Breaking News: Supreme Court Has Chosen Not To Hear Any Of The 7 Marriage Equality Cases.

[Czernobog]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

Okay. I propose putting that theory to the test. I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type. Let's see how well that works out for that state.

 

[emilynghiem]

bigrebnc1775 said: ↑

“Wrong as usual they did not rule on it because it was supposed to be a state issue.”

Nonsense.

State's don't have the authority to deny citizens their civil liberties. Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, where the states are subordinate to that, as the Federal Constitution protects the rights of American citizens regardless their state of residence, making citizens' civil liberties immune to attacks by the states.

Idiot if what you say had any truth the supreme court would have ruled on it. Shut the fuck up and learn something.

Okay. Let's try this one more time.
Simple yes, or no question: Is it your contention that no question of constitutional legitimacy can ever be decided except by direct ruling from the Supreme court, and only by the Supreme court?

Hi Czernobog: With the courts, judicial ruling, Supreme Court
we have never resolved the issue of political beliefs: what if a religious belief crosses over into beliefs about govt
and laws themselves, such as the right to health care through the govt or the right of marriage through the govt.

All conflicts over crosses, prayers in schools, etc. have continued to be protested even after
rulings or laws were passed because peole do not agree to have their beliefs excluded, on either side.

This has never been resolved, but we keep making the same mistake of assuming
that these issues are like any other matter of law that can be decided by the state/govt.

No, they cannot. People do not agree to give up their religious equality due to a onesided ruling
or majority rule in Courts or Congress. We just haven't addressed this.

The Constitution and Amendments address "religious freedom" and "discrimination by creed"
but we have never established what do we do when we cannot separate a religious beliefs
from a govt policy, becuase the belief involves the govt role in whether or not it can decide a policy.

th eprolife and prochoice issue was one of the first to bring this out.
the two sides will always have clashing beliefs, so we need to write laws
better that do not impose either way on one beleif or the other.

We have never agreed to a process to handle political beliefs.

CZ you are highly intelligent, precise in articulating points,
and intellectual honest which I find vital if we are going to address this issue.

I see it is very hard foryou to understand this other mentality of
people on the far right who cannot separate church from state,
but see prolife as not a choice but a natural right of the child,
and see the gay marriage issue as not natural but a lifestyle and not to be incorporated into the state.

You can separate these in your mind because you do not have these beleifs.
Can you understand some people's beliefs cannot separate them.
And it is not fair to impose a separation if that is not natural or inherent
or even possible in their minds.

If this is the case with some people, why can't that be accommodated equally.

Why do these beliefs have to be overridden.
Why can't these people be offered the choice to do all the work to revise the laws.

As long as they taek responsibility for their beliefs, let them have religious freedom
not to be under a policy they don't believe in.

This isn't just about marriage or gay marriage.

With the health care, and "natural rights" vs. "health care is a right through govt"
people will not budge on their beliefs either.

So maybe it will come to the point that these people
should WELL separate their beliefs by party and fund their
own policies separately.

Let the liberal/Democrat party be used to fund manage and endorse
gay marriages and health care through singlepayer insurance
that is mandated for all their members who choose to pay into it under those terms.

Let the Republican/Tea party be used to manage free market
health care through church nonprofit and business programs through schools
and manage their members by voluntary participation and enterprise that way
without mandating things they believe are not govt jurisdiction.

if people cannot change or separate their beliefs from govt
at least let them separate from each other and practice independently.

 

[Dot Com]

^ tl;dr

 

[emilynghiem]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

Okay. I propose putting that theory to the test. I want a state to attempt to pass a law which refuses to recognise marriage of any type. Let's see how well that works out for that state.

Agreed. Even if it works by reverse psychology, it will give people free choice to decide how to settle this
instead of the govt or party politics deciding or imposing on people against their will.

Either agree to open up marriage to all,
or neutralize all language regarding civil unions and contracts,
and keep the personal beliefs out of the state altogether.

Let's be civilized about this. If people have separate beliefs
then separate by party or churches to preserve equal freedom and protection
to exercise as each believes without imposing one way for all the state that one side doesn't believe in.

We need to do the same with health care policies also,
since a similar 'right to health care' is not agreed upon either as a belief.

