Doma Lawyers Back Out.

Oh, I think everybody here but YOU can see the limitation of marriage to a man and a woman. Notice you are the only one arguing it doesnt. Your ideology forms your delusions. The meaning of the written word is but a minor inconvenience to your ideology.

 

Six states disagree with you. Soon to be seven.

As has been stated before, posting a hundred plus year old law doesn't do much to help your case.

Times changes, so do the laws.

Your attempt to divert the actual issues by posting a hundred year old state law does nothing but show your desperation to avoid the actual issues.

 

Let me address the hypocracy related to a comment by Mitt Romney.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...same-sex-marriage-questions-at-n-h-town-hall/

While it is technically inaccurate because numerous exceptions have been cited the position is that a "family always consisted of a man and a woman in marriage" based upon religious dogma for 6000 years. The argument is basically that anything that has existed for 6000 years must be acceptable even though times and circumstances change dramatically.

This would provide the argument for reinstalling slavery in America because slavery existed for 6000 years and existed in America until the 1860's. Of course none of us would accept that as being a valid argument for slavery. Times changed and even though slavery had a 6000 year reign it is no longer acceptable under US law or international law.

Times have also changed related to the family. No longer is the family only comprised of a man and a woman. Today same-sex couples are raising children, merging their financial assets, purchasing home together and even facing bankruptcy together. Same-sex couples, at least in the case of lesbians, even enjoy pregnancy through artificial sperm donors literally "pro-creating" within their family relationship.

The family has changed and today it includes same-sex couples and they should be afforded the identical Rights and Privileges under the law that other families are also granted. Not special Rights or Privileges but instead the identical Rights and Privileges as any other family.

Age old bigoted religious beliefs should not be denying the identical Rights for same-sex families that are afforded to opposite-sex families. Extending equal protection under the law does not infringe in any manner on the Rights of Opposite-Sex couples or marriage and equal protection under the law is a protected Right for all Individuals under the 14th Amendment.

 

You are hopelessly lost. The debate is whether Californias statute

1872 CALIFORMIA
Quote:
Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage

limited marriage to a man and a woman. It did. No state disagrees with me. Anyone with a basic grasp of the english language can see that it does limit marriage to a man and a woman. Doesnt say any male OR any female can consent to marriage. It CLEARLY states any male AND any female can consent to marriage.

 

Why not address the post of mine you chose to quote and include within your post?

No. The cited Chinese "contracts", "partnerships" and "arrangements" between same sex couples isnt "marriage" between same sex couples.

Nonsense. Men and women becoming fathers and mothers is a function of biology, not religion.

 

Hundred year old law, that is no longer relevant. It goes against current consent laws.

More over it states that they are

Meaning they can consent and consummate a marriage.

Big whoop, doesn't have anything to do with today, seeing as the law is outdated and no longer enforced.

Unless you think fifteen year old women can marry without parental consent?

Come on, stop trying to divert.

 

???? It DIRECTLY contradicts the assertion made 100 times by Rahl and Shiva that

 

Today two women that create a family were both become pregnant with donor sperm at the same time which even trumps traditional marriage where only one pregnancy can occur at any specific time. If marriage was exclusively about propagation of the human race then lesbians have opposite-sex couples beat by 2:1.

Denying the fact that the "family" has changed over time so that today gays and lesbians are engaged in identical "family" situations of raising children, purchasing homes, sharing assets and liabilities, and even facing bankruptcy as opposite-sex couples in the past merely reflects ignorance and bigotry. Time for people to get their minds out of the 19th Century and join the rest of us in the 21 Century.

 

Your claim is that

And you think the advent of artificial insemination in the last few decades does ANYTHING for marriage "for 6000 years". Whatever.

 

Actually I don't claim that marriage only existed between one man and one woman for the last 6000 years. Mitt Romney claimed that and it is false. Overwhelmingly marriage existed between one man and several women for the last 6000 years so based upon that argument Mitt Romney should be advocating polygamy (oops, I forgot that Romney's a Mormon and the Mormon's did support polygamy in the past and only dropped that religious belief so that Utah would be accepted as a state).

And actually what I stated is the the definition of "family" has changed and that marriage is about the family. As noted, time to get out of the 19th Century and into the 21st Century. We don't have slavery anymore and today gays and lesbians form families and raise children exactly like opposite-sex couples.

BTW was the fact that this morning the 9th District Court of Appeal has upheld the lower Court's decision that Prop 8 violates the 14th Amendment been mentioned? One more nail the the coffin of bigoted discrimination.

 

To claim that fertility treatments have not altered the make up of conception and thus the growth of a family is ignorant at best.

Didn't the octo-mom reality show disgrace show us that much?

Face it, families that before had very little hope of children are now seeing real progress with fertility.

"Whatver"?

Diverting isn't working.

 

The claim is

"for 6000 years" being the relevant words. Fertility treatments now, dont alter the motivations behind marriages 6000 year old limitation to a man and a woman.

And yes, fertility treatments have altered the make up of conception. But no more so for two gays, than it does for any two consenting adults. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay.

 

Sorry, I had Mitt Romney's statement stuck in my mind.

Marriage for the last 6000 years basically revolved around the "family" and the raising of children. Of note 6000 years ago I don't believe a legal institution of marriage even existed and for most of the last 2000 years the legal institution was predominately a religious institution where the "church" controlled the government. Of course, as noted, many exceptions did exist being documented all the way back to Roman times were legal contracts of "family" included same-sex couples.

