Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.
I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.
Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.
Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?
If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.
The fundamental discussion though is the government compelling government interest in treating like groups differently. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.
OK, let's go with your premise that procreation is the central aspect of Civil Marriage.
That doesn't change the fundamental question. If known infertile couples are allowed to Civilly Marry, if old people beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry, if some couples must prove infertility prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry are granted an exception to this fundamental requirement for Civil Marriage...
.........................Then what is the compelling government interest denying the same exception to members in same-sex couples?
If procreation is a requirement, but exceptions are made, then what is the compelling reason for denying the same exception to a like situated group.
For discussion purposes, OK, couples that can procreate are different then couples that can't procreate - got it. Now explain compelling government interest in not granting the same exception to a like group.
>>>>
One would be potential. A couple that is of child bearing age, but might test infertile, but, and I think we all know people that, even though they were told they could never conceive, have children. Got three children in my neighborhood born of parents that were told that they would never have children.
Second, for a different gender couple, a fertility test would need to be administered, would it not? For a same gendered couple a fertility test would never be required.
Just keep coming up with more differences than commonalities.
The fundamental discussion though is the government compelling government interest in treating like groups differently. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.
OK, let's go with your premise that procreation is the central aspect of Civil Marriage.
That doesn't change the fundamental question. If known infertile couples are allowed to Civilly Marry, if old people beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry, if some couples must prove infertility prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry are granted an exception to this fundamental requirement for Civil Marriage...
.........................Then what is the compelling government interest denying the same exception to members in same-sex couples?
If procreation is a requirement, but exceptions are made, then what is the compelling reason for denying the same exception to a like situated group.
For discussion purposes, OK, couples that can procreate are different then couples that can't procreate - got it. Now explain compelling government interest in not granting the same exception to a like group.
>>>>
One would be potential. A couple that is of child bearing age, but might test infertile, but, and I think we all know people that, even though they were told they could never conceive, have children. Got three children in my neighborhood born of parents that were told that they would never have children.
Second, for a different gender couple, a fertility test would need to be administered, would it not? For a same gendered couple a fertility test would never be required.
Just keep coming up with more differences than commonalities.
If childbearing is not required of any couple to be civilly married, how on earth can you justify denying marriage equality to couples you believe cannot conceive but do (gay couples).
40,000 children in CA have same sex parents.
Again, your argument is better suited for not having marriage or civil union at all.
I expressed my reasoning as to why marriage exists as a union between people's of differing genders. Because all couples cannot have, do not wish to have children, or are to old to have children misses the point.
Only the coupling between a male and a female ( or to get even more basic, the components of the two), can create population. Population is required for a government to be needed, and marriage was created so that this population had some order in that creation. An orderly population being required so that a government has a population orderly enough to be governed.
Benefits were given, not because a child exists, but, without the government intruding too much into the private lifes of the participants, because, as a group, male - female coupling has the potential of creating population. Can the same be claimed in same gender couplings?
If not, there is a clear, easily defined difference. If you want to discuss interracial marriage, that is a different discussion altogether.
The fundamental discussion though is the government compelling government interest in treating like groups differently. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.
OK, let's go with your premise that procreation is the central aspect of Civil Marriage.
That doesn't change the fundamental question. If known infertile couples are allowed to Civilly Marry, if old people beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry, if some couples must prove infertility prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry are granted an exception to this fundamental requirement for Civil Marriage...
.........................Then what is the compelling government interest denying the same exception to members in same-sex couples?
If procreation is a requirement, but exceptions are made, then what is the compelling reason for denying the same exception to a like situated group.
For discussion purposes, OK, couples that can procreate are different then couples that can't procreate - got it. Now explain compelling government interest in not granting the same exception to a like group.
>>>>
One would be potential. A couple that is of child bearing age, but might test infertile, but, and I think we all know people that, even though they were told they could never conceive, have children. Got three children in my neighborhood born of parents that were told that they would never have children.
Second, for a different gender couple, a fertility test would need to be administered, would it not? For a same gendered couple a fertility test would never be required.
Just keep coming up with more differences than commonalities.
Arent couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)?
