Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[Pop23]

You still failed to answer the question. Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage of non-familial adults.

As was pointed out to you, incestuous sex is illegal, homosexual sex is not. So incestuous sex is a compelling state interest for disallowing siblings from marrying as it is reasonable to assume that sexual relations will occur with the marriage.

And you seem to be making the assumption that same sex siblings having sex ual intercourse would not be incestuous sex, but it is.

However, you still have not answered the question:

What is the compelling state interest for disallowing same sex marriage of non-familial adults?

Ok I think your gonna like this.

The answer to World Watchers question is and always will be that the compelling government interest is.......(insert drumroll here)

PROCREATION

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?

<<SNIP>>

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?"​

PROCREATION doesn't answer the question because the question is about infertile couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry.

So the question is what is the government compelling interest in denying Civil Marriage to one group that can't procreate while allowing another group who can't procreate if the compelling government interest is procreation. If that were the case then nether group would be allowed to Civilly Marry.

In addition there are laws that specifically require that the couple can't procreate before being allowed to Civilly Marry.

So the "procreation" argument makes no sense.

Now before you respond that it can't be, please remember that the ADA covers people with disabilities (unless you claim homosexuality is a disability).

What does the American's with Disabilities Act have to do with the subject?


>>>>

Oh, but the ADA is the answer. The infertile couple that can't procreate because their reproductive systems don't function properly could easily claim that they are being denied access to marriage based on disability. The same claim could be made by the couple past the age of procreation. The same gender couple could not make a claim using the ADA.

Now, moving on to those surgically sterile. Here comes the impact Roe V. Wade had on reproductive rights and privacy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, but the ADA is the answer. The infertile couple that can't procreate because their reproductive systems don't function properly could easily claim that they are being denied access to marriage based on disability. The same claim could be made by the couple past the age of procreation. The same gender couple could not make a claim using the ADA.

Now, moving on to those surgically sterile. Here comes the impact Roe V. Wade had on reproductive rights and privacy.

Wow, you seem to be going off the deep end. I understand you can't articulate a compelling government interest in denying Same-sex Civil Marriage for one group that is infertile while allowing it for another group that is infertile. I know that conflicts with the paradigm that the compelling government interest is procreation - I get that.

But the ADA? Having anything to do with Civil Marriage is a pretty big stretch. First of all Civil Marriage laws are based on the couple. For example both Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter were allowed to Civilly Marry - but they were denied Civil Marriage to each other (to become the Lovings of Loving v. Virginia). The ADA on the other hand applies to individuals, unlike Civil Marriage which functions based on a couple.

"Sec. 12112. Discrimination


(a) General rule
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified
individual with a disability because of the disability of such
individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring,
advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job
training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of
employment."​

>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Oh, but the ADA is the answer. The infertile couple that can't procreate because their reproductive systems don't function properly could easily claim that they are being denied access to marriage based on disability. The same claim could be made by the couple past the age of procreation. The same gender couple could not make a claim using the ADA.

Now, moving on to those surgically sterile. Here comes the impact Roe V. Wade had on reproductive rights and privacy.

Wow, you seem to be going off the deep end. I understand you can't articulate a compelling government interest in denying Same-sex Civil Marriage for one group that is infertile while allowing it for another group that is infertile. I know that conflicts with the paradigm that the compelling government interest is procreation - I get that.

But the ADA? Having anything to do with Civil Marriage is a pretty big stretch. First of all Civil Marriage laws are based on the couple. For example both Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter were allowed to Civilly Marry - but they were denied Civil Marriage to each other (to become the Lovings of Loving v. Virginia). The ADA on the other hand applies to individuals, unlike Civil Marriage which functions based on a couple.

"Sec. 12112. Discrimination


(a) General rule
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified
individual with a disability because of the disability of such
individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring,
advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job
training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of
employment."​

>>>>

The deep end? Really? Any deeper then thinking a same gender couple is the same as a different gender couple as it applies to marriage?

If this issue was a rubber band, my stretch would make the band tight, same sex marriage stretches it to the point of breaking. IMHO

Interesting how you post the section of the ADA that applies to employment. Why not instead use the section that addresses the angle of ramps??? Really?

