Originally Posted By piperlynne Wait wait wait. . . Am I to understand that the only reason to get married is to "benefit society" by procreating? I guess in that case, we need to make fertility testing a prerequisite for a marriage license. What other tests would you like to include? The non-feeling, basic facts are that marriage comes with a set of federal rights and priviledges based on the institution. You are denying a group access to those rights by not allowing them to marry. Just deal with those facts alone. Because basically that is the question. Does the Constitution of the United States allow denial of federal rights based on sexual orientation? And any federal law that seeks to disallow ANYONE access to those rights based on that fact, or color of skin, or religion etc would be subject to that test. What if there was a similar law stating people named "Bill" and umm. ."Sue" were not allowed to marry. Names are currently not specifically targeted in the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That lays out the anti-discrimination clause. The fact is, its an emotional issue. But emotions aside, its TRULY an issue on whether we should be denying US Citizens equal access to rights.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Society doesn't "encourage" anything.> Of course it does. Why else does it recognize marriages? It wants to encourage stable heterosexual unions so that the next generation is born and raised in a way that encourages them to become productive members of a healthy and stable society. <The straight couples "making babies" will still be doing that as well.> Most will, but some will not. Birth rates will decline more, and more children will be born out of wedlock, and raised in single parent homes, where it will be harder for them to become healthy, productive members of society. <What you've said could easily be applied to race, religion, etc.> Of course. But the analogy would not be accurate.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Am I to understand that the only reason to get married is to "benefit society" by procreating?> Of course not. <You are denying a group access to those rights by not allowing them to marry.> There is no federal right to have a marriage recognized. It's a benefit that should be granted by the will of the people. <Names are currently not specifically targeted in the 14th amendment.> Why was the 19th amendment passed?
Originally Posted By ecdc >>No, it's not.<< Douglas, you're cherry picking. While you criticize others for "playing the Nazi card" you haven't responded to a number of arguments made, including the point that you're confusing heterosexual relationships with heterosexual mating. Again, we could just pair off to keep the species going. You cannot sustain your argument. And of course, your tactics in this thread are common ones. You say something offensive and mean-spirited, get people deliberately riled up, and then when they respond angrily, you act as if they're the problem because they're not responding to arguments. You haven't responded to arguments, and if you're going to say something critiquing someone's personal relationship, then you ought to expect some anger and personal frustration. You acted like a total jerk; quit blaming it on everyone but you. Man up, take some responsibility for a change.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Am I to understand that the only reason to get married is to "benefit society" by procreating?>> Well DVC dad has gladly stepped up to the plate there.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>There is no federal right to have a marriage recognized. It's a benefit that should be granted by the will of the people.<< So you agree that white southerners have a right to not recognize black or interracial marriages? And if not, why?
Originally Posted By piperlynne <<<You are denying a group access to those rights by not allowing them to marry.> There is no federal right to have a marriage recognized. It's a benefit that should be granted by the will of the people.>> I didn't say that there was a federal right to marry. I said there were federal rights associated to marriage and that by not allowing a group to marry, you are denying them those rights. The rights I'm speaking of are (to name a few): Spousal immunity, which provides that spouses cannot be compelled to testify as to confidential communications between them, under certain circumstances √Right to adopt children as a couple √Right to joint custody of children after divorce √Inheritance rights √Joint property ownership rights √Immigration rights, including expedited U.S. citizenship for spouses of U.S. citizens and limited protection from deportation for noncitizen spouses √Medical decision-making power in the event of one spouse’s incapacity√Right to share group health care insurance benefits √Right to share pension benefits √Right to social security benefits after spouse’s death or disability √Right to file joint income tax returns √Right to claim family partnership tax benefits under federal tax laws, which allow division of business income among family members √Right to claim estate tax marital deduction √Right to compensation for the wrongful death or injury of a spouse caused by the negligence of another.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <Am I to understand that the only reason to get married is to "benefit society" by procreating?> Of course not.>> Then why base a decision not to allow same sex marriages on that fact? Or base your arguement against on that fact?
Originally Posted By piperlynne <<Why was the 19th amendment passed? >> Um what do voting rights have to do with names? Text of 19th amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Originally Posted By piperlynne <<<You are denying a group access to those rights by not allowing them to marry.> There is no federal right to have a marriage recognized. It's a benefit that should be granted by the will of the people.>> on the other hand. . ok. . .then take away ALL the rights that are granted associated with the civil state of marriage. Marriage is a contract - legally. You are essentially saying - two people cannot enter into a contract with each other simply because of their sexual orientation. That makes no sense.
Originally Posted By piperlynne And by "you" I don't necessarily mean Doug. I mean "those that are proponents of denying same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples"
Originally Posted By piperlynne And to further my constitutional arguement: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.: Isn't passing a law banning same sex marriage "abridging the privileges or immunities" that the federal legality of marriage grants. Combine that with the 9th amendment that protects unenumerated rights - (DEFINED- defined as legal rights inferred from other legal rights that are officialized in a retrievable form codified by law institutions, such as in written constitutions, but are not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" among the extant writ of the law") Legally, its pretty clear that these laws will not hold up under a constitutional review.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Douglas, you're cherry picking.> I'm sorry if I don't have time to respond to every insult, distortion, or logical fallacies. <Again, we could just pair off to keep the species going.> Sure, and the resulting offspring could be raised by unicorns. How wonderful that would be! <You say something offensive and mean-spirited, get people deliberately riled up, and then when they respond angrily, you act as if they're the problem because they're not responding to arguments.> LOL. In other words, let the Wookie win.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Um what do voting rights have to do with names?> Nothing. But again, why was the 19th amendment passed?
Originally Posted By piperlynne And if you really think about it, its an unneeded amendment as the 14th kinda covers it. So, I guess the 19th amendment is an example of a waste of taxpayers money since it was pretty much covered.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Nothing. But again, why was the 19th amendment passed?" Oh, let's indulge his goal post moving. Why was it passed, Doug? I'm sure your reasons are different than what I learned in law school.
Originally Posted By piperlynne I was wrong (and freely admit that) I jumped in. The 19th amendment was needed because the 14th amendment only mentioned men in the section about voting rights. It did not specify men, however, in the first clause that I quoted earlier. But for grins. .I'll quote it again " All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