The Family Has Changed: Today gays and lesbians are in same-sex family relationships raising children. Once again the definition of "family" has changed and therefore the legal institution of marriage that supports the family must also change. That is what those of us actually living in the 21st Century point out to those that remain locked into the 19th Century. The prior beliefs related to the legal institution of marriage are as outdated today as the prior beliefs that supported slavery.

 

No one claimed you had. Try to avoid always running to the strawmen.

They are called multiple marriages. Each and every one of them between a man and a woman. Try to resist the urge to dash for refuge in irrelevancy.

Gays and lesbians, closely related couples and platonic couples. Families come in a wide variety of different forms. Nothing special about those who happen to be gay. CERTAINLY no justification for favorable treatment for a family made up of two gays over a family made up of any two consenting adults. Rubbing genitals doesnt endow them with superior child raising abilities above ANY TWO CONSENTING ADULTS

Yeah, I mentioned that no one expected the 9th circuit to decide anything other than what it did.

 

"Legal"???? Dont be silly.

It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[59] Furthermore, "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

 

Nor should there be any favorable treatment of any two consenting adults which is the argument for same-sex marriage where opposite-sex couples are being provided favorable treatment when they are allowed to marry but same-sex couples are denied that identical treatment. Gays and lesbians are not seeking favorable treatment, they're seeking identical treatment.

This is why the Courts are increasingly declaring DOMA laws that prohibit benefits to same-sex couples unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Gays and lesbians are not being treated the same as any two other consenting adults under the DOMA laws because opposite-sex couples receive "favorable" treatment related to filing taxes, Social Security, inheritance, bankruptcy and about 1,400 other cases where discrimination exists related to same-sex couples.

 

Nonsense. Preference for the biological parents that created the child, also providing and caring for their child, as opposed to not doing so, is perfectly reasonable, rational and constitutional. Thats why the courts have to create this fiction that marriage hasnt been limited to heterosexual couples in order to include those who have the potential of procreation but has instead been limited to heterosexual couples, in order to exclude those who are homosexual. ABSURD. Its biology, not animus towards homosexuals. But thats what the gays want.

 

My brother and I are two consenting adults. The single mother and grandmother down the street are two consenting adults. But we and they are not gay so no special treatment. Because

"After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny."

"heightened standard" applies to gays only. Not my brother and I. Not single mother and grandmother.

 

how can anyone see a limitation where one doesn't exist? you can keep reposting it all you want, but it still won't be there.

 

The above means nothing in THIS discussion. What you are suggesting, is an entirely different situation, as the people you list above would be related (already) as family members.

 

Glad you can see that! It's always easier in hind sight, isn't it?

Can you also see that, overtime, it is a foregone conclusion for all 50 states, or is your "vision" going forward not as good as your hind sight, and you'll wait until it is a fait accompli?

 

Usually. In this case it was just as easy with foresight. Gay judge, State refuses to defend its own laws, 9th circuit was where the appeal would go. All been very predictable. Now, with the 9th circuit, the most overturned circuit in the federal system, the 9th circuit with a long history of crazy decisions, the next step to the supreme court isnt so certain. Two lesbians on the court, Obama deciding against defending the case, it could go either way.

 

If there is a belief that this denial of the legal institution is violating the Rights of those affected they can also file a lawsuit. If they can establish that their Rights are being denied in violation of the 14th Amendment then so be it. So far such a lawsuit has not been filed so we're addressing those cases where a lawsuit does exist and, based upon the evidence, actual discrimination that violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment has resulted in the Courts declaring the federal DOMA law and mini-DOMA law established by Prop 8 unconstitutional.

 

The inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal institution in no way affects the States interest in couples procreating and raising children within the legal institution of marriage. The addition of same-sex marriage is in addition to this expressed State's interest and in no way diminishes it.

Opposite-sex couples still have the same interest in marriage related to procreation and raising children regardless of whether same-sex couples are included or excluded from the legal institution of marriage.

Let me provide a quotation from one of the opponents to same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts

Nothing changed except "those who who can now marry" is exactly what a leading advocate to ban same-sex marriage had to admit after Gov Mitt Romney ordered the clerks in Massachusetts to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses. All of the benefits of marriage and the States interests in pro-creation and the raising of children within the legal institution of marriage were completely unaffected but the inclusion of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.

The interests of the State related to procreation and the raising of children by their biological parents are completely unaffected by the inclusion of same-sex couples in the legal institution of marriage. This was also confirmed by the 9th District Court of Appeals in their decision that Prop 8 is unconsitutional and was specifically stated in their decision.

 

The US Justice Department will not be involved at all unless the Federal DOMA law and the mini-DOMA Prop 8 Amendment of California are combined for the Supreme Court to hear.

Prop 8 relates to the State and not the Federal government. It is being argued on behalf of a religion based organization because same-sex marriage violates their Biblical dogma related to marriage. It explicitly states this on their website.

I could actually see the DOJ submitting a amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs if the Supreme Court only hears the Prop 8 case. The DOJ learned from the federal DOMA case that the evidence is overwhelming that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause which is why it withdrew it's appeal in the DOMA case. As this thread also establishes even the "conservative" lawfirm withdrew from the appeal once it had time to review the evidence in the federal DOMA case. It realized that the appeal was unwinnable and didn't want to be tied to the losing side in the case.