- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,408
- Reaction score
- 67,624
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I want every state to legalize SSM, so my answer is 'yes'.
Opposite sex marriage is not truly "fundamental" to basic survival either, particularly not legal marriage.
Yes, and in America these couples brake up their children's home far more frequently than their married counterparts. An argument could be made for criminalizing procreation out of wedlock as child abuse since the damage is clearly documented.People have children out of legal wedlock all the time.
I said: "reasonable expectation". I used that term for a reason. I think now you may get it.And people legally allowed to marry now both cannot and do not want to have/raise children.
Since when do civil rights have to be qualified as "fundamental to basic survival?"The 'same-sex' variety of marriage is not "fundamental to [human's] basic survival".
The reason why opposite-sex marriage is "fundamental to [human's] basic survival" is due to opposite sex couple's reasonable expectation of procreation. Since the state's compelling interest in marriage is the raising and socializing of children, the state therefore has precedent to establish laws regulating marriage.
No procreation can be reasonably expected from 2 people of the same sex, so the state has no compelling interest to regulate those relationships. As per the right to free association, the state is not allowed to ban relationships which are not otherwise harmful, so gays are free to live together, as they should be.
This is exactly how I feel about the right to keep and carry personal 'arms', so I empathize.
Since when do civil rights have to be qualified as "fundamental to basic survival?"
Marriage isn't a prerequisite to procreation, nor is fertility a prerequisite to marriage. I suppose infertile couples could hypothetically be barred from marriage as well?
Debatable, the better question being what possible compelling interest does the State hold in barring same sex couples from entering into a legal contract?
In my time on this site, I'd be hard pressed to find a quote farther detached from reality.Yes, and in America these couples brake up their children's home far more frequently than their married counterparts. An argument could be made for criminalizing procreation out of wedlock as child abuse since the damage is clearly documented.
And you would be wrong. It is about the state showing how such separations actually are helping to meet an important state interest. Plus, someone must challenge those things in order for them to reach the SC, who makes the final decision. The SC determines what is constitutional or not. It is highly likely that the SC will decide that same sex marriages do not meet any important or even reasonably relate to a state interest.
Being both a married service member and a military spouse, I absolutely agree with this.
The majority of people and the law do not agree with you.
And there are many more things that marriage does with one contract that would otherwise take many. It is very unlikely to go away anytime in the near future. Legal marriage is good for our society, including those involved, the legal system when it comes to family law, and government programs.
No i think it should be legal everywhere. Civil rights should not be a state issue.
Since when do civil rights have to be qualified as "fundamental to basic survival?"
In my time on this site, I'd be hard pressed to find a quote farther detached from reality.
I suppose that with all the gay and tranny propaganda being pumped out on ABC,CBS,NBC,FOX and other liberal entertainment channels there will be lots of idiots to support legalizing gay marriage.
Do you not understand level of scrutiny? The state(s) have shown an important state interest in keeping gender separation for those things. They do not have any such interest or proof to be supporting such interest in same sex marriage bans.
The 'same-sex' variety of marriage is not "fundamental to [human's] basic survival".....
SCOTUS disagrees with your opinion, in Loving v. Virginia.
Yes, and in America these couples brake up their children's home far more frequently than their married counterparts. An argument could be made for criminalizing procreation out of wedlock as child abuse since the damage is clearly documented.
I said: "reasonable expectation". I used that term for a reason. I think now you may get it.
Look at this from a constitutional stand point. Marriage is a public record. The full faith and credit clause requires all states to recognize all other states public records. So if one were to marry in Mass it has to be recognized in Miss.
DOMA is unconstitutional because it goes against the FF&C.
That argument is insane, as it then makes EVERYTHING and ANYTHING into a "constitutional" federal power, as obviously all things legislated at any gov't level relate to a "state interest", or they would not be "state" law to begin with. Just because something "is" does not elevate it to a "federal" constitutional status.
the thing about marriage, is that its an issue of mutual consent. two adults seek to engage in a legal contract with each other.
there are financial & other legal elements to this.
but, how would I feel about a State having the right to ban inter-racial marriage?
would I want the Feds to step in and ban such a law?
somethings, like slavery, where rhe rights of others are totally denied.....can't be left to States.
but what happens when a State is on the Progressive side of an issue, say much of the Northeast & Slavery during the early 1800s...but the SCOTUS is on the Conservative side..and supports the right to own slaves?
wanting to leave big decisions up to the Feds can be a double-edged sword, and I think that many folks want to leave the issue of SSM to SCOTUS and the Feds because they believe that the current-day Feds and SCOTUS will find in favor of SSM.
however, if we had a Conservative administation and a Conservative court, I think the same folks would instead want SSM left to the states.
its becuase of this, that I right now...at this very moment...think it should probably be left to each state to decide by referendum.
however, my views on this issue are fluid.
So marriage is needed for such thing? I really don't care if you are married or if you are a military spouse, btw
So appeals to popularity mean something to you? Just so know, the failure of marriage is growing my numbers.
Yes, that is what you keep saying..
It is only a matter of civil rights if same-sex civil unions are not endowed with the same entitlements as heterosexual civil unions. Calling heterosexual civil unions a "marriage" and same-sex civil unions something else is not necessarily a civil rights violation.
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?