What is the Purpose of Gay Marriage?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....

discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...

It doesn’t need to be.

In both Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court clearly established that equal protection and privacy rights pertain to freedom of choice, the right of the individual to self-determination, and the fundamental tenet that government can not interfere with how one defines himself as an individual. Therefore whether homosexuality is a ‘choice’ or naturally occurring is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and this is consequently a failed argument.

you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....

as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....

No one ever said they were.

Although homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, such as with race and ethnicity, they are nonetheless a recognized class of persons, entitled to equal protection rights, in the context of their right to self-determination as individuals:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

The State cannot demean [the] existence [of homosexuals] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” [citing Casey]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Clearly there is no greater aspect of one’s personal liberty than whom to marry; and clearly the state is in no position to dictate to any person whom he may marry predicated solely on the fact he is a homosexual.

 

[NYcarbineer]

*whiine*

obviously you think everybody should be able to marry....from gays to bisexuals to polygamists to brothers and/or sisters to NAMBLA pervs to "whatever feeeeeels good"......you epitomize the moral relativism of secular progressives who are destroying our country from within...

When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.

In the meantime, you should try to show us why same sex marriage, with exactly the same rules and responsibilities and rights and privilegs as opposite sex marriage, with the exception of the opposite sex requirement,

has any inherent, unique quality about it that is so detrimental to society that the government has a compelling interest to keep it from being legally recognized.

i see....you think gays are somehow *special*.....

you will argue for yourselves but not for the two brothers who want to get married too?....or the bisexual that needs two mates?.....or the rich guy who wants to marry half a dozen 18 year olds?....

what "inherent, unique quality" about those people is "detrimental to society" any more than yours.....?

Gay marriage doesn't have to be legal for those sorts of marriages to challenge the law.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I didn't ask you to prove it and I didn't claim homosexuality is a protected criteria for marriage.

I asked you if your heterosexuality is immutable or if you, at some point in your life, turned straight.

Well?

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?

marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....

discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...

So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

there is no proof that it is immutable like skin color is.....just because you are 'immutable' today does not mean you will be the same tomorrow......however everyone knows for sure your skin color will be the same...

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

 

[bodecea]

When people start threads advocating those sorts of marriage, then you should feel free to argue with them.

In the meantime, you should try to show us why same sex marriage, with exactly the same rules and responsibilities and rights and privilegs as opposite sex marriage, with the exception of the opposite sex requirement,

has any inherent, unique quality about it that is so detrimental to society that the government has a compelling interest to keep it from being legally recognized.

i see....you think gays are somehow *special*.....

you will argue for yourselves but not for the two brothers who want to get married too?....or the bisexual that needs two mates?.....or the rich guy who wants to marry half a dozen 18 year olds?....

what "inherent, unique quality" about those people is "detrimental to society" any more than yours.....?

Gay marriage doesn't have to be legal for those sorts of marriages to challenge the law.

No it does not. But, of course, gays and gay marriage is the boogie man they all want to blame for things not going the way they want them to go in their lives.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY]It's All Because (The Gays Are Getting Married) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Seawytch]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?

marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....

discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...

So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

there is no proof that it is immutable like skin color is.....just because you are 'immutable' today does not mean you will be the same tomorrow......however everyone knows for sure your skin color will be the same...

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution just as there is no "right to vote", but these have been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. In order to keep an entire group of people from a fundamental right, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. Go ahead and try.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not one law pertaining to restricting Civil Marriage was written on sexual orientation, each and every one was written in terms of gender - an immutable characteristic.



>>>>

thereby providing 'choice' regarding gender....

Gender is not a "choice" it fixed in womb. People are born with either male genital or female (barring the very, VERY rare case of a child born with both sets of sex organs).

i was talking about 'choice' of gender to marry...

(& marginalizing children)

I agree, the discriminatory laws are marginalizing children. The last census showed that 25% of same-sex couples were raising children. During the oral arguments it was pointed out thawt 40,000 children in California were being marginalized because of the discriminatory law.

what i mean by marginalizing children is they are being denied one of their real parents when conceived via the 'test tube' etc......

why not 'choice' for the number as well....?

Bigamy is illegal, being homosexual is not.

But since you asked, there is a compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two people...

1. The Supreme Court, who according to the Constitution (Article 3, Section 2) arbitrate Constitutional issues as to law and fact. The Constitutionality of legally barring polygamy as a function of Civil Marriage was decided in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States. As such polygamous Civil Marriage does not fall under "Civil Rights", people have the right to Civilly Marry (assuming competence to make such a commitment) but do not have a right to Civilly Marry more than one person.

