dixon76710
New member
I cant marry my brother. If I marry my platonic friend, the state has laws that dissolve marriages for a failure to consumate the relationship. Nothing special about homosexuals that would warrant such special treatment.
dixon76710
New member
No one claimed they did. Did you have a point to make or just a fondness for pointing out the obvious.
You truly are a person who wishes the federal or state govnment dictate our private lives, from the point of whom we marry to the point of how to raise the children, I bet you even think they should dictate how we have sex and how we die.
You can never again make a statement about government interference, because you have bought into the most extreme aspects of said control.
dixon76710
New member
???? No, even in modern society it is only women who become mothers and men who become fathers. Its biology, not some old fashioned, paternaloistic views of the roles of women.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
You have YET to show that homosexual marriage will leave any effect on the well being of children---
I provided a link that shows it doesnt--\\
Children Raised by Lesbians Do Just Fine, Studies Show
http://www.livescience.com/6073-children-raised-lesbians-fine-studies-show.html
Those who oppose same-sex marriage, or civil unions, tout various arguments, one of which involves the harm done to children of same-sex couples, whether due to the lack of a father or mother figure or the promotion of homosexuality, the study researchers say.
"Significant policy decisions have been swayed by the misconception across party lines that children need both a mother and a father," said study researcher Timothy Biblarz, a sociologist at the University of Southern California. "Yet, there is almost no social science research to support this claim. One problem is that proponents of this view routinely ignore research on same-gender parents."
What research there is, though, has been limited by statistics. In the United States, about 4 percent to 5 percent of adults are not heterosexual, Stacey said. And of those who are in relationships, only about 20 percent of same-sex couples are raising children under age 18, according to the 2000 Census. That means sample sizes are inevitably small, leading to study results that are less robust.
dixon76710
New member
Government isnt dictating ANY of these things. Marriage is purely a voluntary relationship. AND YOU are the one insisting that the government license, regulate and dictate the terms of gay relationships that have never been licensed, regulated or terms dictated before. Your arguments are the heights of hypocricy
My husband had a mother, the one who raised him, he never knew his biological mother. He never had a father. He is one of best human beings I know. He was raised by his mother and Grandmother. He is a man that respects, admires and adores women. You are wrong on so many levels and you have twisted your own words to the point you don't even know what you are talking about. Word salad, like Darla said, delusional, like poet said, and you won't even address Damo. You are just whistling out your ass at this point.
Sheesh, go back and read your posts, I am done here. You can't even remember your own arguments.
dixon76710
New member
Correct, thats why marriage is limited to heterosexual couples because childrens well being IS effected by improving their well being.
And I already addressed your study. No one is claiming heterosexual parents are the ideal, it is BIOLOGICAL parents that provide the advantage, not just heterosexual parents.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Special treatment???????marriage is a fundmental right, and as the State's traditional legal definition of the right to marry was - in every state that had a legal definition - gender neutral until starting in 1973, the burden of proof lies with the State to provide the compelling interest for the exclusion and justify why it is necessary to exclude them in order to further that interest.
dixon76710
New member
Did you want to dispute something Ive said or just a generic whine to offer in response?
dixon76710
New member
Nope, government only need justify the heterosexuals INCLUSION.
Southern Chicken
Verified User
Is it constitutional for the State to knowingly allow non-procreative couples to marry and yet deny that right to same-sex couples because of the fact that they can't procreate? Is it not bigotry to defeat a bill intended to reserve marriage benefits for those who are married only because it affects straight couples as well?
Government should stay the frick out. I'll never understand how people who want the government to be as inconsequential as possible in their lives so desperately want Government handouts that they are willing to allow government to regulate personal lives to such a level. I'll always be against the government stepping in to define individual personal decisions that have no direct victim based on some fool's "Traditions"...
It isn't because I'm a lefty (I'm absolutely not), it's because I believe that government should be LIMITED, not so insidiously intrusive as to try to define and sanction lifestyle choices between any consenting adults.
