Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

What are your views on a single-parent household?

Take a look at these stats:

Here

Here

Here


These sites deal with children from single parent or fatherless homes, or those in foster care. The numbers may surprise you.

Point is...so what. Your post is consistently irrelevant. Who cares how someone produces a child? What difference does it make? The problems facing gay couples face ANY couple that cannot bear children.

Tell an inferitle couple to make a baby. They tell you for reasons beyond their control, they can't. Tell a gay or lesbian couple to do the same, and they tell they can't, because they do not want to. They would rather have sodomy than intercourse. Big difference.

And before you ask, yes, couples who opt not have children should be allowed to marry. Why? They might change their mind, and if they do, they are actually capable of procreating within their contract!. A Same-sex couple who wants children must seek another male or female outside their "marriage."

Since I know that you won't ban marriage for sterile couples, why would ban them for gays?

I would never ban marriage for gays. I would ban the law from giving anyone (be they gay or straight or bisexual) who wants to enter in to a same-sex union the designation "marriage."


It's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, it makes no sense to even consider it, you have already stated that it isn't a legal requirement for marriage, so why would it serve as a rhetorical argument to bar gays from marriage?

That comment shows you're not reading my posts. You act as if procreation is my sole argument againt same-sex marriage. It's not. Not by a long shot.

 

Tell an inferitle couple to make a baby. They tell you for reasons beyond their control, they can't. Tell a gay or lesbian couple to do the same, and they tell they can't, because they do not want to. They would rather have sodomy than intercourse. Big difference.

-I fail to see the difference. Furthermore, since you keep arguing that procreation is important for marriage, I think it's fair game to attack such a weak argument.

Furthermore, would you ban infertile couple from marrying? They CANNOT have children except through adoption or let's say one of them is infertile, they would could have children the same way as a lesbian couple.

Point is, if you think marriage is important for raising children, what the hell difference does it make if the child is the natural child of the two parents or an adopted child? Seriously? Won't they have the responsibility, the same needs, the same desires for legal protections?

THe only reason to not allow gays to marry is for RELIGOUS reasons, which is an unconstitutional standard.

 

In same-sex households (specifically lesbian), a child is born with only one parent! As some of my stats in another thread point out, this has proven to be disadvantageous to the child. Again I ask, why would the government legalize, bless and promote situations in which, for all intrinsic purposes, chldren are born fatherless! You cannot call that natural, nor can you call that right.

Divorce is legal.
Unwed single parenting is legal.
Sperm banks are legal.
Egg donation is legal (and quite lucrative financially, if you're a woman looking to shell out a few thousand eggs).

Make all these illegal and you might have a case. Otherwise, Biological association between child and parent is irrelevant to the legality of marriage. You say that you acknowledge that children are not a legal qualification for marriage, yet you still argue the point, even in that first post--which, FYI, is why I did not comment on it.

All your "polls" and "statistics" show one thing, CK; and that is:

"These sites deal with children from single parent or fatherless homes, or those in foster care." --your words.

In a male-gendered SSM family dynamic, the child would in fact have two fathers. Neither fatherless, nor single-parent.

Given all your wonderful statics, there is even more research that contradicts it.

Added to those are the highly-documented statistics that show the number of children adversely affected by divorce.


But, divorce is legal. Bad parenting is legal. Make them illegal, and you might have a case for denying SSM on these grounds.

What other issues do you have with gay marriage? You say your belief is not focused on the child-raising aspect of marriage. Then what legal reason can you provide that will show us why SSM should remain denied in most places of the country?

 

And before you ask, yes, couples who opt not have children should be allowed to marry. Why? They might change their mind, and if they do, they are actually capable of procreating within their contract!. A Same-sex couple who wants children must seek another male or female outside their "marriage."

Not if they have ovarian cysts. What then? Do we stop their marriage? Or how about women who decide to have children when they're 37 but can't because of menopause. Do we dissolve their marriage?

Again, marriage is not a natural institution. If you want to argue it another way, fine, but you cannot argue this on a basis of 'naturalism' because this is a construct humans have made.

I would never ban marriage for gays. I would ban the law from giving anyone (be they gay or straight or bisexual) who wants to enter in to a same-sex union the designation "marriage."