Again it may be reverse psychology, but people must be offered
the choice to fund their own policies and quit imposing that through
the state as the only choice against the will and beliefs of others.

People do not believe the same, and shouldn't be excluded because of that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As to your comment, I suppose part of the problem is my fault. You get that nothing on that list is a "right", correct? Those are the benefits of marriage. The only "right" in question is, and has always been, that of marriage - specifically the right to marry the person of your own choosing, with no restriction.

No such right exists.
Marriage, as a legal institution, exists because state law created it.
Nothng requires a state to do so, and so, upon repealing the relevant laws, marriage as a legal institution would cease to exist.
Thus, marriage, as a legal institution, is a privilige granted by the state, not a right inherent to the people.

Except that according to Loving v Virginia marriage is a right.

Except that the legal institution of marriage exists only because the state created it.
What happens to the "right" of marriage when the state repeals its laws that created it? It goes away.
Thus, it cannot be a right as a right cannot be taken away by the repeal of legislation.

The right to marry exists within the context of the fundamental right to privacy and substantive due process guaranteed by the 14th Amendment:

'[R]ecent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." Id., at 486.

[...]

t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions []relating to marriage[.]'

FindLaw Cases and Codes

And as we've seen in the Marriage Cases, the courts have correctly and consistently applied this jurisprudence to same-sex couples where the states have manifested an “unjustified government interference” by seeking to disallow gay Americans to enter into marriage contracts.

 

[emilynghiem]

^ tl;dr

Not to worry Dot Com, it would go over your head anyway.
This is very deep and not something that can be resolved by slamming people for their beliefs.

The msg is for CZ who is capable of analyzing all the points
and work this out better than I can. Thank God someone can!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

THE RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE DUMB ASS
It is not a constitutional protected right.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE DUMBASS
Adding a word to marriage doesn't suddenly change the definition of marriage.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right since 1967.
The DUMBASSES that refuse to understand this have lost that argument 19 times.

So, like I said, you can keep screaming this like a little kid all you like. And while you do all those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing what the courts have told them they have every right to do, whether you like it, or not.

MARRIAGE IS MARRIAGE BUT THEIR IS NO CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO GAY MARRIAGE

Like i said, you can keep screaming that in all caps if it makes you feel better. However, the Federal courts said differently - in 19 different cases - and those icky icky faggots are gonna keep right on getting their marriage licenses, and doing exactly what it is those federal courts have said they have every right to do. Your being butt-hurt about it isn't gonna change that.

You can feel free to go back to the kiddie table, and lick your wounds, now.

Wasn't scearming just not going to retype what I posted, You are wrong and have been proven wrong Since the supreme court said nothing on the issue of gay marriage it's not a constitutionally protected right. THE END.

What are you going to do when this time next year same-sex marriage is recognized in every state, by decree of the federal district courts, and the Supreme court chooses not to hear one single case on the issue? Will you still insist that there is no "gay marriage", even as the homosexuals in every single state are getting married?

I'm not worried about next year. When the shit drops faggots will be fair game in this part of the country.

 

[emilynghiem]

'[R]ecent decisions have established that the right to marry is part of the fundamental "right of privacy" implicit in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights - older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions." Id., at 486.

[...]

t is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions []relating to marriage[.]'

FindLaw Cases and Codes

And as we've seen in the Marriage Cases, the courts have correctly and consistently applied this jurisprudence to same-sex couples where the states have manifested an “unjustified government interference” by seeking to disallow gay Americans to enter into marriage contracts.

Dear C_Clayton_Jones

And yet this substantive due process
does not apply to people of other parties who believe in free choice of paying and managing health care
without being forced to go through insurance or federal mandates.

When one party pushes for the "right to marriage" or "right to health care"
as their political BELIEFS, this is justified as establishing through the govt as law.

But [fill in the blank] forbid if
people of OTHER beliefs push for
* right to life
* natural rights
and try to defend that. Suddenly there should be "separation of church and state"
to keep these beliefs out of govt.

But when liberals have beliefs, those are OKAY to establish through Courts and Congress as a nationalized belief.

Maybe if we address and change this paradigm,
we could address the issues of marriage, health care, etc. per se.

If we keep ignoring the bias going on, people will fight that
and we can't focus on the issues.

