Gays have the same rights as straight people

Sure I can. More importantly the dozens of court cases upholding the constitutionality of marriage limited to heterosexual couples, can and have done so repeatedly. And silly argument to cite marriages overinclusiveness as a fatal flaw, when your solution is to make marriage even more overinclusive.

 

history, tradition and human moral consciousness.

 

Straight people have done such a good job with marriage! Over half get a divorce! Lets protect gay people from having horrible marriages too!

 

Like with all topics of discussion, you dont really even have a clue. Emotion, hormones, passion, but not even a clue.


Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_states_require_consummation_for_marriage_to_be_a_legal#ixzz22xs6ERbn

 

Only because an interracial couple procreates just like a same race couple

 

So should couples that cant produce children not be able to marry?

Disabled vets with out the ability to get an erection... should they not be allowed to marry?

 

They COULD be excluded. Doesnt imply that they must be. You must have missed the two cited court cases I quoted.

Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment
http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm


Heterosexual couples are the only couples who can produce biological offspring of the couple. And the link between opposite-sex marriage and procreation is not defeated by the fact that the law allows opposite-sex marriage regardless of a couple’s willingness or ability to procreate. The facts that all opposite-sex couples do not have children and that single-sex couples raise children and have children with third party assistance or through adoption do not mean that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples lacks a rational basis. Such over- or under-inclusiveness does not defeat finding a rational basis....
encouraging procreation between opposite-sex individuals within the framework of marriage is a legitimate government interest furthered by limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples.....
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

 

Except you continue to lose in federal court.

 

Like i said, no state requires consummation in order for a marriage to be legal. Not one

 

Procreation is irrelevant, since it's not a requirement

 

I've already answered this. Baseball has rules that it employs to protect the veracity of the game. Society has done likewise. You don't like it; you want to change the rules under some guise of "equality" which isn't the standard here - because you're conflating equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.

Society has the right to determine its own rules. These rules have been set and tested many times. Your side continues to fail. In point of fact, no State stops gays from living together, and most people consider the gay culture attempting to co-opt marriage as an intentional poke in the eye of cultural mores.

That we allow gays to join in union does not mean that we as a society must grant unequivocal access to anything else they wish. Men cannot use Women's bathrooms for the same reason: there are lines that Society has determined should be boundaries.

I don't get confused. You simply do not like what I'm telling you.

I'm not playing your game. What you mean as "equal" is not what VWC means as "equal".

No, it isn't - and it's already been tested in Court. This is just a claim by you based upon desperation.

And yet...not one State has legalized gay marriage via referendum and had it stick.

 

You think the position that dixon represents continues to lose in Court? Explain.

 

What do you need explained? DOMA has been declared unconstitutional, prop 8 was overturned etc.

 

Oh. I thought you were speaking of gay marriage itself. What you're describing are actions of lower courts wrt DOMA. Lower courts can overturn a grilled cheese sammich; it means little until the SCOTUS rules.

In terms of referendum, however, the will of the people has been very clear.

 

This is true. But in reality, the people who don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about gays marrying are less likely to vote than bigoted homophobes. I'm not suggesting that this should invalidate those referenda. My point is that you shouldn't be fooled by their results. You gay haters are just as much of a fringe group as you claim the gays are. As social evolution does its work, your kind will fade into irrelevance.

 

this has nothing to do with my statement that his arguments are losing in federal court.

and as the courts have routinely held, the majority can't vote away the rights of the minority.

 

Hes talking about the gay California federal judge and Federal cases where Obama has decided not to defend DOMA.

 

You mean that decision that was upheld by the 9th circuit?

 

just like inter-racial marriage, it's only a matter of time before same sex marriage is allowed in all states

 

So the majority who have voted in election-day referendum to keep gay marriage banned are the 'fringe'.

Cool story, bro.

 

no, I'm actually talking about the 9th circuit which upheld the overturning of prop 8, as well as other federal courts which have declared DOMA unconstitutional.

 

I think it does. I think that this impression of "winning" is nothing more than extraneous judicial activism.

Non-sequitur. You have to establish that this issue involves rights with which to begin, and you haven't. It is my contention that no 'rights' are being violated, any more than the rights of one brother who wishes to marry his sister aren't being violated by refusing to allow it.

 

The most over ruled Circuit court in the entire nation. In a case where the government of california didnt even show up to defend THEIR constitution.

 

This silly belief that anyone who prefers that marriage remain limited to a man and a woman is a bigoted homophobe is absurd. But I cant really blame you as that is the assumption of fact made by most of the courts who have held marriage limited to heterosexuals to be un constitutional.

 

this is simply the battle cry of conservatives when they are defeated in court.

Loving V virginia. the SCOTUS held that marriage is a basic civil right.

the two aren't comparable. a legal kinship already exists between the brother and sister.