Aren?t you really just arguing over a word? And since you?re arguing over a word are you going to try to get ?gay? and ?fag? hetero-ized too? Really, I miss those words you don?t hear too many people saying, ?My son is so gay!? Anymore. Also since conservatives like arguing over a word, I?d like to propose you fight over some other words I?ve had some complaints about.

Ignorance ? This does not mean rude, but a lack of knowledge. Unfortunately these god-awful people (I blame the liberal agenda) have taken over the word to mean ?rude?. Please, think of the children.

Same Difference ? I know it?s an actual saying, but it?s kind of redundant saying it you have ?same? and ?difference? which is an oxymoron because something cannot be same and different at the same time, jackass.

So yes, where are the fights over those words? We must protect America from the scourge of improper English. I?m sure you connies could come up with some slogans decrying the ?destruction? of these words.

These sites deal with children from single parent or fatherless homes, or those in foster care. The numbers may surprise you.

Where are the stats on homosexual couples raising a child? Those stats might surprise you, heart attack even.


Extra credit: If anyone can guess where the 'gay' and 'fag' argument came from I'll give you an e-cookie.

 

From Yahoo:

Mass. Court to Address Gay Marriage Issue
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN, Associated Press Writer

BOSTON - Massachusetts' highest court hears a bid Monday to halt same-sex couples from marrying until voters can weigh in on the contentious issue. A lawsuit filed by C.J. Doyle, executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, claims the marriages interfere with voters' ability to participate in the debate on a proposed constitutional ban of same-sex

Around 5,000 same-sex couples have married in the state since the Supreme Judicial Court issued its landmark 4-3 ruling in November 2003 allowing gay marriage. The ruling took effect in May 2004.

In March 2004, the state Legislature approved a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. Lawmakers must pass the measure a second time, either this year or next, before it can reach the statewide ballot in November 2006.

"What we're saying is that the dialogue, the robust debate that should be taking place, is being affected and shaped by the continuing marriages," Doyle's attorney, Chester Darling, said Sunday.

Justice Roderick Ireland rejected Doyle's petition last year but the full court is hearing his appeal.

Lawyers for Doyle, Attorney General Thomas Reilly's office and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders are to deliver oral arguments before the court Monday.

GLAD argues that Doyle has failed to show exactly how issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples interferes with his ability to vote.

"The right of gay and lesbian couples to marry poses absolutely no harm to Mr. Doyle, the Catholic Action League or anybody else," said GLAD attorney Michele Granda.

Ireland, one of four judges who voted to legalize gay marriage, said in his earlier ruling rejecting Doyle's petition that same-sex couples shouldn't be denied the right to marry based on the mere possibility that voters will approve a ban.

I can't see it. The court ruled that, under the Constitution as it stands now, marriage must be offered on an equal basis. I don't see how the idea that this could change in the future would have any effect on what is allowed/required by law. It would have been like a federal court's ruling that liquor sales must stop when the Eighteenth was proposed.

I also don't see how the dialogue's being shaped by the continuing marriages is different from any other change to the law, whose discussion would be influenced by how things stand now. I also don't see how issuing such marriages influences the discussion more than halting them would.

Ultimately, though, based on the prior ruling, it seems to me that either things can stand as they are or the state can be made to halt all marriages until the issue has reached a vote (though I don't know why the law would suggest that latter course).

Ultimately, I'm not worried. The amendment won't pass even if it reaches a statewide ballot, and I'm most pleased that I will be able to vote against it if it does. But this particular demand is just strange, and I can't see how it would make sense in light of the prior ruling.

-Paul

 

Very interesting. Definitely somethign to keep watching.

 

The amendment won't pass even if it reaches a statewide ballot, and I'm most pleased that I will be able to vote against it if it does.

Sure it will.

I can't see it. The court ruled that, under the Constitution as it stands now, marriage must be offered on an equal basis. I don't see how the idea that this could change in the future would have any effect on what is allowed/required by law.

Because the ruling was wrong. Everyone knows it.

 

How was it wrong?

 

That ruling was just fine if you ask me. What exactly was wrong with it?

 

Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right.

It is a privilage. The Constitution doesn't protect privilages.

 

If marriage is not a right then why do people want it to be legislated as if it is a right?

 

J-Rod, the constitution protects privileges, I don't know what you are talking about. If you are talking about absolute rights, the constitution doesn't protect those either by your definition, we have the 2nd amendment but there are limits, we have the 1st amendment but there are limits.

