Who has the right to decide the definition of marriage

Yeah, including heterosexual couples serves the governmental interest. Not excluding other types of couples.

 

which invalidates the exclusion. that's why you keep losing in court.

 

Dixon, when a group is excluded from a fundamental human right, the exclusion is what has to serve the government interest. Marriage in the US is a fundamental human right. Therefore every exclusion, when challenged, must be proven to serve a government interest. That is just basic Law 101.

 

My point is how certain groups like to twist their view of marriage as they see fit in order to fit their agenda. You like to twist it in so many different ways in order to try and make it seem like homosexual couples shouldn't be allowed to be married.

 

And prohibiting gays from marrying serves what legitimate government interest?

 

That's open to wide interpretation Rahl . But eventually the gays will win the right to marry, It's inevitable. At that point lets see where the perverted Mob goes next .

 

"Let blacks vote, next thing you know women will get to vote too!"---19th Century Internet blogger.

- - - Updated - - -

Even as the Utah Decision came....dixon refuses to believe he IS losing in court. As long as he ignores the present and keeps looking at court decisions from YEARS in the past....he thinks he's "winning".

 

Anyone want to take the opposing view on marriage being a natural right under our Constitutional form of limited government?

 

Actually I acknowledged the Utah decision and directly addressed it.

 

Silly, absurd logic. Excluding Bill Gates from receiving food stamps does nothing to serve the governmental interest in ensuring needy people can afford food. Only the INCLUSION of needy people serves the interest.
And marriage between men and women is a human right.

 

No, a right to government involvement in a personal relationship isn't the form of a limited government.

 

Let me reiterate my post. I bolded the important parts for you, since you can't seem to grasp them otherwise.

"Dixon, when a group is excluded from a fundamental human right, the exclusion is what has to serve the government interest."

Food stamps are not a fundamental human right. Marriage is, and thus excluding same-sex couples from marrying requires strict scrutiny standards. Your ignorance of the law is why your side will inevitably lose.

 

Seriously just because someones gay doesn't mean they are an alien. They are people and deserve the respect and right to marry whoever they want and not be judged because of it. God has nothing to do with this matter, its nothing against those who believe in him but that people deserve to marry who they want to marry and we have no right to judge them. God created everyone for a purpose, y would he create something that he would be afraid of , gay people are not different then you or me and to separate them into a whole different category is disrespectful and offensive

 

The government, IMO, does not, should not, and never should have had the right to prohibit two consenting Adults, regardless of their orientation from forming a domestic partnership and/or marriage. Regardless of how demented , perverted and psychologically disturbed these Gay people are - they are people with the same rights as normal healthy people. Let the quee*rs get married - they should have that right.

 

Like I said and you cant seem to grasp, "marriage between men and women is a human right". There is no recognized "human right" to gay marriage.

 

Nope. According to the US Constitution and SCOTUS, marriage is a fundamental human right. When a group is excluded from a fundamental human right, the exclusion is what has to serve the government interest. That is simply the law. You have utterly failed to provide the government interest in excluding same-sex marriage.

 

Marriage between a man and a woman is a human right.

 

no such distinction exists.

 

Here is a question that matters:

What does what you state above, have to American laws as it pertains to homosexuals marrying one another?

What you're talking about, is essentially irrelevant (though you will not accept it).

 

I was posting it to directly contradict liberalis' claim.

 

which you failed to do, because no distinction exists

 

Then what you said previously was false, since you would have SSM revoked based on the fact the same-sex-couples cannot reproduce. If that's the case the government certainly DOES care about married couples not procreating.

 

No, I would revoke "SSM" because its unconstitutional. Sexual relations have no rational relation to the stated governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes.

 

Absolute nonsense. I've heard all sorts of bat (*)(*)(*)(*) crazy claims in this debate but this is truly one of the most absurd.

Except for the fact "sexual" same-sex relationships are either similarly situated (reproductive opposite-sex relationships) or IDENTICALLY (elderly, infertile opposite-sex couples) situated. The mother and daughter down the street are not no matter how you twist it. Marriage facilitates the union of two non-related individuals, whereby 'legal strangers' become family.

And as I have pointed out before, the courts generally expand rights, not take them away. So assuming you had a point about the "mother and daughter down the street", and they lodged a case, the only thing that would potentially happen is that they would also be granted marriage rights. If their case was successful. As soon as SCOTUS declares a right to SSM you tell me if you still support that, yes?

 

Correct, the mother and grandmother are not in a sexual relationship. But being in a sexual relationship has no rational relation to the stated governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes.