Doma Lawyers Back Out.

nonsense. there is not a single court case, or piece of legislation that existed prior to the 1970's that limited marriage to a man and a woman. NOTHING. you can pretend otherwise all you like, but you will only continue to make a fool out of yourself.

 

The laws in all 50 states limited marriage to a man and a woman. You people cant distinguish between your delusions and reality.

 

And that is why certain 'opinions' are being discussed in court, as we speak.

 

So then it's not about the ability to procreate for you, then!

Why can't you just admit it's because you don't like gays and are uncomfortable with gay sex? You find them abominable, etc.


Just so we're clear, then, this post of yours:

was a lie, since you now have admitted it's NOT "because it is easy to determine" one versus the other. Otherwise, you would support a prohibition on marriage of infertile people if it were easy to determine who was infertile.

 

No, its still all about the potential of procreation of heterosexual couples, as a group, not individually. Heterosexual couples who have no intention of procreation, frequently do just that.

 

...in your opinion.

 

We have correctly pointed out that there were no legal prohibitions prior to the 1970's related to same-sex marriage.

Going back to the first challenge in Baker v Nelson the court made a determination that "marriage" as established under Minnesota law related to a man and a woman but did not dispute that the law did not prohibit same-sex marriage. The Court "assumed" the meaning of the statute was limiting while it was not expressly limited. Additionally in addressing the plaintiff's claim of denial of equal protection under the law under the court noted that the plaintiff's attorneys did not present any evidence that would establish this violation of the 14th Amendment. Since Baker v Nelson substantial evidence has been accummulated and presented in other courts establishing the violation of the 14th Amendment.

In simple words the evidence to support denial of equal protection was not presented in Baker v Nelson but it has been presented since then which is why the Courts are now ruling that denial of same-sex marriage is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

As to the history of same-sex marriage while not a "religious" marriage, especially as related to "Christian" religious beliefs, the legal institution of same-sex marriage has historically ancient roots.

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

Of note even in the United States when "marriage" was often a matter of common law as opposed to statutory law there were same-sex unions. They didn't go down to the local courthouse because often there wasn't a local courthouse. We don't have a clue to how many same-sex partnerships were established by the "mountian men" for example but can assume they did exist. We don't know how many lesbian partnerships were established in Boston but can assume they existed. Just because something isn't recorded at the local courthouse does not imply that it doesn't exist within society.

Of course such relationships were openly condemned by the religious majority so most were kept strictly "secret" to avoid discrimination by the religious wackos of the times. Same-sex partnerships have existed in all societies that we're aware of even when outlawed by the government. To deny they existed is to simply ignore history.

 

It can't be about potential, because of the hypothetical.

I just asked whether you would outlaw marriage for heterosexual couples who have zero potential for procreation, if determining that status was easy and noninvasive, and you said unequivocally that you would not.

That ends that argument. You can't make it anymore. It's not about potential of procreation for you.

Why can't you just admit what it's really about?

 

In Baker v Nelson the Court did affirm that procreation does have valid merit but that merit is also equal to the States interest in raising children.

http://www.cas.umt.edu/phil/faculty/Walton/bakrvnel.htm

Both procreation and rearing children within a family have equal weight in this decision and same-sex couples are indisputably raising children. The State, based upon Baker v Nelson, then does have an interest related to the rearing of children and marriage which establishes a family is equally justifiable for same-sex couples under the law. In fact, the State has more inherent interest in the actual rearing of children within a family than merely the potential for procreation within a family. Single people have the "potential" for procreation but that potential does not establish and interest of the State. Only if they actually procreate does the State have an actual interest based upon "rearing children within a family" as expressed in Baker v Nelson.

 

Honestly, if/when dixon's type of question or argument comes up in current and future court cases... I wonder how long the court will actually spend on it?

We've discussed this here for a very long time.

 

When the issue of potential for procreation has come up, and it has come up in every case, the Court has responded that "rearing of children within a family" which was established as an "interest of the State" in Baker v Nelson take precedence over the simple potential to procreate. Because same-sex couples are raising children just like opposite-sex couples the denial of same-sex marriage violates a fundamental "interest of the State" related to marriage.

 

Thanks for that information; it makes a lot of sense.

 

What many that cite Baker v Nelson convienantly forget is that the plaintiff must show an actual "injury" that they suffered under the law.

Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell could not show, for example, that they were raising a child and suffered an "injury" under the law by not being allowed to marry. They couldn't establish that they were being denied anything except the "right to marry" and their entire case rested on that one issue. As the Court correctly pointed out they lacked any basis for establishing that marriage should be allowed for same-sex couples.

In the 40 years since then there has been a gathering of evidence where "injury" under the law has been established. For example the denial of Social Security benefits to a legally married same-sex couple in the Federal DOMA case established "injury" to the plaintiffs because of the law. This violated their equal protection rights under the 14th Amendment in the Court's opinion. Other cases, such as bankruptcy failed when the couple was not "legally" married but instead were bound by a civil union the plaintiff failed to establish a lack of equal protection. The next case will probably be based upon a legally married couple that is denied joint bankruptcy if DOMA requires another challenge in the Courts.