Furthermore, you have a right to equal protection under the law.

 

Furthermore, you have a right to equal protection under the law.

So, under your definition of the constitution, would we all should have the priviage of reserved parking at the courthouse? Lord knows I've spent enough time down there in my day.

Afterall, only some have that privilage right now.

 

J-Rod posted on 5/2/05 2:54pm

---

[b]The amendment won't pass even if it reaches a statewide ballot, and I'm most pleased that I will be able to vote against it if it does. [/b]

Sure it will.
[hr][/blockquote]
I really don't think so. Massachusetts was hardly a state united in opposition to gay marriage before the ruling; the scant amount of polling I can remember coming across suggested that acceptance thereof [i]increased[/i] following the ruling. (There needs to be some Mass. polling done on the issue now; it's understudied I think.) And if I remember -- I don't have the time or inclination to try to find my source at the moment, though I've referred to it before here -- opposition to an amendment banning gagy marriage was pretty high, perhaps around 70%. I will be nothing short of shocked if an amendment of the sort passes.

[blockquote][hr][b]I can't see it. The court ruled that, under the Constitution as it stands now, marriage must be offered on an equal basis. I don't see how the idea that this could change in the future would have any effect on what is allowed/required by law. [/b]

Because the ruling was wrong. Everyone knows it.
[hr][/blockquote]
I certainly don't know it, never having read the ruling or devoted particular study to the Massachusetts constitution (which is actually what the ruling is based on, at least going by what I've read reported). That's a project for some day when I'm off this summer, I think. Too much reading material to tackle it before school's out.

But in fact, whether the ruling was correct is [b]utterly irrelevant[/b] to the case at hand. It's some argument that doesn't make sense to me logically, and even if it did I don't see how it makes sense legally, though there are clearly nuances I don't understand. At any rate, it's my understanding that this case is entirely procedural, is basically making some weird claim about the relation of current practice to the potential for future law, and is not attempting to have the original ruling overturned or challenging it. This case is trying to do something else. And to justify that something else by saying the original ruling was wrong smacks suspiciously of going along with things just because you like the results, which is the big accusation levelled at liberals where concerns the MSSC ruling to begin with.

-Paul

 

Sheesh, big day for news.

California Court Rules Gay Couples Liable For Child Support

In a landmark move, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that children born to gay and lesbian couples must be afforded the same rights as offspring of heterosexual couples, including child support, should their parents split. The court issued decisions in three different cases involving children born to same-sex couples.

In its decisions, the court ruled that "a person who actively participates in bringing children into the world, takes the children into her home and holds them out as her own, and receives and enjoys the benefits of parenthood, should be responsible for the support of those children ? regardless of her gender or sexual orientation."

The decision comes on the heels of yet another advancement for homosexual couples in California. Earlier this month, the California Supreme Court ruled that businesses in the state must give spousal privileges to registered same-sex couples.

 

Good for California.

 

In Australia SSM is not recognised because under our Federal Constitution 'marriage' is deemed to be the union between a man and a woman.

To change that, we would have to hold a national Referendum to change the Constitution (this will never happen with a conservative government in power and I expect we will have a conservative liberal government for the next 10 years at least.)

However, in certain states and territories, laws have been passed that confer the same rights of marriage to same sex couples ( ie same sex couples now fall into a general category of 'de facto relationships') particularly with respect to property rights and survivorship.

There was a recent case in our Family Court in which the court ordered a woman to pay child support in relation to the biological children of her former same sex partner on the basis of what the court recognised as an "implied promise" to support the children. The court found it would be unconsionable for the co-partner not to pay maintenance in circumstances where the children had been born by donor insemination during the course of the relationship and co-parented by the to women. The case is W v G (1996) 20 Fam LR 49.

Since 1999 in New South Wales, a co-parent in a same sex relationship which comes to an end can claim for a property adjustment and for maintenance if they are to be the carer of the child regardless of whether they are the biological parent. The same rules applies under our Family Law Act for same sex couples.

Similarly, same sex couples can make an application for custody and access regardless of whether they are the biological parent as the "best interests of the child" principle overrides any other consideration.

Pretty much the only thing that separates heterosexual and homosexual couples is that same sex couples may not legally adopt a child.

Really, parenting is all about the relationship formed between the parent or parents and the child - that relationship can be a good one or a bad one regardless of the sexual orienation of the parents.

