Who has the right to decide the definition of marriage

Your arguments at their core amount to "if homosexual couples, why not related couples". Care you show me where that argument featured in the trials?

 

They are not being "cast aside". You argue that the rational basis for limiting marriage to a man and woman is related to improving the wellbeing of children, but counter this in one of two ways (or both). First, that as rational as this basis may be, it is known that this is not the only purpose for which marriage exists (and the courts will go on to mention cases involving prisoners, the elderly, etc etc etc). So restricting marriage just on that basis you mention amounts to cherry picking. The second is that the restriction itself does nothing to further that interest, especially when the constitutional amendments go out of their way to restrict even civil unions.

 

There is no Constitutional basis for denying and disparaging the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States.

 

The courts consistently disagree with you

 

No one claimed it was. MARRIAGES LIMITATION to men and women is based only upon the fact that only they produce children.

 

And if they are barren or too old to bear children?

Marriage is first a contract.. and the State is NOT a party to the contract.

You should know that by now.

 

No one claimed the state was a party to the contract and we don't know which couples will procreate, we only know that all who do, will be heterosexual couples. Thus marriages limitation to heterosexual couples

 

Its a civil rights issue, Don.......

Would you be in favor of Jews not being ALLOWED to go to a restaurant or check into a motel..

 

Ones religion has no rational relation to the need or benefit from a restaurant or hotel.

 

That's a lie you see fit to keep repeating ad nausea. We know that infertile couples don't procreate. We know post-menopausal women don't procreate. The government cannot say that same-sex couples should be denied based on the fact they cannot procreate when there is no supporting evidence that they have taken an interest in denying ANY other group but homosexuals.

 

I said we dont know which couples WILL procreate and DID not say we dont know which couples WILL NOT procreate. A distinction narrower than the broad side of a barn and so likely beyond your ability to comprehend.

 

Nope, there is no governmental interest in prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying. Prohibiting same-sex marriage does not improve the well-being of children.

 

No governmental interest is served by excluding anybody. It is only served by INCLUDING heterosexual couples. Just as the governmental interest in providing food stamps isn't served by excluding Bill Gates, it is served by including the needy.

 

Nonsense. Insane people are denied their right to a gun because it serves the governmental interest in protecting and safeguarding society. The interest is thus served by excluding insane people from 2nd amendment rights.

Laws that deny fundamental rights to certain individuals come under the strictest standards of judicial review. Marriage is one such fundamental right, thus there must be a legitimate governmental interest in excluding anyone from that right. The courts have ruled race is not a legitimate interest, and they have begun ruling on many levels that gender and sexual orientation are not either. Bringing up foods stamps is irrelevant, because they are not fundamental human rights.

 

What a moronic analogy. Marriages and food stamps pose no danger. Guns do.

Nonsense. Fundamental rights are those rights that are
"implicit in the concept of ordered liberty",
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/302/319
"Appropriate limits on substantive due process come not from drawing arbitrary lines but rather from careful "respect for the teachings of history [and] solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society."
"Our decisions establish that the Constitution protects the sanctity of the family precisely because the institution of the family is deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=431&invol=494

Marriages of the same sex did not exist in our nations history until recently.

 

We know fertile heterosexual couples WILL procreate, yes.

 

The point is that both are fundamental rights, whereas food stamps are not. Since guns pose a danger in the hands of mentally ill individuals, it is in the government's interest to exclude them from the right to own a gun. There is no such interest in excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry, therefore such an exclusion is unconstitutional. You only further prove my point.

Marriage is a fundamental right. Period. Do I really need to cite everything for you again?

 

The government should not be involved in defining, rewarding, punishing, or regulating marriage at all.

The only area of a relationship which needs a legal foundation deals with the breakup (divorce) of a relationship. In that situation, property ownership and parenting responsibilities need to be clearly defined. Thats contract law, not government regulation, and issues can be resolved in civil court.

If people want to legally formalize their co-habitation, they can go to a lawyer and have their own contract. If they are religious then they can go to their church and be married in the traditional sense.

Anytime the govt has the power to regulate something, they will abuse that power. You might like the current govt decision or the direction things are moving, but that decision can change as the political winds change, and you might truly hate the govt decision in the future.

 

Actually no. Some fertile couples never procreate. Like I said, we don't know which couples will procreate. We only know that all couples who do will be heterosexual couples.
And instead of dashing off to find refuge in some nonsensical tangent, lets stick with this BS claim of yours that I lied repeatedly. See if you can locate your nads and back up these BS accusations against me you spew.

 

marriage is a natural right for the citizens in the several States and recognized under our Constitutional form of limited government.

 

I'm still laughing at the fact that marriage is for those that wish to procreate lol

 

Marriages limitatation to men and women is based upon the fact that only men and women procreate. Earlier in history marriage was for those who wish to procreate. From BC Roman Law

 

Marriage between two people of the same sex doesnt involve the parental rights and obligations regarding children. Married gay man gets a woman pregnant, his spouse has no legal relation to the child. Married lesbian gets pregnant, her spouse has no legal relation to the child. Only women become pregnant and only men are legally and morally responsible for them doing so.

 

except it's not limited to men and women, and producing children is entirely irrelevant.

- - - Updated - - -

marriage isn't limited to heterosexual couples, and procreation is entirely irrelevant to who can marry.

 

procreation is entirely irrelevant to who can marry.