The fundamental discussion though is the government compelling government interest in treating like groups differently. In this case those groups are law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in different-sex couple differently then law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adults in a same-sex couple.
OK, let's go with your premise that procreation is the central aspect of Civil Marriage.
That doesn't change the fundamental question. If known infertile couples are allowed to Civilly Marry, if old people beyond child bearing years are allowed to marry, if some couples must prove infertility prior to being allowed to Civilly Marry are granted an exception to this fundamental requirement for Civil Marriage...
.........................Then what is the compelling government interest denying the same exception to members in same-sex couples?
If procreation is a requirement, but exceptions are made, then what is the compelling reason for denying the same exception to a like situated group.
For discussion purposes, OK, couples that can procreate are different then couples that can't procreate - got it. Now explain compelling government interest in not granting the same exception to a like group.
>>>>
One would be potential. A couple that is of child bearing age, but might test infertile, but, and I think we all know people that, even though they were told they could never conceive, have children. Got three children in my neighborhood born of parents that were told that they would never have children.
Second, for a different gender couple, a fertility test would need to be administered, would it not? For a same gendered couple a fertility test would never be required.
Just keep coming up with more differences than commonalities.
Potential? No.
A man that has had a vasectomy doesn't have a potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry. A woman that has had a hysterectomy doesn't have potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry. A convict behind bars for live doesn't have a potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry.
And states that have laws on the books to provided proof of infertility specifically required that proof be rendered that shows there is no potential.
So the question remains, why when there are like situated groups, does the government have a compelling interest in granting an exception to one group with no potential and denying another group simply because they also don't have a potential.
>>>>
Arent couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)?
Anyone being taxed with what you correctly describe as a "gigantic estate tax" is abhorrent. The solution is to eliminate the abhorrence completely. Then gay couples won't have to pay it.
The amusing part is that in general those who want the estate tax are the ones who want gay couples exempt from it. Why should they be let off the hook for stepping in their own traps?
Arent couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)?
Anyone being taxed with what you correctly describe as a "gigantic estate tax" is abhorrent. The solution is to eliminate the abhorrence completely. Then gay couples won't have to pay it.
The amusing part is that in general those who want the estate tax are the ones who want gay couples exempt from it. Why should they be let off the hook for stepping in their own traps?
No one that I know of wants gay couples to be exempt from the estate tax.
They simply want the estate tax applied equally to Civilly Married couples.
>>>>
One would be potential. A couple that is of child bearing age, but might test infertile, but, and I think we all know people that, even though they were told they could never conceive, have children. Got three children in my neighborhood born of parents that were told that they would never have children.
Second, for a different gender couple, a fertility test would need to be administered, would it not? For a same gendered couple a fertility test would never be required.
Just keep coming up with more differences than commonalities.
Potential? No.
A man that has had a vasectomy doesn't have a potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry. A woman that has had a hysterectomy doesn't have potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry. A convict behind bars for live doesn't have a potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry.
And states that have laws on the books to provided proof of infertility specifically required that proof be rendered that shows there is no potential.
So the question remains, why when there are like situated groups, does the government have a compelling interest in granting an exception to one group with no potential and denying another group simply because they also don't have a potential.
>>>>
Potential? Yes (or more to the point sometimes vs. never)
Vasectomies can be reversed, criminals often are released from prison. Most hysterectomies are performed to prevent future births or to save the life of the women ( should we venture into the implications of Roe v. Wade ). Mostly done after the women has already provided a child.
We can venture also into elderly marriage also? Does this couple have children, grandchildren?
Anyone being taxed with what you correctly describe as a "gigantic estate tax" is abhorrent. The solution is to eliminate the abhorrence completely. Then gay couples won't have to pay it.
The amusing part is that in general those who want the estate tax are the ones who want gay couples exempt from it. Why should they be let off the hook for stepping in their own traps?
No one that I know of wants gay couples to be exempt from the estate tax.
They simply want the estate tax applied equally to Civilly Married couples.
>>>>
Re-read the threads and the posts advocating gay marriage and their justification for it.
Potential? No.