 

Marriage is not a Constitutionally protected right.

It is a privilage. The Constitution doesn't protect privilages.

This is true.....however, civil unions are legal contracts, and under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, it should be protected.

Peace,

V-03

 

Actually, ask any lawyer, Marriage is a constitutionally protected right. It's on the bar exam.

 

Well, whilst I'm unaware of the parallel in the states, the main focus on marriage in the UK is its connection to other rights, such as inheriting property, having the right to be present if a partner is in hospital - doctor-patient confidentiality extends to a husband and wife but not to a same-sex couple. In response to pressure for changes the UK government has passed the Civil Partnerships Act that creates a new legal category of Civil Partnership, which effectively gives same-sex couples the same legal rights as married couples, albeit by a different name. The majority of same-sex couples don't seem overly concerned with the linguistic difference, although some will see marriage as somehow superior, but that's human nature: give people 2 equal options and they'll look for a way to rank them.

There has been opposition from co-habitees on the basis the legislation does not cover them, to which the government reply is they can get married, either in a religious or secular fashion, the state doesn't care either way.

Where things have the potential to get messy is a Canadian couple have applied to the high court to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Britain, which if successful, opens the doors to all kinds of options such as a couple going abroad to marry and then require that union be recognised elsewhere.

One thing that stands out here is that marriage/civil partnership only matters in regard to the rights it connects to, in legal and financial terms. Therefore, a single person might well ask why couples get a better tax rate, or used to, than people on their own. The question becomes: Why does getting together wth a person in a formal, legal way entitle that set of people to more than they had as individuals? I'm not talking about how a married couple wish to live as one, sharing all things; from a coldly legal and financial standpoint: why?

Oh a couple loves each other and want to marry, OK go and do so without incentives then. Like it or not, marriage gives a couple far more security than cohabitation, should this be changed? I don't know. It does seem odd, as if marriage is an ideal form of living for a couple, then it should be entered into as a commitment of love, not for greater security because of entitlements A, B, C that become available upon surviving a wedding.

(To those who have yet to experience this: Marriage is great, but know why you're marrying who you're marrying otherwise the wedding will be somewhat testing!)

JB

 

How so, Obi-Wan?

Where in the Constitution is marriage specifically protected?

Peace,

V-03

 

You know better than that. You have a constitutionally protected right to lots of stuff not in the constitution, like to be able to sit in your easy chair in your home at any hour.

Let's say that your state Congress passed a law saying no one could sit in easy chairs between between 9-5. THe Supreme Court would strike that stuff down as irrational.

But regarding marriage, read the cases about interracial marraige, SUpreme Court read that marriage is a constitutionally protected right

 

Where in the Constitution is marriage specifically protected?

It is one the "basic civil rights of man"*, and protected in the constitution as such. The highest court has already established the choice to marry or not marry as a right.

* Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
U.S. Supreme Court ruling
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

In addition, we are I hope all aware (as I've posted the bulk of them innumerous times) of the estimated 1,400 benefits, rights, protections and responsibilities conferred instantly by marriage. To deny these articles based on gender is a Civil Rights violation. To deny these articles under the assumption that most of them can be acquired individually on a more limited basis is essentially a Jim Crow law. The US Supreme Court has previously ruled the Superate but Equal is unconstitutional.

 

I'm not picking an argument here Cheveyo, but the SC ruled that the Seperate but Equal laws were unconstitutional based upon race. The rulings mentioned nothing of Sexual Orientation. Just a thought.

 

I'm not picking an argument here Cheveyo, but the SC ruled that the Seperate but Equal laws were unconstitutional based upon race. The rulings mentioned nothing of Sexual Orientation. Just a thought.

Well understood, JMA. I was responding to Vaderize's query as the validity of calling marriage a constitutional right. Marriage has been called a constitutional right.

The courts established that--as with all basic civil rights--the government cannot deny rights based on race.

Let's take this to the next logical step. The courts have also ruled that it is unconstitutional to deny rights based on gender.
The argument that would then stand before the courts--if/when they should decide to hear it--will be this: As noted in the ruling of Loving, The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Understanding that gender is equal to race in terms of its protection against discrimination, the freedom of choice to marry someone of one gender or another cannot be restricted by discrimination.

Of course right now, right or wrong, it does discriminate. It likely will take a Supreme Court decision to end this discrimination.