Same with abortion, gun rights, etc. that keep getting into political fights
over ideology and pushing biases or beliefs through govt.

Hey I have an idea.

Let's agree to make laws that reflect and represent/include/protect beliefs Equally.

let's agree to stop bullying back and forth by political force and majority rule to exclude the other beliefs.

And maybe we can stop fighting long enough to work out
solutions that neither impose or deny one side or the other.

How about that, actually respecting equal due process, representation
and protection of the laws for all beliefs, without discrimination by creed.

What a concept, sounds like it might even be Constitutional, you think?

 

[emilynghiem]

You're making the same mistake that many on the right are making. you are conflating the civil contract of marriage with the religious ritual of a wedding.

You see, a marriage is a marriage whether the wedding ceremony is performed by the local parish preacher, the justice of the peace, or the Fake Elvis down at "Billy Bob's Wedding Emporium" on the Strip in Vegas. In the eyes of the law, those are all marriages. To have a marriage doesn't require a religious ceremony. It only requires a license, and someone recognized in your state as having the authority to officiate - and you can get this online in 5 minutes; no religious beliefs necessary.

Dear Czernobog: Like you I am able to separate the civil from the religious marriage.
Unlike you, I recognize that some people cannot separate this because of their beliefs.
Similar to how some people cannot separate the right to health care from govt,
even though these same people argue that Other People should separate religious beliefs from govt.
When it comes to THEIR beliefs about right to health care or right to marriage,
they CANNOT separate this but see this as the natural inherent default to go through govt.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

So if the liberal prorights to health care/marriage cannot separate this from govt,
it is only fair to recognize the equal rights of others to their beliefs they cannot separate from govt.

I am just trying to be fair by including and recognizing this lack of separation exists.
I am trying to accommodate the beliefs equally.

Just because I can separate them, doesn't mean I should exclude people who cannot.

So I strongly urge that we use our party system to separate the people with these
beliefs, and allow them full freedom to fund and implement the beliefs of their choice
through their own parties and use that instead of going through govt where they cannot agree.

they can manage and govern themselves by party and have their own policies
without imposing denying interfering excluding or otherwise discriminating against each other!

this is just my suggestion to give them a chance to separate
and take full responsibility for funding their own beliefs where they cannot agree.

if they decide it is better to put up with the other groups' beliefs
that's fine, at least they have a fully informed chocie.

if people cannot by conscience compromise their beliefs
those members should have a choice of separate funding and policies,
similar to letting churches fund their own denominations
and not establishing one national church for the whole state or country
by majority rule or judicial ruling.

political beliefs are just as sensitive and unchangeable
as religious beliefs, and as these battles show,
are not working to impose one policy that leaves out the dissenting objectors
of opposing beliefs. both groups have equal rights to exercise their beliefs
without discrimination by creed.

CZ you seem level headed and can see the fallacy on all side.
i hope you can see what is going on with political beliefs
and can suggest a better solution.

we can't keep fighting this same battle over
abortion, gay marriage, health care etc.
why can't we agree that political beliefs
need to be handled differently from other
policies we vote on and use the regular systems for.

these political beliefs inherently involve religiously held beliefs,
on both sides, that cannot be changed; don't you agree
that this isn't working because people cannot help or change their beliefs
and refuse to do so by force of law and govt. this isn't working, so what can we do?

 

[emilynghiem]

I'm not worried about next year. When the shit drops faggots will be fair game in this part of the country.

Dear bigrebnc1775: don't worry, look at the good side.
Because of the uphill battles that gay advocates have had to fight,
the idea of inclusion is what will save this country when it is applied equally to all sides.

Solutions will come from working together out of pure legal necessity
to prevent one side's beliefs or another's from exclusion or discrimination.

So the gay marriage issue, and also fights over health care and reparative therapy,
will also lead to greater longterm solutions sooner, that may not have had public visibility
and pressure to address and resolve.

We need to have these discussions anyway. Stashing conflicts in the back of the closet has never solved anything.
The first step is to clean out our closets, bring it all out in the open.
More good will come from it, that will help all people to protect minorities of all beliefs, including yours and mine!
take heart and take courage, bigrebnc, the best is yet to come.
the true solutions will satisfy your interests and beliefs equally as everyone else's beliefs.
and this is what our Constitutional laws were supposed to strive for anyway: equal justice and protection of the laws.
no one should feel excluded or we are not done yet and need to keep petitioning to redress grievances
until we reach a consensus on laws. thanks!