A man that has had a vasectomy doesn't have a potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry. A woman that has had a hysterectomy doesn't have potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry. A convict behind bars for live doesn't have a potential - yet is still allowed to Civilly Marry.
And states that have laws on the books to provided proof of infertility specifically required that proof be rendered that shows there is no potential.
So the question remains, why when there are like situated groups, does the government have a compelling interest in granting an exception to one group with no potential and denying another group simply because they also don't have a potential.
>>>>
Potential? Yes (or more to the point sometimes vs. never)
Vasectomies can be reversed, criminals often are released from prison. Most hysterectomies are performed to prevent future births or to save the life of the women ( should we venture into the implications of Roe v. Wade ). Mostly done after the women has already provided a child.
We can venture also into elderly marriage also? Does this couple have children, grandchildren?
During the time that a man has a vasectomy, he has no potential - that was your requirement.
A criminal can be released true - but that was not a condition of the SCOTUS ruling.
Hysterectomies - now you are moving the goal posts, once a woman has a hysterectormy she no longer has the potential to bear children. Whether she bore children in the past is irrelevant. Under the "potential" argument, she would not be allowed to enter into a new Civil Marriage.
Elderly Couple - again, under the "potential" requirement, whether they had children in the past is irrelevant. There is no benefit (according to the potential) to allowing the Civil Marriage because there will be no future offspring.
Laws Requiring Infertility - you skipped right over this one.
********************************
Nothing personal, but what you are attempting to do is clearly obvious. You can't come up with a compelling government interest as to why same-sex couples should be treated differently than different-sex couples. Even when granted the "potential" requirement that you say exists, known exceptions are granted to different-sex couples that don't meet the requirement and in fact in some cases they are required NOT to have the potential. So explain what is the compelling government interest in not treating the like situated couples the same and not providing the same exception?
>>>>
Arent couples in Civil Unions hit with gigantic estate taxes when the other dies (as opposed to 0% if you're married)?
Anyone being taxed with what you correctly describe as a "gigantic estate tax" is abhorrent. The solution is to eliminate the abhorrence completely. Then gay couples won't have to pay it.
The amusing part is that in general those who want the estate tax are the ones who want gay couples exempt from it. Why should they be let off the hook for stepping in their own traps?
Potential? Yes (or more to the point sometimes vs. never)
Vasectomies can be reversed, criminals often are released from prison. Most hysterectomies are performed to prevent future births or to save the life of the women ( should we venture into the implications of Roe v. Wade ). Mostly done after the women has already provided a child.
We can venture also into elderly marriage also? Does this couple have children, grandchildren?
During the time that a man has a vasectomy, he has no potential - that was your requirement.
A criminal can be released true - but that was not a condition of the SCOTUS ruling.
Hysterectomies - now you are moving the goal posts, once a woman has a hysterectormy she no longer has the potential to bear children. Whether she bore children in the past is irrelevant. Under the "potential" argument, she would not be allowed to enter into a new Civil Marriage.
Elderly Couple - again, under the "potential" requirement, whether they had children in the past is irrelevant. There is no benefit (according to the potential) to allowing the Civil Marriage because there will be no future offspring.
Laws Requiring Infertility - you skipped right over this one.
********************************
Nothing personal, but what you are attempting to do is clearly obvious. You can't come up with a compelling government interest as to why same-sex couples should be treated differently than different-sex couples. Even when granted the "potential" requirement that you say exists, known exceptions are granted to different-sex couples that don't meet the requirement and in fact in some cases they are required NOT to have the potential. So explain what is the compelling government interest in not treating the like situated couples the same and not providing the same exception?
>>>>
First, fill me in on the infiertility laws, I tend not to comment on laws I am not aware of.
Potential, you seem to assume that potential is my only reasoning? Not sure where you got that from, remember, I brought that up as one reason, not the sole reason.
While he has the vasectomy he would be unable to reproduce. And if my only argument was that the fertile should be allowed to Marry, you would be quite right, however, the Man with a vasectomy, because it is reversible, has a greater potential with his female partner than a same gender couple has with their partner ever will, to create a child.
Don't much care what the SCOTUS ruling was on the prison question, but should the prisoner be paroled, new evidence come up and he be cleared, he has far greater potential to create a child with his female partner that a same gender couple would ever have.
