procreation.

 

What is "marriage" but a collection of legal rights and responsibilities conferred upon you by the state? If we're staying on topic, Washington state (like California) already gave all of those rights to same sex couples, just under a different name. So, why would the name make any difference? Do heterosexual marriages become less special if gay people are allowed to call their unions what they in fact are?

 

Yeah, like requiring a man to provide and care for any child his wife gives birth to.

 

Don't see how that's in any way relevant.

 

You tried to use that law to prove this statement was supported in law, and then when that didn't work, you just went back to repeating the statement. Which is meaningless.

 

This statement is false.

The presumption of paternity is a presumption which can be overridden if the husband is not actually the father. It's a convenience for paperwork, not a dictate and guarantee care.

And on the other side of the coin, support can be obtained even if the couple is not married.

And none of this would be excluded from possibility even if gays were included, so your statements are not only false, they're irrelevant.

 

That doesnt even make sense. What statement? I used the law to show the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman is based upon the biology of procreation.

 

In most states the presumption becomes irrefutable after 2 years and just what was it you think was false?

 

And apparently you missed the total logical disconnect between that premise and conclusion, even when laid plainly before your eyes.

Very well, I'm done speaking with you if you can't at least address that logical leap. Not that you'll mind I'm sure.

 

Your blanket claim that the presumption of paternity requires support without qualification, which has been shown to be false. Granted different states have various degrees of enforcement which could make it irrefutable at some point (in which case I question if that is really a sound law).

And yet still, none of this addresses the real points: that the existence of presumption of paternity laws proves that marriage must only be between man and woman, and that if gays were to marry, it would be mutually exclusive with such laws. i.e. irrelevant.