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.

 

[emilynghiem]

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.

So how can we "include" people of such beliefs?
Isn't the best way to teach inclusion to practice it, for all people equally, regardless of their beliefs.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.

So how can we "include" people of such beliefs?
Isn't the best way to teach inclusion to practice it, for all people equally, regardless of their beliefs.

You let a dog in your bed you'll get fleas, You mess with snakes you'll get bit, you don't drop your principles so perverted abnormal people can feel good about themselves

 

[emilynghiem]

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.

So how can we "include" people of such beliefs?
Isn't the best way to teach inclusion to practice it, for all people equally, regardless of their beliefs.

You let a dog in your bed you'll get fleas, You mess with snakes you'll get bit, you don't drop your principles so perverted abnormal people can feel good about themselves

Hmmm and some people would say that about you, because of your views,
and I would say that generalization is overreaching and doesn't apply here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.

So how can we "include" people of such beliefs?
Isn't the best way to teach inclusion to practice it, for all people equally, regardless of their beliefs.

You let a dog in your bed you'll get fleas, You mess with snakes you'll get bit, you don't drop your principles so perverted abnormal people can feel good about themselves

Hmmm and some people would say that about you, because of your views,
and I would say that generalization is overreaching and doesn't apply here.

I have my principles I don't drop them I stand by what I say they can't say that about themselves

 

[emilynghiem]

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.

So how can we "include" people of such beliefs?
Isn't the best way to teach inclusion to practice it, for all people equally, regardless of their beliefs.

You let a dog in your bed you'll get fleas, You mess with snakes you'll get bit, you don't drop your principles so perverted abnormal people can feel good about themselves

Hmmm and some people would say that about you, because of your views,
and I would say that generalization is overreaching and doesn't apply here.

I have my principles I don't drop them I stand by what I say they can't say that about themselves

Not asking you to drop your principles,
but just don't make gross generalizations about others that ruin your credibility.
When you stick to just the principles, there is no need to attack persons or groups that
your principles should not be based on doing. I trust that your principles stand on their own
without resorting to negative tactics, so why resort to that which merely discredits your points by distracting from them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb does not believe in inclusion, only open season.

So how can we "include" people of such beliefs?
Isn't the best way to teach inclusion to practice it, for all people equally, regardless of their beliefs.

You let a dog in your bed you'll get fleas, You mess with snakes you'll get bit, you don't drop your principles so perverted abnormal people can feel good about themselves

Hmmm and some people would say that about you, because of your views,
and I would say that generalization is overreaching and doesn't apply here.

I have my principles I don't drop them I stand by what I say they can't say that about themselves

Not asking you to drop your principles,
but just don't make gross generalizations about others that ruin your credibility.
When you stick to just the principles, there is no need to attack persons or groups that
your principles should not be based on doing. I trust that your principles stand on their own
without resorting to negative tactics, so why resort to that which merely discredits your points by distracting from them.

When you throw your principles away you throw yourself away you fall for anything and supporting faggots and what they do is wrong and is not good for America.

 

[dcraelin]

Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right". If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).

The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.

Not really. The theory, not entirely inaccurate, is that being married, and starting a family, carries with it added financial burdens. It is for this reason that couples filing as married get the tax benefits they get - to offset these costs. It is the same reason for the "Child Tax Credits". By your logic, there should be no "Child Tax Credit"; that should just be another credit that everyone gets. Otherwise we're "discriminating" against people without kids.

And here's the thing. Tax breaks are not rights; there is no guarantee that everyone gets the same benefits. However, everyone should have the same right to the opportunities that make those benefits possible. Hence, the drive for Same-Sex Marriage Equality.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

So you also disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning airplanes, right?
Are you trying to argue that people who cannot procreate with each other naturally should not have children? You're going to cause an orphanage crisis with stupid rules like that.
Go ahead and end the tax breaks, we're still going to want civil marriage. Tax breaks are only one of over a thousand rights, benefits and privileges associated with legal, civil marriage. We've been marrying for decades...we've only just started getting the tax breaks a couple years ago. We'll survive.