Is there any real discussion required as to if an infertile couple, the infertity being a result of injury, illness, age or birth defect is handicapped in their ability to reproduce? Or in other words disabled? I think not and, the ADA is ever changing. Until now there was never a need to apply it to reproductive disabilities, but if fertility would be a stumbling block to a governmental issued marriage license, the powers that be would take roughly 3 seconds to include it.

So, keep the infertility section in your question and it simply is moot.

Why I can't articulate the argument is that the basis is skewed.

The compelling government interest is that same gender relations cannot create population, population being required for the government to even exist. The reasoning that marriage exists only for individuals of different genders is that, even though same gender couples can, and sometimes do, adopt or have children through in vitro, the child ALWAYS comes, at least partially with a component from outside the relationship.
Married couples can raise children brought into the world by these very same methods, the different gender couple can add children created completely from within the interaction of the two individual, making their relationship unique enough that the requirement that two members in marriage must be of opposite genders.

I haven't even touched the implications that Roe V Wade has with reproductive privacy. Again rendering the infertility of the individual again moot.

I wonder if I pointed out to my Representative that I found a flaw in the ADA that has only recently come up, how long it would take to get this obvious disability addresses? I'm betting not too darn long.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Oh, but the ADA is the answer. The infertile couple that can't procreate because their reproductive systems don't function properly could easily claim that they are being denied access to marriage based on disability. The same claim could be made by the couple past the age of procreation. The same gender couple could not make a claim using the ADA.

Now, moving on to those surgically sterile. Here comes the impact Roe V. Wade had on reproductive rights and privacy.

Wow, you seem to be going off the deep end. I understand you can't articulate a compelling government interest in denying Same-sex Civil Marriage for one group that is infertile while allowing it for another group that is infertile. I know that conflicts with the paradigm that the compelling government interest is procreation - I get that.

But the ADA? Having anything to do with Civil Marriage is a pretty big stretch. First of all Civil Marriage laws are based on the couple. For example both Mr. Loving and Ms. Jeter were allowed to Civilly Marry - but they were denied Civil Marriage to each other (to become the Lovings of Loving v. Virginia). The ADA on the other hand applies to individuals, unlike Civil Marriage which functions based on a couple.

"Sec. 12112. Discrimination


(a) General rule
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified
individual with a disability because of the disability of such
individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring,
advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job
training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of
employment."​

>>>>

The deep end? Really? Any deeper then thinking a same gender couple is the same as a different gender couple as it applies to marriage?

Recognizing that there is no difference, from a government compelling interest viewpoint, for same-sex and different-sex couples isn't a stretch.

Interesting how you post the section of the ADA that applies to employment.

SUBCHAPTER I - EMPLOYMENT
Sec. 12112. Discrimination
(a) General rule
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified
individual with a disability because of the disability of such
individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring,
advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job
training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of
employment.

Subchapter II - Public Services
Sec. 12132. Discrimination
Subject to the provisions of this subchapter, no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability,
be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the
services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be
subjected to discrimination by any such entity.

SUBCHAPTER III - PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND SERVICES OPERATED BY PRIVATE ENTITIES
Sec. 12182. Prohibition of discrimination by public accommodations
(a) General rule
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of
disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place
of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases
to), or operates a place of public accommodation.
(b) Construction​

There are three functional subchapters to the ADA, each is based on the condition of the individual.

Is there any real discussion required as to if an infertile couple, the infertity being a result of injury, illness, age or birth defect is handicapped in their ability to reproduce? Or in other words disabled? I think not and, the ADA is ever changing. Until now there was never a need to apply it to reproductive disabilities, but if fertility would be a stumbling block to a governmental issued marriage license, the powers that be would take roughly 3 seconds to include it.

For ADA purposes the evaluation is based on the individual, not the couple. The ADA nowhere speaks to a couple being infertile as a disability. An individual can be infertile and that could be considered a disability, but that is an individual evaluation.

So, keep the infertility section in your question and it simply is moot.