Ultimately the US Supreme Court will have to address the issue and with the overwhelming evidence of violations of the equal protection clause I predict a unanimous decision declaring the prohibition of same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional just as the Supreme Court did in Loving v Virginia. This will tear down all of the barriers including the mini-DOMA's in all States. Every State is going to have to recognize same-sex marriage because to not do so does violate the equal protection clause. The evidence today is overwhelming to support that decision.

 

Nope. No law existed prior to the 1970ss limitting marriage to a man and a woman

 

NONSENSE! 1872 CALIFORMIA

NONSENSE! From Baker v Nelson

I never claimed there were not same sex "contracts" "arrangements" or "domestic partnerships". "Marriage" has always been limited to a man and a woman. Chinese: 婚姻; pinyin: hūn yīn is chinese marriage, always between a man and a woman. Not what these same sex "contracts" were.

Gays already have those types of marriages in the US.

 

NONSENSE! 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

 

How does this refute what he said? This doesn't contain any prohibition you speak of. No prohibition, for example, on 2 20-year-old men getting married.

 

Correct, the idea is to encourage all heterosexuals couples to marry, so when procreation does occur, its not to a single mother on her own. If marriage were only encouraged for those couples who intend and have the ability to procreate, 1000s of unplanned pregnancies would be to single mothers in a couple that did not intend to procreate.

As well there is 1000s of years of tradition, culture and religion that prohibits heterosexual relations outside of marriage. There is no such tradition, culture or religion in the case of same sex couples.

 

"AND" being the operative word, not OR. Here, I'll remove the confusing parts for you.

"Any unmarried male ....and any unmarried female ......are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage".

 

You're grasping at straws now, because I got you.

Who is "encouraging" marriage? The government isn't. The government is merely registering it, and granting certain consideration to those people who do.

You've been so utterly smashed in your illogic that you're changing your argument to deflect.

Your argument was that marriage should be limited to heterosexual couples based on the fact that only heterosexual couples procreate. When asked why infertile couples were allowed to marry, you cited the supposed "difficulty" of determining fertility versus the difficulty of determining gender.

When I posed a hypothetical whereby fertility was as easy to determine as gender, you said you would still not support a prohibition on marriage for infertile people.

You have argued many times that we know with "absolute certainty" (your words) that homosexual couples will not procreate, and therefore they should not be allowed to marry. But, when confronted with a hypothetical whereby we would be able to determine (either by gender or fertility) with "absolute certainty" whether couples would be able to procreate in ALL cases (not just same-sex ones), you refused to change your rules, and instead continued to prohibit marriage to same-sex couples, instead of ALL infertile couples.

Done.

 

As has been pointed out to you there are many recognized sexual acts, any one of which could count as sex and consummation of a marriage.

 

The first part of this is ridiculous. But the second part will unfortunately probably end up being true. Unless the good guys can remember what they're fighting for and find the guts to stand up for it, the victicrats will win by default.

This is where I tip my hat to you people. You're wrong on nearly every issue, but you sure are relentless. Which is what ends up getting you your way. Regardless of what it costs society.

 

I am not grasping at anything and cant imagine what you think you "got".

"certain consideration" that acts as an encouragement. Not to mention that in most states, sex outside of marriage was illegal, up until 40-50 years ago.

My argument has remained the same. Heterosexual couples are the only couples who procreate. NOT all heterosexual couples procreate. Encouraging heterosexual couples to marry reduces the number of single mothers on their own and increases the numbers of children with both their mother and father in the home to provide and care for their children together.

Encouraging homosexual couples, platonic couples or closely related couples does not in any way, shape or form accomplish ANY of these goals above. No relevance whatsoever to "MATRIMONY"...root of the word MATER....MOTHER! Men and women becoming husbands and wives before they become fathers and mothers.

No, my argument is that marriage has for thousands of years been limited to heterosexual couples and still is in 44 states because only heterosexual couples procreate. NOT as the court cases claim, to exclude homosexuals, because of animus towards homosexuals.

And government shouldnt extend marriage to homosexual couples because it has no business promoting behavior so that those who choose to engage in that behavior, can feel better about themselves for doing so. Marriage is to improve the wellbeing of mothers and the children they give birth to and the resulting benefits to society. Fewer kids with single mothers. Children with higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquincy, drug and alchohol abuse, HS drop outs, teen pregnancy and criminal conviction as an adult.

 

LOLOL!!!!! The relevant terms being "Any unmarried male ...and any unmarried female....are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage.

 

nowhere in this quote is marriage limitted to a man and a woman only.

so, back to reality. no law or case precident existed prior to the 1970's limitting marriage to a man and a woman.