2. Secondly, because something is a Civil Right does not mean that the exercising of that right cannot be made conditional or restricted if there is a compelling government interest in restricting such activity. Recognition of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples requires no real changes in the functioning of civil law. The system and structure of Civil Marriage already exists, adding same-sex couples makes no change to that structure. On the other hand, providing polygamy under Civil Law would greatly complicate the functioning of government. At last count (around 2004 IIRC) there were 1,134 Federal laws in which Civil Marriage was a condition of the law, then add to that hundreds of laws for each State. When you have two people legally entering a spousal relationship, then laws are pretty straightforward on the application of those laws under different circumstances such as tax law, inheritance, transfer of property, parentage, child custody, social security, medical decision making, etc.

Take for example the logical condition of two spouse Civil Marriage, you have person A married to person B. The functional aspects of government are pretty easy to define in terms of two people. On the other hand when you have a polygamous Civil Marriage involving person A, person B, person C, and person D. Then A+B+C+D are married to each other as a group. In addition B+C+D are married to each other whether A is in the equation of not. Same with A+C+D. Same with A+B+D. Same with A+B+C. Then of course A+B are married individually. Same with A+C. Same with A+D. Then of course B+C are married individually. Same with B+C. Same with B+D. Etc. Etc. The complexity of the legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits grows exponentially with each additional spouse as the same degree of marriage between individuals to each other individual and to the group in general grows.

Now, take each of the previous examples (tax law, inheritance, transfer of property, parentage, child custody, social security, medical decision making), which are only a small fraction of the thousands of laws, and extrapolate the complexity of A+B+C+D (and all the various permutations that creates) and government could not functionally work in the area of Civil Marriage.

Therefore, there is a compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two spouses as increasing the number of spouses makes the legal consequences of additional spouses and the functional cost of government in managing it's programs as they relate to that complex Civil Marriage unmanageable.


>>>>

i can certainly agree about the states compelling interest regarding polygamy......i also believe that children purposely 'engineered' and raised without both mother and father is also a compelling state interest....

or....like abortion....is the interest of children always secondary to adult preferences or 'choices'...?

 

[Seawytch]

Notice how the phobes use "homosexual marriage" instead if marriage equality, same sex marriage or gay marriage? That way they can keep the "sex" in the discussion to remind everyone how icky it is.

Remember, gay sex is only dirty if you're doing it right.

 

[bodecea]

thereby providing 'choice' regarding gender....

Gender is not a "choice" it fixed in womb. People are born with either male genital or female (barring the very, VERY rare case of a child born with both sets of sex organs).

i was talking about 'choice' of gender to marry...



I agree, the discriminatory laws are marginalizing children. The last census showed that 25% of same-sex couples were raising children. During the oral arguments it was pointed out thawt 40,000 children in California were being marginalized because of the discriminatory law.

what i mean by marginalizing children is they are being denied one of their real parents when conceived via the 'test tube' etc......

why not 'choice' for the number as well....?

Bigamy is illegal, being homosexual is not.

But since you asked, there is a compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two people...

1. The Supreme Court, who according to the Constitution (Article 3, Section 2) arbitrate Constitutional issues as to law and fact. The Constitutionality of legally barring polygamy as a function of Civil Marriage was decided in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States. As such polygamous Civil Marriage does not fall under "Civil Rights", people have the right to Civilly Marry (assuming competence to make such a commitment) but do not have a right to Civilly Marry more than one person.

2. Secondly, because something is a Civil Right does not mean that the exercising of that right cannot be made conditional or restricted if there is a compelling government interest in restricting such activity. Recognition of Civil Marriage for same-sex couples requires no real changes in the functioning of civil law. The system and structure of Civil Marriage already exists, adding same-sex couples makes no change to that structure. On the other hand, providing polygamy under Civil Law would greatly complicate the functioning of government. At last count (around 2004 IIRC) there were 1,134 Federal laws in which Civil Marriage was a condition of the law, then add to that hundreds of laws for each State. When you have two people legally entering a spousal relationship, then laws are pretty straightforward on the application of those laws under different circumstances such as tax law, inheritance, transfer of property, parentage, child custody, social security, medical decision making, etc.

Take for example the logical condition of two spouse Civil Marriage, you have person A married to person B. The functional aspects of government are pretty easy to define in terms of two people. On the other hand when you have a polygamous Civil Marriage involving person A, person B, person C, and person D. Then A+B+C+D are married to each other as a group. In addition B+C+D are married to each other whether A is in the equation of not. Same with A+C+D. Same with A+B+D. Same with A+B+C. Then of course A+B are married individually. Same with A+C. Same with A+D. Then of course B+C are married individually. Same with B+C. Same with B+D. Etc. Etc. The complexity of the legal rights, responsibilities, and benefits grows exponentially with each additional spouse as the same degree of marriage between individuals to each other individual and to the group in general grows.

Now, take each of the previous examples (tax law, inheritance, transfer of property, parentage, child custody, social security, medical decision making), which are only a small fraction of the thousands of laws, and extrapolate the complexity of A+B+C+D (and all the various permutations that creates) and government could not functionally work in the area of Civil Marriage.