Yes I do disagree with tax breaks the wealthy get for owning planes.
I think states, or private placement groups, should be allowed to decide not to place orphans or foster kids with gay couples without it being illegal. I doubt very much if it would cause an orphanage crisis.
Im glad we can probably agree not to hand out tax favors based solely on marriage status.
the Loving case was decided upon the greater popular national will expressed in the 13,15th and the surface,common sense intent of the 14th amendments.

 

[dcraelin]

Really is that what they did? regardless what the lower judicial activist did? You fucking hypocrite

Hey, dumbass. Those "lower courts" were still federal courts, and still part of that United States Judicial Branch. So, guess what? In deciding that there was nothing that needed to be revisited by the Supreme Court, and letting those lower Federal Court rulings stand, the judicial system did its job. Just because you don't happen to like the ruling doesn't make it any less valid.

You got your say. You got to tell gay people you don't like them, and you don't want them getting married. That was your right, and you got your vote. Now, the Courts have told you whether or not your actions were Constitutional. Guess what? They weren't. No one took your rights away; you exercised them. It is no one's fault but your own that you attempted to exiercise them in a way that exceeded the limitations of the Constitution.

But, hey! You keep right on screaming, "It's not fair! It's not fair! It's not fair!" if that makes you feel better. In the meantime, all those folks whose rights you tried to deny, well, they're just gonna ignore you, and go right on doing what the Constitution, and the Courts said they get to do.

Gay marriage advocates are so wrapped up in their single issue they cant see the damage this kind of judicial interventionism does to our whole system. I'm sure most would disagree, as I do, with the court's ruling on Citizens United.

I patently disagree. What you call "Judicial interventionism" the Constitution calls the courts doing their job. Yes, I do disagree with the court ruling on Citizens' United. However, that decision doesn't make me change my mind about what the Court's job is. Just because I may have a different interpretation of the constitution, that's irrelevant. Guess what? My interpretation of the constitution is irrelevant; it is the interpretation of those guys in the black robes - whether at the district level, or the Supreme Court - that matters.

You've obviously never read or understood the constitution. Or that more than guys in the black robes. I find your dangerously naïve on a subject that you attempt to discuss.

Well, what you "find" is quite irrelevant, as the Constitution is very clear about the power of the Judicial Branch in Article III, Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects​

So, yeah. it is the job of courts to decide if any law, statute, or policy of local, county, state, or federal government is, in fact, constitutional.
...moving on...

Nothing you quoted from the Constitution above gives citizens the right to sue their own state. Also The above was I believe modified by amendments. At least the 11th and maybe more.

 

[dcraelin]

Its those benefits that supposedly started this quest on the part of gay-marriage advocates.....I dont see how you can separate the benefits from the "right". If all you want is the ability to associate with whom you want....gay people already have that. (that is also part of what separates these cases from Loving V Virginia).

The approach, equal protection, I think logically requires that single people be treated no differently than married people when it comes to tax law. Something I agree with and should be the case now regardless.

Not really. The theory, not entirely inaccurate, is that being married, and starting a family, carries with it added financial burdens. It is for this reason that couples filing as married get the tax benefits they get - to offset these costs. It is the same reason for the "Child Tax Credits". By your logic, there should be no "Child Tax Credit"; that should just be another credit that everyone gets. Otherwise we're "discriminating" against people without kids.

And here's the thing. Tax breaks are not rights; there is no guarantee that everyone gets the same benefits. However, everyone should have the same right to the opportunities that make those benefits possible. Hence, the drive for Same-Sex Marriage Equality.

Well I think your destroying the whole grounds for gay-marriage lawsuits if you think tax breaks are not rights.......that as I understand it is a key part of their argument. .......I was talking about single people without children, they should not be disadvantaged by not recieving tax breaks that married people get solely for being married.

Also...part of their argument is that 'they are born that way"....well then they are born without the capacity to have children in that relationship.....why should they argue they have the right to raise children then?

If that is the entirety of your understanding of the issue of marriage equality, it is no wonder you don't understand the difference between a 'benefit", and a "right". Have a good day...

I think your playing a semantic game.