I didn't say any such thing - I don't know the answer - I was simply saying that Scalia was posing the question because in some people's minds it's an open question due to the limited experiential data available. Scalia didn't take a position one way or the other in his question and the title of the thread gives the impression he did.
The thing is, it's not limited. There's 40 years of data of conclusive data that point in only one direction. Kids of SS couples live the same kinds of lives as kids of OS couples, perform just as well in school, earn just as much money, and are in just as good health. The data is there. Scalia cannot pretend otherwise.
I take it you mean American jurisprudence, which also until a few decades ago, defined marriage to mean that men owned all the property.
Plus husbands were legally permitted to rape their wives. Regardless of her consent, if they were married, he couldn't be prosecuted or divorced for raping her. That also started changing in 1975. Great tradition, huh?
Nope. I'd never compare interracial marriage to gay marriage.
Constitutionally, the argument is the same.
Not me ... you're confused.
I don't believe gay marriage should be covered by the 14th Amendment.
So there's no Amendment analogy to be made.
Good for you. Your belief is wrong.
I just saw this today and thought I'd reproduce it for moments like this ...
Enjoy ...
A checklist of fun!
HERE YOU GO. REASONS WHY PEOPLE OPPOSE THE REDEFINITION OF "MARRIAGE:"
Since you asked…
1.) “Marriage” is the name of a sacrament that would be desecrated by redefining it. Christians are upset because it is like redefining “communion” to be something that is in opposition to their faith.
Too bad. Christians don't own marriage and don't get to enforce their specific vision of it. Your religious position has no more weight than anyone else's, including those with no religion.
2.) “Marriage” is a GENDER SPECIFIC version of a legal CIVIL CONTRACT. Gender specification is legal (e.g. gender-specific bathrooms, contract designations, maternity leave applications, college entrance forms, etc…). A civil contract should be extended to ALL people. However, by opening “marriage” and calling every union “marriage,” it opens the contract up to polygamists, incestuous relations, and anyone else.
The first part of this is an unfounded assertion. The slippery slope argument is silly. Polygamy and incest are different laws informed by different reasons. SSM's legality has no bearing on either of them. Same with bestiality or pedophilia.
3.) The redefinition of “marriage” has specific legal consequences on those who may have religious, moral or tradition views on the matter. They are FORCED (by default due to the law) to change their public moral position on the matter — even if the notion of gay “marriage” is in opposition to their faith or clear conscience.
You don't have to change your moral positions at all. But the law does not have to conform to them.
4.) Homosexuals are not fighting for “rights” of the contract. They are fighting for the NAME — and redefining what the name means — because they know that this would have legal consequences in the future.
Separate but equal is unconstitutional.
5.) The redefinition of “marriage” will have major implications for businesses or organizations that disagree with it. While churches will not be forced (at least now) to perform “marriages” for homosexuals, what happens with businesses, private citizens or other religious institutions or organizations? What would happen if a Christian bookstore hires a man who suddenly “comes out” a few months later and wants insurance to cover his “spouse?” A single definition will make it difficult (or nearly impossible) for a specific business to cater to the legal demands of others.
Yes, it will have major implications. Those organizations will no longer be able to discriminate, the same way they couldn't discriminate against blacks after the civil rights movement. A Christian bookstore will have to conform to the same laws as every other bookstore. Merely because they represent themselves according to a specific religion does not grant them special treatment. And no, it will not be difficult to adhere to.
6.) Liberals have promised that churches and religious institutions will receive “conscientious objector” status for such things. However, they didn’t quite embrace that when it came to religious colleges dealing with abortion and contraceptive coverage requirements from Obamacare.
There is quite a different between not wishing to conduct a private ceremony at the behest of people who aren't in a contractual relationship with you and organizations seeking special treatment under the law. The constitution is quite clear.
7.) The state pushing a redefinition of “marriage” results in the state taking a moral position on a controversial issue at the whims of that small fringe group — while demanding that people who derive morality from religion, faith, culture, tradition or any other reason remain silent.
No, it doesn't. It's taking a legal position based on the constitution. Morality, religious or otherwise, is not a part of this discussion.