Now he is claiming we are the ones who wish the government to be intrusive.
He doesn't know what his argument is, he keeps changing his position.
Alias
Banned
Nope. We all know what his argument is and so do you. You and your pals want govt doing what it is not designed to do while the actual role of govt is reduced. You want socialism. Right?
dixon76710
New member
Southern Chicken
Verified User
I think plaintiff's response to the motion for summary judgment in Perry v. Schwarzenegger pretty well dispenses with the idea that Baker v. Nelson controls here.
http://www.domawatch.org/cases/9thc...l_Intrvnr_Joint_Opp_to_Def_Int_MSJ_092309.pdf -----Pages 7 -9
"1. The Supreme Court’s summary dismissals are binding on lower courts only “on the precise
issues presented and necessarily decided” by the Court. Mandel v. Bradley, 432 U.S. 173, 176 (1977)
(per curiam) (emphasis added). In several respects, the issues in Baker are different from the issues
presented by Plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge to Prop. 8. For example, Baker presented an equal
protection challenge based only on sex discrimination and therefore cannot conceivably foreclose
Plaintiffs’ claim that Prop. 8 discriminates against gay and lesbian individuals on the basis of their
sexual orientation. See Jurisdictional Statement at 16, Baker (No. 71-1027) (“The discrimination in
this case is one of gender.”).
Moreover, in addition to the absence of any issue of discrimination based on sexual
orientation in Baker, the Supreme Court’s summary dismissal in that case addressed equal protection
and due process challenges to a marriage framework that is far different from the one that Plaintiffs
are challenging here, and therefore cannot be controlling on any component of Plaintiffs’ equal
protection and due process claims. Whereas Baker concerned the constitutionality of an outright
refusal by a State to afford any recognition to same-sex relationships, Plaintiffs’ suit challenges
California voters’ use of the ballot initiative process to strip unmarried gay and lesbian individuals of
their state constitutional right to marry and to relegate them to the inherently unequal institution of
domestic partnership. Whatever the constitutional flaws in Minnesota’s blanket denial of recognitiont
o same-sex relationships, Prop. 8 is uniquely irrational: California voters used the initiative process
to single out unmarried gay and lesbian individuals for a “special disability” (Romer, 517 U.S. at 631)
by extinguishing their state constitutional right to marry, while at the same time preserving the
existing marriages of gay and lesbian couples and affording unmarried gay and lesbian individuals
the right to enter into domestic partnerships that carry virtually all the same rights and obligations—
but not the highly venerated label—associated with opposite-sex marriages (and existing same-sex
marriages). The Supreme Court had no occasion in Baker to consider the constitutionality of such an
arbitrary legal framework under either the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause----AND SO ON
SO,Despite the persuasive legal arguments against it as controlling SCOTUS precedent, Baker v. Nelson does seem to provide a court finding that "marriage" means an opposite-sex couple.
What they said was this:
from your link--
"Minn.St. c. 517, which governs "marriage," employs that term as one of common usage, meaning the state of union between persons of the opposite sex. It is unrealistic to think that the original drafts-men of our marriage statutes, which date from territorial days, would have used the term in any different sense. The term is of contemporary significance as well, for the present statute is replete with words of heterosexual import such as "husband and wife" and "bride and groom" (the latter words inserted by L.1969, C. 1145, § 3, subd.3).
We hold, therefore, that Minn.St. c. 517 does not authorize marriage between persons of the same sex and that such marriages are accordingly prohibited."
Their argument is not that "marriage" can't "mean" anything other than an opposite-sex couple; their argument is that the statute referred to and authorized only opposite-sex marriage. So same-sex marriage, not being explicitly authorized, is implicitly prohibited. So, the justices in Baker also blindly accepted the validity of gender specificity without really examining it.
Last edited:
christiefan915
Catalyst
It was said in response to your comment, here:
Quote Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
I would say yes because preventing them from marrying would likely be viewed as a restriction on their freedom of religion.
So what was your point again?