It's only moot when you admit that procreation is not a requirement of Civil Marriage. When you attempt procreation a requirement of Civil Marriage, then it is not moot. If you insist that it is, then those who do will be continually asked to provide the compelling government interest (which they have not been able to articulate to date) why an exception is made for one group of infertile people and not for another. If the requirement is fertility and one group is granted the exception and the other isn't, then infertility isn't really the reason the second group is denied the exception.

Then of course there are laws that require proof of infertility prior to getting a license.

Why I can't articulate the argument is that the basis is skewed.

The basis in skewed, the basis is right on track. If procreation is the reason and one group is denied and another group is excempted, then asking for the reason for the different treatment isn't skewed, it's directly to the point.

The compelling government interest is that same gender relations cannot create population, population being required for the government to even exist. The reasoning that marriage exists only for individuals of different genders is that, even though same gender couples can, and sometimes do, adopt or have children through in vitro, the child ALWAYS comes, at least partially with a component from outside the relationship.
Married couples can raise children brought into the world by these very same methods, the different gender couple can add children created completely from within the interaction of the two individual, making their relationship unique enough that the requirement that two members in marriage must be of opposite genders.

However Civil Marriage isn't denied those that can't procreate, nor has it ever been denied to those who can't procreate even when it is known that they can't procreate.

Then of course there are laws that require proof of infertility prior to getting a license.

Being homosexual does not mean one is infertile

Homosexuals can procreate in exactly the same manner that infertile heterosexual couples procreate (when one or both partners have fertility issues). The last census showed that 25% of same-sex couples were raising children. During oral arguments in the Prop 8 case it was pointed out that there are 40,000 children of same-sex families in California who are denied Civil Marriage for their parents.

The "procreation" argument does not stand up to logical examination when procreation has never been a requirement for Civil Marriage, there are laws that require infertility to become Civilly Married, and Civil Marriage is denied to families that have procreated the same ways that different-sex couples (who are not denied Civil Marriage) who may also have difficulty bearing children do.

I wonder if I pointed out to my Representative that I found a flaw in the ADA that has only recently come up, how long it would take to get this obvious disability addresses? I'm betting not too darn long.

I'm betting nothing would ever happen, defining a "couple" for disability purposes is not the purpose of the ADA.

But knock yourself out. Here is the link to the House of Representatives, if you don't have it you can get your Representatives contact information there -->> http://www.house.gov/


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Now your being evasive. Of course infertility is of the individual. When we speak of marriage we speak in terms of couples because two individuals is required to make a couple.

In terms of same gender couples procreating in the same way that opposite gender couples procreate. Lets examine this.

Same sex reproduction methods available to a defined same gender couple:

In vitro - third participant REQUIRED from outside the marriage
Adoption - at least 1 participant from outside the marriage REQUIRED
And finally, havering someone from outside the marriage carry a child created from a component within the marriage. Still an outside component is required.

Different gender methods available to reproduce within a defined couple?

All of the above plus through a pregnancy occurring from intercourse between the two partners in the marriage.

But this one, showing a HUGE difference, is important and, just like intercourse by the two individuals in the marriage

In vitro where the components required are supplied by the two individuals in the marriage.

Name the children in a same gender relationship ever born through intercourse between the two partners within the relationship, with combined genetics from those two, or one born through in in vitro, with combined genetics from the two individuals and I will have to say the two are equal.

Oh, the different gender couples in vitro, using components from the different partners is often used with couples who have difficulty procreating, so no, I'm not being evasive.

Still more and more differences. You bring up interracial marriage. Far more commonalities between whites and blacks than I'm finding it this.

Edited to add. You are right, they do procreate in the same manner when the different gender couple is infertile. No doubt about it.

In some cases they are infertile due to circumstances beyond their control, not a fair comparison as a disability exists. In other cases it is a form of birth control. The same gender couple needs not worry about birth control.

Still, all this continues to show how unique the different gender couple to any other.
I

 

[WorldWatcher]

Now your being evasive. Of course infertility is of the individual. When we speak of marriage we speak in terms of couples because two individuals is required to make a couple.

In terms of same gender couples procreating in the same way that opposite gender couples procreate. Lets examine this.