Not that either is bad (don't get me wrong), simply different. I am not a one size fits all, all the time, person?
I do not argue that gay couples should be treated separate but equal, simply that the two sets of couples are different enough that a different law seems acceptable as long as it makes the gay couples whole.
During the time that a man has a vasectomy, he has no potential - that was your requirement.
A criminal can be released true - but that was not a condition of the SCOTUS ruling.
Hysterectomies - now you are moving the goal posts, once a woman has a hysterectormy she no longer has the potential to bear children. Whether she bore children in the past is irrelevant. Under the "potential" argument, she would not be allowed to enter into a new Civil Marriage.
Elderly Couple - again, under the "potential" requirement, whether they had children in the past is irrelevant. There is no benefit (according to the potential) to allowing the Civil Marriage because there will be no future offspring.
Laws Requiring Infertility - you skipped right over this one.
********************************
Nothing personal, but what you are attempting to do is clearly obvious. You can't come up with a compelling government interest as to why same-sex couples should be treated differently than different-sex couples. Even when granted the "potential" requirement that you say exists, known exceptions are granted to different-sex couples that don't meet the requirement and in fact in some cases they are required NOT to have the potential. So explain what is the compelling government interest in not treating the like situated couples the same and not providing the same exception?
>>>>
First, fill me in on the infiertility laws, I tend not to comment on laws I am not aware of.
Research 1st Cousin Civil Marriage. Some States bar it, some states allow it only for senior citizens, and some states allow it for non-senior citizens but only if the applicant provide proof to the clerk/court that one or both of them is sterile.
But one interesting point is that EVERY state will recognize Civil Marriage between 1st cousins if the Civil Marriage originate in another state and then resides in a State that doesn't allow it.
State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins
Potential, you seem to assume that potential is my only reasoning? Not sure where you got that from, remember, I brought that up as one reason, not the sole reason.
While he has the vasectomy he would be unable to reproduce. And if my only argument was that the fertile should be allowed to Marry, you would be quite right, however, the Man with a vasectomy, because it is reversible, has a greater potential with his female partner than a same gender couple has with their partner ever will, to create a child.
Don't much care what the SCOTUS ruling was on the prison question, but should the prisoner be paroled, new evidence come up and he be cleared, he has far greater potential to create a child with his female partner that a same gender couple would ever have.
Not that either is bad (don't get me wrong), simply different. I am not a one size fits all, all the time, person?
That's good because procreation, or the potential for procreation (as in confirmation of fertility) is not, not has it ever been a requirement for Civil Marriage.
Now that that is dispensed with.
Feel free to state the next reason so that it can be examined in the same way.
I do not argue that gay couples should be treated separate but equal, simply that the two sets of couples are different enough that a different law seems acceptable as long as it makes the gay couples whole.
By asking for separate law that makes "gay couples whole" that is what "separate but equal" means. A separate set of laws that would allow gay couples to have things be equal - without them being the same.
>>>>
First, fill me in on the infiertility laws, I tend not to comment on laws I am not aware of.
Research 1st Cousin Civil Marriage. Some States bar it, some states allow it only for senior citizens, and some states allow it for non-senior citizens but only if the applicant provide proof to the clerk/court that one or both of them is sterile.
But one interesting point is that EVERY state will recognize Civil Marriage between 1st cousins if the Civil Marriage originate in another state and then resides in a State that doesn't allow it.
State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins
That's good because procreation, or the potential for procreation (as in confirmation of fertility) is not, not has it ever been a requirement for Civil Marriage.
Now that that is dispensed with.
Feel free to state the next reason so that it can be examined in the same way.
I do not argue that gay couples should be treated separate but equal, simply that the two sets of couples are different enough that a different law seems acceptable as long as it makes the gay couples whole.
By asking for separate law that makes "gay couples whole" that is what "separate but equal" means. A separate set of laws that would allow gay couples to have things be equal - without them being the same.
>>>>
Give me a bit to digest the fertility laws, not skirting it, just don't jump to conclusions very often.
My entire argument is that the two sets are different in many many ways. Without even getting into the "mommy parts and daddy parts" argument, which is clearly different. Issues related to the couples face all the time are often more different than they are the same.