Therefore, there is a compelling government interest in limiting Civil Marriage to two spouses as increasing the number of spouses makes the legal consequences of additional spouses and the functional cost of government in managing it's programs as they relate to that complex Civil Marriage unmanageable.


>>>>

i can certainly agree about the states compelling interest regarding polygamy......i also believe that children purposely 'engineered' and raised without both mother and father is also a compelling state interest....

or....like abortion....is the interest of children always secondary to adult preferences or 'choices'...?

Always has been that way....adults vote, children don't.

Where have YOU been?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It doesn’t need to be.

In both Romer and Lawrence the Supreme Court clearly established that equal protection and privacy rights pertain to freedom of choice, the right of the individual to self-determination, and the fundamental tenet that government can not interfere with how one defines himself as an individual. Therefore whether homosexuality is a ‘choice’ or naturally occurring is legally and Constitutionally irrelevant, and this is consequently a failed argument.

you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....

as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....

No one ever said they were.

Although homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, such as with race and ethnicity, they are nonetheless a recognized class of persons, entitled to equal protection rights, in the context of their right to self-determination as individuals:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

The State cannot demean [the] existence [of homosexuals] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” [citing Casey]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Clearly there is no greater aspect of one’s personal liberty than whom to marry; and clearly the state is in no position to dictate to any person whom he may marry predicated solely on the fact he is a homosexual.

clearly the right to one's personal privacy does not automatically equate to state recognized marriage....

 

[bodecea]

you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....

as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....

No one ever said they were.

Although homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, such as with race and ethnicity, they are nonetheless a recognized class of persons, entitled to equal protection rights, in the context of their right to self-determination as individuals:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

The State cannot demean [the] existence [of homosexuals] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” [citing Casey]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Clearly there is no greater aspect of one’s personal liberty than whom to marry; and clearly the state is in no position to dictate to any person whom he may marry predicated solely on the fact he is a homosexual.

clearly the right to one's personal privacy does not automatically equate to state recognized marriage....

The state cannot provide the protections of civil marriage to one group of law-abiding tax-paying adult citizens and deny it to another WITHOUT good reason. Got one?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?


So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

there is no proof that it is immutable like skin color is.....just because you are 'immutable' today does not mean you will be the same tomorrow......however everyone knows for sure your skin color will be the same...

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution just as there is no "right to vote", but these have been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. In order to keep an entire group of people from a fundamental right, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. Go ahead and try.

i already have.....you are so biased you can't even see straight......

 

[Seawytch]

you can define yourself in a thousand ways.....by choice or by your nature.....that doesn't make you a Constitutionally protected minority class like blacks....in fact it all flys in the face of being a 'class'....

as individuals you are not being discriminated against either....you can still marry the opposite sex if you choose.....as many have done....

No one ever said they were.

Although homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, such as with race and ethnicity, they are nonetheless a recognized class of persons, entitled to equal protection rights, in the context of their right to self-determination as individuals:

Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions into a dwelling or other private places. In our tradition the State is not omnipresent in the home. And there are other spheres of our lives and existence, outside the home, where the State should not be a dominant presence. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct.

The State cannot demean [the] existence [of homosexuals] or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime. Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government. “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.” [citing Casey]

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

Clearly there is no greater aspect of one’s personal liberty than whom to marry; and clearly the state is in no position to dictate to any person whom he may marry predicated solely on the fact he is a homosexual.

clearly the right to one's personal privacy does not automatically equate to state recognized marriage....

Look back at that case and Scalia's freak out over it. Put it together with precedent set in other right to marry cases and see where you end up...

 

[Seawytch]

there is no proof that it is immutable like skin color is.....just because you are 'immutable' today does not mean you will be the same tomorrow......however everyone knows for sure your skin color will be the same...

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution just as there is no "right to vote", but these have been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. In order to keep an entire group of people from a fundamental right, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. Go ahead and try.

i already have.....you are so biased you can't even see straight......

No, you haven't. Nothing you've said passes the reasonable person standard.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No one ever said they were.

Although homosexuals are not considered a suspect class, such as with race and ethnicity, they are nonetheless a recognized class of persons, entitled to equal protection rights, in the context of their right to self-determination as individuals:



Clearly there is no greater aspect of one’s personal liberty than whom to marry; and clearly the state is in no position to dictate to any person whom he may marry predicated solely on the fact he is a homosexual.

clearly the right to one's personal privacy does not automatically equate to state recognized marriage....

Look back at that case and Scalia's freak out over it. Put it together with precedent set in other right to marry cases and see where you end up...

what i see in all of this is a lot of activist judges legislating from the bench....plus a whole lot of leftie media propaganda.....why not let the people vote for what they want....but then you might wind up with only one or two states for gay marriage...