Same sex reproduction methods available to a defined same gender couple:

In vitro - third participant REQUIRED from outside the marriage
Adoption - at least 1 participant from outside the marriage REQUIRED
And finally, havering someone from outside the marriage carry a child created from a component within the marriage. Still an outside component is required.

Different gender methods available to reproduce within a defined couple?

All of the above plus through a pregnancy occurring from intercourse between the two partners in the marriage.

But this one, showing a HUGE difference, is important and, just like intercourse by the two individuals in the marriage

In vitro where the components required are supplied by the two individuals in the marriage.

Name the children in a same gender relationship ever born through intercourse between the two partners within the relationship, with combined genetics from those two, or one born through in in vitro, with combined genetics from the two individuals and I will have to say the two are equal.

Oh, the different gender couples in vitro, using components from the different partners is often used with couples who have difficulty procreating, so no, I'm not being evasive.

Still more and more differences. You bring up interracial marriage. Far more commonalities between whites and blacks than I'm finding it this.


I

Not being evasive, just not buying your argument.

So, if procreation is a condition of Ciivil Marriage...

1. Name one state that requires either (a) fertility testing, (b) a written commitment to having children as a biological product of both spouses without biological material from outside the two prospective spouses.

2. Name one state that limits IVF to (a) Civilly Married Couples, and (b) requires that the biological materials used (egg & sperm) must originate from the Civilly Married Couple.

3. Name one state that limits sperm donation so that those in a Civilly Married state cannot use an outside 3rd party.

4. Name one state that limits adoption to only the biological sperm donor and the biological egg donor when the adoptive couple is in a Civil Marriage. (Could happen, under "presumed parentage laws" the spouses are the legal parents of a child born in wedlock. However if the child is born out of wedlock and the couple later Civilly Marries the father would then have to adopt the child to become, not only the biological parent, but the legal parent as well.)​

There is no state in the union that requires fertility and or procreation as a condition of Civil Marriage, as a mater of fact there are some that require INFERTILITY as a condition of Civil Marriage. And there are not states that require either individual to be the biological parents in the case of IVF (donors can supply both the egg and sperm), nor is there any state that requires either one or both in a perspective adoption to be biologically related to the child. Adoptions often occur where there is no biological relationship between the parents and the child.



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

You keep bringing up the states that couples must prove the couples are infertile so they can marry. Incest is being protected against. A victim, the potential deformed child is being protected. Do I agree they should be included in marriage? Nope, too closely related.

But even then, those laws imply sex leading to procreation.

This appears to be more about destroying marriage as an institution then expanding it to be more inclusive.

The law gives the opportunity for all to Marry. The only ones that are discriminated against are the ones that choose not to participate in it. Quite different than interracial marriage.

 

[Ravi]

You keep bringing up the states that couples must prove the couples are infertile so they can marry. Incest is being protected against. A victim, the potential deformed child is being protected. Do I agree they should be included in marriage? Nope, too closely related.

But even then, those laws imply sex leading to procreation.

This appears to be more about destroying marriage as an institution then expanding it to be more inclusive.

The law gives the opportunity for all to Marry. The only ones that are discriminated against are the ones that choose not to participate in it. Quite different than interracial marriage.

Gay sex doesn't lead to procreation so your basic premise is silly.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You keep bringing up the states that couples must prove the couples are infertile so they can marry. Incest...

I bring up states that have require infertility because they blow the "fertility" argument out of the water.

Incest is a different issue and has no bearing on when same-sex couples will eventually be allowed to Civilly Marry.

But even then, those laws imply sex leading to procreation.

Laws that require infertility as a condition of Civil Marriage in no way imply sex leading to procreation. Not procreating is kind of the whole idea of requiring proof of infertility.

This appears to be more about destroying marriage as an institution then expanding it to be more inclusive.

No, it's about equal treatment under the law for law abiding citizens when there is no compelling government interest in perpetuating unneeded discrimination.

The law gives the opportunity for all to Marry. The only ones that are discriminated against are the ones that choose not to participate in it.

The law gave all the opportunity to marry even when there were laws against interracial marriage. Coloreds could marry coloreds and white could marry whites - each had the opportunity to marry. Just not each other.

