DOMA is no more!!

Where do you even get this nonsense?

 

Why wouldn't it? Two consenting adults joining together to start a family or commit themselves to one another.

 

You are mistaken, both with regard to the law and the ceremonies. Only a few states in the USA provide full legal recognition of same-sex couples' marriages. It is not recognized at the federal level at all.

The law in the USA is unconcerned with what sort of wedding ceremony one has, and it does not dictate that any religious entity (church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.) must perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Very obviously it has not. My state has a constitutional amendment that effectively bans the legal recognition of same-sex unions by any name, for any purpose.

I don't and have said I don't. It's also not what you said in the post I was responding to:

You were not speaking only of wedding ceremonies. You stated that there should be a separate set of laws for heterosexuals. <- That is my point of objection.

 

Because if a married lesbian woman becomes pregnant, her spouse has no relation or obligation to the child. If a married gay man gets a woman pregnant, his spouse will have no relation or obligation to the child. When a child is born, only two people in the world have a legal obligation to that child. The mother who gave birth to the child and the man that fathered that child. AND IF THAT MAN is married to the woman who gave birth, the law will simply presume he is the biological father.

 

That's correct.

However, custody laws work with or without a marriage, just like a marriage works with or without custody laws. You also ignore the entire process that goes into caring for that child after it's conceived. That whole 18 years of the child's life till it's a legal adult doesn't seem to matter to you, as you only focus on that handful of minutes when that child is being conceived. Yes, a same-sex couple could not reproduce between them without outside help. You are correct in this. But I still don't undertstand, objectively, how you can make the leap from being unable to conceive, to being unworthy of the rest of the benefits of a legal marriage, a lot of which have little to do with whether children are or are not present in that marriage.

Your case exists in a world where facts are optional and selective vision mandatory. It's probably why most people can't follow your logic.

 

Noooo. The obligation I spoke of above to the children last for 18 years. Like I said, Only two people in the world obligated by law to provide and care for a child when it is born. The mother who gave birth to the child and the man who fathered the child. NO ONE else can have that obligation imposed upon them and no one else can voluntarily assume that legal obligation unless one of those parents surrenders their rights as the parent, or the father is unknown, and is presumed by law to have surrendered his parental rights.

 

I was not aware that gays and lesbians were unequal, humm, who knew.

 

that's probably because you have not walked a mile in their shoes - tasteful patent pumps, no doubt.

 

This issue is one of recognizing privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States. The question is where did any officer of a public trust under the United States obtain any authority to arbitrarily deny or disparage the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States as civil Persons?

 

They didnt. Marriage to someone of the same sex isnt a privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States as civil Persons. Isnt even something that has existed in western civilization until 2001.

 

I am not sure what you mean; marriage already exists for civil persons in our republic; anything less for some is a denial and disparagement of those privileges and immunities that are available to some civil persons in our republic.

 

how is that a problem we let people who don’t have kids and cant marry we let couples adopt have kids form previous relationships and who use artificial insemination

 

Noooo, it is only made available to civil persons who chose to join together with someone of the opposite sex to become husband and wife. Further restricted to persons of a certain age, not currently married, and not closely related to the other partner. Result being that MOST people are not married. But feel free to show me even one insance of this existance you allege, anywhere at anytime in our republics history of even one legal marriage between people of the same sex, prior to 2004

 

Where is that power specifically enumerated as delegated to our elected representatives?

Why do you believe there is any basis to distinguish between a civil Person and a man and a woman? Shouldn't the apply equally to civil persons under our republican form of government?

 

the great irony being that principled conservatives should oppose DOMA

 

Mrs Betty Bowers (the USA's # 1 Christian woman) reveals the Bible's teachings on what constitutes a truly Christian marriage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

 

???? The idea is to get mothers and fathers of children to rasise THEIR children, not somebody elses children.

 

the idea has changed for a lot of peapole more importantly the law dosent mach yours for hetero sexuals its an unfair double standerd

 

Separate issues. Why people marry as opposed to why government licenses and regulates the process. And if homosexuals had the same potential of procreation, they would have the same standard. Giving just homosexuals the same standard even though they have NO potential of procreation would be a double standard.

 

Is this idea that marriage is ONLY about procreation, nothing else at all, an idea that you've come up with yourself, or do you have some facts that what you describe as the purpose of marriage actually IS the purpose of marriage according to the government?

 

As old as civilization itself. From BC Roman law,

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Mater semper certa est ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mater_semper_certa_est

Just as it continues today

§ 160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Lets see your evidence that marriage has nothing to do with procreation.

 

I've never said it has nothing to do with it, but rather in our modern world that procreation is just one of many aspects it deals with. You did answer my question, technically, but I was talking more about proof that the current U.S. marriage law bases the right to marry exclusively on the ability to conceive children. Keyword here is exclusively, because otherwise you have no leg to stand on as your case depends entirely upon procreation, and no other aspects of marriage. Citing custody law is NOT proof that legal marriages are designed exclusively for establishing paternity.

 

"Only" and "exclusively" are YOUR key words. The potential of procreation is why marriage is limited to heterosexual couples. The potential of procreation is why closely related couples are prohibited from marriage. The impossibility of procreation is why marriages are annuled or disolved for a failure to consummate the relationship.
Courts make the ABSURD leap of logic and make the claim that these limitations were instead intended to exclude homosexual couples. Crazy!

 

That's right.

 

My keywords and emphasis, yes, but derived directly from the case you make in these various same-sex marriage threads. You brush over or ignore all the other aspects of a legal marriage that aren't directly related to conception and paternity as if they don't exist. That leads me to believe that you believe that marriage is only ever used a vehicle for establishing paternity between two people who've had a child together. If that's not what you believe, you may want to keep it to yourself as admitting otherwise would dent up your credibility quite a bit based on what you've been saying on here for years(yes, I saw threads where you say pretty much the same exact refuted points from years ago).

Why do the other benefits of marriage that have little to nothing to do with procreation and establishing paternity exist then?