A same gender couple (as a group) never has to worry about an unplanned pregnancy. A different gender couple does. The same gender couple does not have to buy birth control to keep from having an unplanned pregnancy, a different gender couple does. Whether the birth control will be effective is only a concern to the different gender couple, and not the same gender couple. The expense of a birth control method is cost associated with the different gendered couple.
If a birth control method does not work is no concern of a same gender couple, but can result in a pregnancy within the different gender couple. The ineffective birth control can result in a pregnancy, nine months of carrying a child and the very painful event, childbirth.
None of that is a result of any male - male "act" or any female - female "act".
Now, is there a difference, or is there not?
The real question is not if there is a difference, but if that difference is great enough to create a different set of laws. I contend that there are, your contention obviously is that there are not.
I would enjoy hearing your side of this.
That's right, part of my argument is procreation.Research 1st Cousin Civil Marriage. Some States bar it, some states allow it only for senior citizens, and some states allow it for non-senior citizens but only if the applicant provide proof to the clerk/court that one or both of them is sterile.
But one interesting point is that EVERY state will recognize Civil Marriage between 1st cousins if the Civil Marriage originate in another state and then resides in a State that doesn't allow it.
State Laws Regarding Marriages Between First Cousins
That's good because procreation, or the potential for procreation (as in confirmation of fertility) is not, not has it ever been a requirement for Civil Marriage.
Now that that is dispensed with.
Feel free to state the next reason so that it can be examined in the same way.
By asking for separate law that makes "gay couples whole" that is what "separate but equal" means. A separate set of laws that would allow gay couples to have things be equal - without them being the same.
>>>>
Give me a bit to digest the fertility laws, not skirting it, just don't jump to conclusions very often.
Pretty straightforward, there are states that require proof of inability to reproduce as a condition of Civil Marriage.
Which throws a big whole in the procreation argument.
You keep going back to the procreation argument. That same-sex and different-sex couple are different because one can procreate and one can't.
But procreation has never been a requirement for Civil Marriage. (In the past it was a legal reason to seek a divorce, but that is another discussion.)
You say (and I paraphrase), "but that was the intent", OK - I gave you that (not really, but just as a point of discussion). But with that, there is still the fact that known infertile couples who will never be able to procreate are still allowed to Civilly Marry and as a matter of fact some couples must prove infertility before being allowed to Civilly Marry.
Given those conditions then, laws were written and passed to target a specific group - to keep the homosexuals from Civilly Marrying. If procreation then is the basis of the argument and an exception to the procreation requirement is provided for infertile different-sex couples - then under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - it becomes the responsibility for the government to articulate a compelling government interest in justifying why two like situated groups are treated differently. Especially when the historical record shows that the reason for the passage of such laws was based on moral disapproval for the identified group.
Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?
From a government compelling interest standpoint - I'd go with "not".
The real question is not if there is a difference, but if that difference is great enough to create a different set of laws. I contend that there are, your contention obviously is that there are not.
From a legal perspective I would not say that there is a difference between the groups.
The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"
I would enjoy hearing your side of this.
OK
>>>>
That's right, part of my argument is procreation.Give me a bit to digest the fertility laws, not skirting it, just don't jump to conclusions very often.
Pretty straightforward, there are states that require proof of inability to reproduce as a condition of Civil Marriage.
Which throws a big whole in the procreation argument.
You keep going back to the procreation argument. That same-sex and different-sex couple are different because one can procreate and one can't.
But procreation has never been a requirement for Civil Marriage. (In the past it was a legal reason to seek a divorce, but that is another discussion.)
You say (and I paraphrase), "but that was the intent", OK - I gave you that (not really, but just as a point of discussion). But with that, there is still the fact that known infertile couples who will never be able to procreate are still allowed to Civilly Marry and as a matter of fact some couples must prove infertility before being allowed to Civilly Marry.
Given those conditions then, laws were written and passed to target a specific group - to keep the homosexuals from Civilly Marrying. If procreation then is the basis of the argument and an exception to the procreation requirement is provided for infertile different-sex couples - then under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - it becomes the responsibility for the government to articulate a compelling government interest in justifying why two like situated groups are treated differently. Especially when the historical record shows that the reason for the passage of such laws was based on moral disapproval for the identified group.
Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?
From a government compelling interest standpoint - I'd go with "not".
From a legal perspective I would not say that there is a difference between the groups.
The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"
I would enjoy hearing your side of this.
OK
>>>>
Let change your question just a wee bit if that's ok? Between, law abiding, tax paying, related, whether they are fertile or infertile, consenting adult, US Citizen. What is the compelling interest in not allowing them to Marry.
Interesting, isn't it?
I'm tired of all this civil union's ain't good enough and semantical bullshit, they can amend some aspects of civil unions to give equal legl rights to gays but leave marriage alone.
Before I continue the discussion, let me express my sympathy at your loss. Losing a sibling is hard. Those that have not gone through it will never understand it.That's right, part of my argument is procreation.Pretty straightforward, there are states that require proof of inability to reproduce as a condition of Civil Marriage.
Which throws a big whole in the procreation argument.
You keep going back to the procreation argument. That same-sex and different-sex couple are different because one can procreate and one can't.
But procreation has never been a requirement for Civil Marriage. (In the past it was a legal reason to seek a divorce, but that is another discussion.)
You say (and I paraphrase), "but that was the intent", OK - I gave you that (not really, but just as a point of discussion). But with that, there is still the fact that known infertile couples who will never be able to procreate are still allowed to Civilly Marry and as a matter of fact some couples must prove infertility before being allowed to Civilly Marry.
Given those conditions then, laws were written and passed to target a specific group - to keep the homosexuals from Civilly Marrying. If procreation then is the basis of the argument and an exception to the procreation requirement is provided for infertile different-sex couples - then under the Grievance Clause of the 1st Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment - it becomes the responsibility for the government to articulate a compelling government interest in justifying why two like situated groups are treated differently. Especially when the historical record shows that the reason for the passage of such laws was based on moral disapproval for the identified group.
Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?
From a government compelling interest standpoint - I'd go with "not".
From a legal perspective I would not say that there is a difference between the groups.
The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"
OK
>>>>
Let change your question just a wee bit if that's ok? Between, law abiding, tax paying, related, whether they are fertile or infertile, consenting adult, US Citizen. What is the compelling interest in not allowing them to Marry.
Interesting, isn't it?
I'm assuming that you are referring relationships between individuals where a close-family relationship already exists.
We (the collective "we") have been debating Same-sex Civil Marriage for going on two decades. The challenges have been filed, research has been done, each side has presented their case, the arguments have been examined. In some cases the courts have sided against Civil Marriage for homosexuals, on other cases they have come ruled in favor of homosexuals. The bills have been filed with the legislatures, in some cases they were defeated, in others they were passed. The initiatives/referendums have been placed before the voters, in some cases they were defeated, in others they were passed. We've had a vigorous public debate on the subject for years.
I would say that such a review process can be used examine the issue you raise so that we as a society can make an informed decision based on logic and reason as opposed to relying on tradition and myth.
I have two sisters, well I had two sisters, the older one passed a few years ago. My oldest sister began to have serious medical problems as they got older and I live a long way away from our hometown. My other sister then became the primary caregiver for our other sister. Blindness, renal failure, heart problems, etc. My older sister was so disabled that there was no way she could continue to work and it took years to navigate SSI/MediCare to get her the help she needed and to get assistance with the medical bills. If they had been able to marry it would have made life much easier in terms of dealing with the doctors and the hospitals, it would have made dealing with the Social Security Administration much easier, and it would have helped financially for the older sister to be able to have insurance through my other sister.
>>>>
Before I continue the discussion, let me express my sympathy at your loss. Losing a sibling is hard. Those that have not gone through it will never understand it.That's right, part of my argument is procreation.
Let change your question just a wee bit if that's ok? Between, law abiding, tax paying, related, whether they are fertile or infertile, consenting adult, US Citizen. What is the compelling interest in not allowing them to Marry.
Interesting, isn't it?
I'm assuming that you are referring relationships between individuals where a close-family relationship already exists.