All the coloreds and whites had to do was choose not to participate in it with someone of a different race. (Psst - that argument was tried by the Commonwealth of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia, the SCOTUS didn't buy it then either).

Quite different than interracial marriage.

Actually if you research the arguments used against interracial marriage and the ones being used against same-sex marriage they are eerily similar.

Discriminating based on race is very similar to discriminating based on sex, both are biological conditions under the law.


>>>>

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Still, all this continues to show how unique the different gender couple to any other.
I

What this continues to show is your complete lack of understanding with regard to the fundamental legal principles involved.

 

[Pop23]

Then why allow marriages to those who are sterile or those who have stated they do not want children?

The current institution of marriage is available to those who choose to have children. That number is not impacted by gays, infertile or unwilling couples

Gay marriages also can have children if they want to

Not my argument at all. Births among couples that include a male and a female (or the components of those genders) comprise 100% of of the whole. To say that one group of couples (male - female), are, for repopulation purposes, equal to another group (same gender), is not realistic.

The argument you make is better suited for dropping Marriage, and civil unions all together. IMHO.

The fact is that we have an all inclusive definition of marriage. We allow old people to marry even though they have no ability to have children, we allow infertile couples to marry, we allow divorced people to remarry even though they have already failed at marriage.....we even allow black and white people to marry

Yet gays are excluded

Yours is a valid point, but as I have said before it is actually a better argument for marriage and/ or civil marriage to no longer exist (at least in a legal sense, as as we commonly think of it) than it is to blend the two together.

In any case, those couples that want to retain a marriage relationship can still do so, just find a church to perform the service.

What is today known as a state sponsored marriage ends.

The state sponsored institution (let's call that George), starts as a union between two adults, without many of the benefits that married couples have today, maybe add a few to give it some zing, then when a child is brought into the equation......BAM, it turns from a George relationship into the newly established Fred relationship (equivalent to a marriage), with all of the same benefits of today's.

I think you were correct when you said, the train has left the station. Not sure i agree that the train is on the right track or not, but it has left, and the only way to stop it appears to be either SCOTUS completely surprising me in June, or a Constitutional amendment, that I don't see getting enough support to pass.

 

[Flaylo]

Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

Why can't straight people just stop thinking about gays and be done with it?

Strawman argument, STFU.

 

[Flaylo]

Its simple people, everbody can marry but can't have the marriage of their choice that suits whatever lifetsyle they live, simple as that, if a homosexual wants to marry he/she can, but it must be a member of the oppposite sex, stop comparing the shit to interracial marriage because it isn't and as the product of an interracial marriage myself I'm offended at that comparison.

 

[ScienceRocks]

A reason to be against it is the fact that the stronger man will be abusive towards the other. It's pretty much a relationship between the stronger controller and the weaker male. Isn't a pretty sight to behold.

The stronger man will beat the hell out of the weaker one. This is how it works...

 

[ABikerSailor]

You keep bringing up the states that couples must prove the couples are infertile so they can marry. Incest is being protected against. A victim, the potential deformed child is being protected. Do I agree they should be included in marriage? Nope, too closely related.

But even then, those laws imply sex leading to procreation.

This appears to be more about destroying marriage as an institution then expanding it to be more inclusive.

The law gives the opportunity for all to Marry. The only ones that are discriminated against are the ones that choose not to participate in it. Quite different than interracial marriage.

Gay sex doesn't lead to procreation so your basic premise is silly.

Marriages between people over the age of 50 don't really lead to procreation either.

Should we stop all couples who are over the age of 50 from marrying as well?

 

[Unkotare]

A reason to be against it is the fact that the stronger man will be abusive towards the other. It's pretty much a relationship between the stronger controller and the weaker male. Isn't a pretty sight to behold.

The stronger man will beat the hell out of the weaker one. This is how it works...

Work out the issues you have from getting your ass kicked all your life with your shrink, loser. No one wants to hear it.

 

[Flaylo]

You keep bringing up the states that couples must prove the couples are infertile so they can marry. Incest is being protected against. A victim, the potential deformed child is being protected. Do I agree they should be included in marriage? Nope, too closely related.

But even then, those laws imply sex leading to procreation.