 

[bodecea]

there is no proof that it is immutable like skin color is.....just because you are 'immutable' today does not mean you will be the same tomorrow......however everyone knows for sure your skin color will be the same...

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

There is no right to marriage in the Constitution just as there is no "right to vote", but these have been declared a fundamental right by the SCOTUS. In order to keep an entire group of people from a fundamental right, you must demonstrate a societal harm in allowing it. Go ahead and try.

i already have.....you are so biased you can't even see straight......

Demonstrate the societal harm? No you have not.

 

[bodecea]

clearly the right to one's personal privacy does not automatically equate to state recognized marriage....

Look back at that case and Scalia's freak out over it. Put it together with precedent set in other right to marry cases and see where you end up...

what i see in all of this is a lot of activist judges legislating from the bench....plus a whole lot of leftie media propaganda.....why not let the people vote for what they want....but then you might wind up with only one or two states for gay marriage...

You think civil rights should be put up for a vote?

 

[WorldWatcher]

what i see in all of this is a lot of activist judges legislating from the bench....plus a whole lot of leftie media propaganda.....why not let the people vote for what they want....but then you might wind up with only one or two states for gay marriage...

Then you've been missing what has been going...

..........There are 11 legal entities where Same-sex Civil Marriage is a reality (9 States + DC)...

................The majority of those entities have Civil Marriage equality because they passed it through the legislature or through votes at the ballot box.




>>>>

 

[sfcalifornia]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?

marriage laws don't discriminate by gender....all men all women can marry....

discrimination doesn't fly....sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like skin color...

So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

there is no proof that it is immutable like skin color is.....just because you are 'immutable' today does not mean you will be the same tomorrow......however everyone knows for sure your skin color will be the same...

I keep telling you, no one is asking for proof. I'm asking you. NOW are you telling us that your sexual preference in the future may not be your sexual preference today? I know mine will be the same in the future.

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

You said there were all kinds of sexual preferences, all which demand a special protected class. I count three. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Are heterosexuals a protected class? Regardless, homosexual marriage is just an expansion of heterosexual marriage. You seem to have a problem with it for some reason. Bisexual marriage?? Until polygamy becomes legal, the bisexual will have to pick one or the other. Still no special protected class there.

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

WHO SAID MARRIAGE WAS A RIGHT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Homosexuals ALREADY get married by churches.

The argument isn't whether the right to marriage is in the Constitution. The argument isn't even whether marriage is a right.

The argument is if heterosexuals get benefits from the federal government when they get married, homosexuals should too. It's really not that difficult.

 

[WorldWatcher]

i can certainly agree about the states compelling interest regarding polygamy......i also believe that children purposely 'engineered' and raised without both mother and father is also a compelling state interest....

or....like abortion....is the interest of children always secondary to adult preferences or 'choices'...?

All I can say is go for it.

Start a movement and get laws passed to deny adoption, sperm donation and egg donation - that children can only be conceived from the genetic material of the two people that will love and raise them. Included with that will be the compelling state interest in barring any divorce if there are minor children in the house.

Good luck.


>>>>

 

[LittleNipper]

so what if my heterosexuality is as immutable as your homosexuality....there's all kinds of different sexual preferences out there....are you going to demand a special protected class for each of them....? ....because each one could say his sexual preference is 'immutable'.....

So NOW sexual orientation IS immutable?


So which is it? Is sexual orientation immutable or not?

And how many sexual preferences can there be? Either you like men or women or both?

That's three.

No one's asking for PROTECTED class. Gay people are asking for EXPANDING the federal marriage recognition. See the difference?

I keep telling you, no one is asking for proof. I'm asking you. NOW are you telling us that your sexual preference in the future may not be your sexual preference today? I know mine will be the same in the future.

if there are just 3 sexual preferences then why not address all 3 at once...? what's the problem...?

You said there were all kinds of sexual preferences, all which demand a special protected class. I count three. Heterosexual, homosexual and bisexual. Are heterosexuals a protected class? Regardless, homosexual marriage is just an expansion of heterosexual marriage. You seem to have a problem with it for some reason. Bisexual marriage?? Until polygamy becomes legal, the bisexual will have to pick one or the other. Still no special protected class there.

i see the difference...you aren't asking for protected class because you have nothing to stand on.....so what is your valid reason for EXPANDING the definition...? there is no right to homosexual marriage in the Constitution.....

WHO SAID MARRIAGE WAS A RIGHT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Homosexuals ALREADY get married by churches.

The argument isn't whether the right to marriage is in the Constitution. The argument isn't even whether marriage is a right.

The argument is if heterosexuals get benefits from the federal government when they get married, homosexuals should too. It's really not that difficult.

Anal and oral sex should be outlawed as physically dangerous. That would end the issue.