Why are you waisting my time? I have already explained my views and they do not, and never will agree with yours.
You are just repeating the same old tired arguments over and over like they are going to change something. Well let me tell you, they will not.
I'm not trying to change your views. I'm trying to get you to explain how your position will withstand a Constitutional challenge.
That is kinda my exact feelings. One of us is not making their point well, and the other is not understanding.
Yes they would. If the Governmental interest served by the government excluding gays from marrying is support of rearing children...then any marriage, to exist, must serve that governmental interest. If couples don't want to have children, they wouldn't be able to marry under such a system.
You are correct about adoption though. However, infertile couples would be required to adopt as a condition to marriage and then you run into another Equal Protection issue and that is, why should this also not be extended to gays. If raising children is the interest served and you can counteract the inability to have children with adoption, then gays should be afforded the same privilege.
The truth is I don't care all that much because it will probably be defeated anyway, as most see it as a state issue.
So that is that.
Fair enough. Although I wish that you were more inclined to debate the state interest. I enjoy your posts because they are generally pretty well supported, even if I disagree.
I just haven't seen any one that is able to put forth an argument that would withstand Constitutional muster. I'm not surprized though, since as I said, even the most conservative of conservative scholars have written saying that this is a problem for them.
This is why I say the battle will be in the Constitutional Amendment arena.
The SCOTUS will not uphold the governmental discrimination under equal protection and the right-wing will take their battle to the next level.
Although this is likely to take a decade to resolve.
I have clearly made my point. You keep asking basically the same questions worded slightly differently over and over again.
I have said what my opinion is.
It's not that I don't like the debate, I do. I am really just not that interested in the whole gay marraige thing outside of supporting civil unions.
I just don't see it as a huge issue I guess.
I say let the states handle it and leave me alone, lol.
Navy has listed every President he voted for here. He has always voted for the Republican....so if he was a "liberal as hell" at a period of time in his life, I have no idea when that would have been.
Its not the end of story when the issue comes before the SCOTUS...which is likely will very soon.That is why I posed the question I did to you....and the question that I pose to everyone who supports the governmental exclusion.
What "important" governmental interest is served by the government limiting marriage to straight couples?
I Voted for JFK and "Scoop" Jackson in a primary for president, both democrats...
I don't think so. Even with the conservatives that Bush put on it is unlikely that the Supreme Court is going to establish an important governmental interest.
Most conservative constitutional scholars have even written that they cannot see how it passes Constitutional muster if it reaches the Supreme Court, which is why the fight has been to try to keep the Supreme Court from addressing the issue.
Bush tried to pre-empt a Supreme Court decision through a Constitutional Amendment, however, it never gained enough support to go anywhere.
The reality is, the only way that gay marriage is going to be stopped in the United States is if there is a Constitutional Amendment that prevents it.
I expect the SCOTUS to strike down Prop-8 eventually as unconstitutional and the battle will be whether this country wants to pass a Constitutional Amendment that for the first time in the history of this country, takes away rights rather than expands them.
That is where the true battle is going to be on this issue.
So in a field of democrats, you voted for democrats.
You needd to read up on Washington State laws.......If a voter is not in a party he can vote for who he wants..........Oh and JFK was a national election.......Probably way before your time so you did not know that...He ran for president in 1960............
I doubt if the SCOTUS will ever get involved in this...They believe it is a state issue and the individual states will handle it... I kind of wish they would so this would get handled once and for all..........
Few cases argued before the Federal Court of Appeals end up in the SC. If the 9th circuit upholds Prop 8, it's certainly not a given that the SC would take the case. It becomes more likely when you have federal appeals courts looking at similar issues, but arriving at different conclusions.Um.......I guess you haven't been following the news lately..........The Prop 8 federal trial began today..........it's going to be on youtube........
So there where republicans running against Jackson when you voted for him?
I mistook your comment to mean you voted for both in primaries.
Um.......I guess you haven't been following the news lately..........The Prop 8 federal trial began today..........it's going to be on youtube........
EDIT: Correction, the Supreme Court blocked the youtube broadcast as of today.
Supreme Court blocks video coverage of Prop. 8 trial - latimes.com
Are you speaking of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals?I did not say they never get involved in states issues, they just don't like to............
I may also add the SCOTUS often over rules against that circuit court because it is the most radical court in the U.S. and many of its decisions are overturned by the SCOTUS...
Are you speaking of the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals?
And you have not been able to answer the question.
The interest is in a stable family unit and the rearing of children to become productive citizens. Since most gay couple (not all) have little or no interest in rearing children, the state has little interest.
This is inaccurate... but I would like to see some substantiation on this point you just made.
One of the reasons that the state has interest in sanctioning GM is because gay couples want to have and rear children and do so as well as straight couples.
Please, you just went through this with Jerry.
Go read his responces.
I have seen no evidence at all that says the majority of gay couples want to adopt or raise children.
I mean I admit I am going on anecdotal evidence from the gay community's in Chicago and San Fransisco. I lived in both places for years (how I got over my initial homophobia) and again I saw nothing that would lead me to believe your comment is true.
More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
• More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
• An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
• An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
Well, let's look at real data. http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?