This appears to be more about destroying marriage as an institution then expanding it to be more inclusive.

The law gives the opportunity for all to Marry. The only ones that are discriminated against are the ones that choose not to participate in it. Quite different than interracial marriage.

Gay sex doesn't lead to procreation so your basic premise is silly.

Marriages between people over the age of 50 don't really lead to procreation either.

Should we stop all couples who are over the age of 50 from marrying as well?

And by that logic we should let siblings marry but forbid them to have children in order to have marriage equality right?

 

[Noomi]

A reason to be against it is the fact that the stronger man will be abusive towards the other. It's pretty much a relationship between the stronger controller and the weaker male. Isn't a pretty sight to behold.

The stronger man will beat the hell out of the weaker one. This is how it works...

WTF? Do you assume that a stronger man will beat up his much smaller, and weaker wife?

 

[Seawytch]

Its simple people, everbody can marry but can't have the marriage of their choice that suits whatever lifetsyle they live, simple as that, if a homosexual wants to marry he/she can, but it must be a member of the oppposite sex, stop comparing the shit to interracial marriage because it isn't and as the product of an interracial marriage myself I'm offended at that comparison.

Let's start with the FACT that marriage is not between only a man and a woman in nine states and the District of Columbia (and soon in CA). Secondly, what is being compared is discrimination...and those are exactly the same. Here's some examples...

Gay or interracial?

1. This type of legal marriage must be forbidden, said the Republican senator from Wisconsin, “simply because natural instinct revolts at it as wrong.”

2. An organization opposed to this type of marriage claimed that legalizing it would result in “a degraded and ignoble population incapable of moral and intellectual development.”
“I believe that the tendency to classify all persons who oppose XXXX marriage as ‘prejudiced’ is in itself a prejudice,” claimed a noted psychologist.

3. A U.S. representative from Georgia declared that allowing this type of marriage “necessarily involves (the) degradation” of conventional marriage, an institution that “deserves admiration rather than execration.”

4. “The next step will be (the demand for) a law allowing them, without restraint, to … have free and unrestrained social intercourse with your unmarried sons and daughters,” warned a Kentucky congressman. “It is bound to come to that. There is no disguising the fact. And the sooner the alarm is given and the people take heed, the better it will be for our civilization.”

5. “When people (like this) marry, they cannot possibly have any progeny,” wrote an appeals judge in a Missouri case. “And such a fact sufficiently justifies those laws which forbid their marriages.”

6. These types of marriages are “abominable,” according to Virginia law. If allowed, they would “pollute” America.

7. In denying the appeal of this type of couple that had tried unsuccessfully to marry, a Georgia court wrote that such unions are “not only unnatural, but … always productive of deplorable results,” such as increased effeminate behavior in the population. “They are productive of evil, and evil only, without any corresponding good … (in accordance with) the God of nature.”

8. A ban on this type of marriage is not discriminatory, reasoned a Republican congressman from Illinois, because it “applies equally to men and women.”

9. Attorneys for the state of Tennessee argued that such unions should be illegal because they are “distasteful to our people and unfit to produce the human race.” The state Supreme Court agreed, declaring these types of marriages would be “a calamity full of the saddest and gloomiest portent to the generations that are to come after us.”

10. Lawyers for California insisted that a ban on this type of marriage is necessary to prevent “traditional marriage from being contaminated by the recognition of relationships that are physically and mentally inferior,” and entered into by “the dregs of society.”

11. “The law concerning marriages is to be construed and understood in relation to those persons only to whom that law relates,” thundered a Virginia judge in response to a challenge to that state’s non-recognition of these types of unions. “And not,” he continued, “to a class of persons clearly not within the idea of the legislature when contemplating the subject of marriage.”

 

[rightwinger]

Gay sex doesn't lead to procreation so your basic premise is silly.

Marriages between people over the age of 50 don't really lead to procreation either.

Should we stop all couples who are over the age of 50 from marrying as well?

And by that logic we should let siblings marry but forbid them to have children in order to have marriage equality right?

If siblings are unable to have children, what practical interest does government have in preventing them from marrying? Other than the yuck factor, why block it?