We (the collective "we") have been debating Same-sex Civil Marriage for going on two decades. The challenges have been filed, research has been done, each side has presented their case, the arguments have been examined. In some cases the courts have sided against Civil Marriage for homosexuals, on other cases they have come ruled in favor of homosexuals. The bills have been filed with the legislatures, in some cases they were defeated, in others they were passed. The initiatives/referendums have been placed before the voters, in some cases they were defeated, in others they were passed. We've had a vigorous public debate on the subject for years.
I would say that such a review process can be used examine the issue you raise so that we as a society can make an informed decision based on logic and reason as opposed to relying on tradition and myth.
I have two sisters, well I had two sisters, the older one passed a few years ago. My oldest sister began to have serious medical problems as they got older and I live a long way away from our hometown. My other sister then became the primary caregiver for our other sister. Blindness, renal failure, heart problems, etc. My older sister was so disabled that there was no way she could continue to work and it took years to navigate SSI/MediCare to get her the help she needed and to get assistance with the medical bills. If they had been able to marry it would have made life much easier in terms of dealing with the doctors and the hospitals, it would have made dealing with the Social Security Administration much easier, and it would have helped financially for the older sister to be able to have insurance through my other sister.
>>>>
I purposely left out the sexual orientation of the relatives. If both are equal, or not different, than that would not be important to the question, would it?
My opinion is that, if same gender marriage is not different than opposite gender marriage, the answer is simple. The Government has either no compelling interest, or they have a compelling interest.
Can't be both, or can it?
Before I continue the discussion, let me express my sympathy at your loss. Losing a sibling is hard. Those that have not gone through it will never understand it.I'm assuming that you are referring relationships between individuals where a close-family relationship already exists.
We (the collective "we") have been debating Same-sex Civil Marriage for going on two decades. The challenges have been filed, research has been done, each side has presented their case, the arguments have been examined. In some cases the courts have sided against Civil Marriage for homosexuals, on other cases they have come ruled in favor of homosexuals. The bills have been filed with the legislatures, in some cases they were defeated, in others they were passed. The initiatives/referendums have been placed before the voters, in some cases they were defeated, in others they were passed. We've had a vigorous public debate on the subject for years.
I would say that such a review process can be used examine the issue you raise so that we as a society can make an informed decision based on logic and reason as opposed to relying on tradition and myth.
I have two sisters, well I had two sisters, the older one passed a few years ago. My oldest sister began to have serious medical problems as they got older and I live a long way away from our hometown. My other sister then became the primary caregiver for our other sister. Blindness, renal failure, heart problems, etc. My older sister was so disabled that there was no way she could continue to work and it took years to navigate SSI/MediCare to get her the help she needed and to get assistance with the medical bills. If they had been able to marry it would have made life much easier in terms of dealing with the doctors and the hospitals, it would have made dealing with the Social Security Administration much easier, and it would have helped financially for the older sister to be able to have insurance through my other sister.
>>>>
Thank you, with the assistance of the Red Cross I was able to return home from overseas for a couple of weeks to be with her at the end. By that time she was still in a lot of pain and she took med's for that, but at the end she was a peace with her family around her.
I purposely left out the sexual orientation of the relatives. If both are equal, or not different, than that would not be important to the question, would it?
Nope, probably not an issue in the context of the question which is to assume that Same-sex Civil Marriage becomes a reality.
My opinion is that, if same gender marriage is not different than opposite gender marriage, the answer is simple. The Government has either no compelling interest, or they have a compelling interest.
Can't be both, or can it?
Not necessarily that simple, as that debate has not been going on.
What most people use close-family Civil Marriage as is a (not saying you of course, but most people) throw close-family Civil Marriage, bestiality, raping children (pedophilia) and bigamy out for is as a fear mongering tactic. The tactic is to dehumanize same-sex couples and associate them with other classes of less than desirable relationships (close-family members), animal fornicators, and child rapists.
The tactic is really transparent and results from an inability to define a coherent argument, form a civil law standpoint, against Same-sex Civil Marriage. The only time that tactic really works is when used within an echo chamber of like minded individuals. It doesn't work with logical thinkers nor with the younger generation that sees through it and support marriage equality in very high numbers.
>>>>
