DOMA @ SCOTUS - Oral Arguments

Why is it that only gays and lesbians can't be denied marriage?

 

strawman

 

That's your personal opinion. The plaintiffs entire case relies upon the claim that their rights are being violated based upon their sexual orientation, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. Treating men and women differently based upon their gender, because only women give birth and only men father those children is perfectly constitutional. Not motivated by animus towards women but instead a recognition of the biology of procreation. But these courts creating gay marriage have to distance marriage from any relation to gender and procreation and portray discrimination of marriage, CLEARLY based upon the very real, biological differences of gender, and instead portray the discrimination as based upon sexual orientation, motivated by animus towards homosexuals.

 

"Gays and Lesbians" are not being denied marriage. Men and women are being denied marriage because of their gender.

 

False.

The DOMA case relates to inheritance of a legally married person and has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. All married couples deserve equal protection under the law based upon the 14th Amendment. The federal government cannot deny protections afforded to any person that is/was legally married. Legally married is legally married and the DOMA Section 3 case relates to a legally married woman that was denied equal protection under the law. I don't think it's even been established she was a lesbian and it wouldn't matter in any case. The denial of equal protection was based upon gender and not sexual orientation. DOMA Section 3 doesn't refer to sexual orientation.

The Prop 8 case does not address sexual orienation as sexual orientation is not referenced in the law. It is a discriminatory based upon the gender of each person in marriage. Prop 8 prohibits two men from marrying and two women from marrying regardess of whether they're heterosexuals or homosexuals. I've given numerous reasons why heterosexual couples could choose to marry someone of the same gender and the law prohibits them from marrying because the law is not based upon sexual orientation.

 

Of note:

People of different races cannot be denied marriage.

People of different ethnic backgrounds cannot be denied marriage.

People of different religions cannot be denined marriage.

People with different national origins cannot be denied marriage.

People with different hair color cannot be denined marriage.

People of vastly different ages, assuming both are adults, cannot be denied marriage.

People with different incomes cannot be denied marriage.

People with different political ideologies cannot be denied marriage.

When we address who cannot be denied marriage the list is almost endless.


With an almost endless list of those that cannot be denied marriage it makes no sense to deny the right of same-gender couples to marry. A same-gender couple marrying is fundamentally no different that a blond and a brunette marrying or a Christian and a Jew getting married.

In none of these cases does the marriage affects anyone else's marriage or the purpose of the legal institution of marriage where only "love and money" can be cited as being common to all marriages between consenting adults.
.

 

You dont know what you're talking about or telling a lie. Windsor's claim was based upon being discriminated against because she is homosexual and as a homosexual, a member of a "suspect" classification she is entitled to strict scrutiny. and while the courts didn't consider discrimination against homosexuals entitled to strict scrutiny they held

Quoting the Lawrence case. Their entire case rest upon the assertion that DOMA is intended and does discriminate against homosexuals. And falls apart if it is based upon gender.

 

It is intended to discriminate. "To express moral disapproval of homosexuality"

 

Tell shiva. He's the one who likes to pretend that "gay marriage" is instead "same-sex" marriage.

 

All those distinctions have no rational relation to the governmental interest in encouraging biological parents to provide and care for their own children together, as opposed to apart or not at all. Gender is rationally related because only women give birth and only men are legally obligated by that birth to provide and care for their child.

 

No, Windsor's claim is that she was legally married but because she was married to another woman she was not afforded equality under the law related to the inherentance of an estate from her deceased spouse. It had nothing whatsoever to do with any possible sexual behavior between the two women.

At the sametime, while not embodies in the actual law, there is no doubt that the law was overwhelming based upon an anti-homosexual agenda. The motive for the law was to discriminate against homosexuality based upon the gender of those involved but the law itself is based upon gender discrimination and not sexual behavior discrimination. By way of example a homosexual that is married to an opposite gender person does have inheritance rights under federal law while a heterosexual married to someone of the same gender is discriminated against under the law. That is an undeniable FACT.

 

Revealing, for you, the limitation of marriage to heterosexuals can't be justified to serve the governmental interest of improving the wellbeing of the children, but it can be justified in marriage limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples to serve the governmental interest in "love and money".

And since the single mother and grandmother down the street raising their childre/grandchildren "love" each other and their desire to marry is based upon "money" lost by not being married, when you say " love" you mean sex.

 

Bottom line (despite the obfuscation you're into): Homosexuals couples should not be denied legal marriage status; there aren't any valid reasons to do so.

 

.................

 

The same reason every type of couple other than heterosexual couples are denied legal marriage. The obfuscation is transforming an intent to limit marriage to the only type of couple with the potential of procreation, into an intent to exclude homosexual couples, motivated by animus towards homosexuals.

 

strawman

- - - Updated - - -

potential for procreation has never been a requirement of marriage, nor a justification for it's limitation.

 

And that "reason" is?

Well, I can see certain aspects being discussed and deliberated over time... but allowing gays to marry legally, is its own legal thing in our society.

So, which campaign for other groups to marry, would YOU support? For in order for such to possibly come to 'fruition'... you'd have to advocate for the same.

No, it is just making noise within an otherwise serious and well-defined issue. The obfuscation is a convenience for you here; it wouldn't play for a second in a court of law (if that).

Essentially irrelevant and most people realize it.

[/quote]...into an intent to exclude homosexual couples, motivated by animus towards homosexuals.[/QUOTE]
Just be certain... that weak attempts to flood the issue with BS (like you keep doing) and making intellectual noises in an attempt to 'distract' proponents of gay marriage from their goal, will not work. For sooner or later, people will figure out that YOU aren't talking about the same thing(s) that they are talking about.

I have tentative feelings about forms of marriage other than unrelated (consenting human) couples, but I'm not against some going on a campaign to change laws in other ways. Even so, you and no one else will manage to piggy-back every other imaginable form of marriage onto the movement for gay marriage; it just won't be allowed to happen. People realize what you're advocating in that sense is politically/legally untenable.

 

Indeed!

 

Not that you would know but that was what the plaintiffs and lower courts flood the issue with.

 

Bottom line: It is time to cease this discrimination against homosexual people. And the same will be less and less tolerated and supported by law. That is as it should be, and the American people are waking up to that, right now.

 

As I've noted the only common denominator related to 100% of all marriages is apparently love and money because procreation and child-rearing do not occur in millions of marriages. Procreation and child-rearing cannot be used as a distingishing criteria for marriage because it doesn't relate to all marriages.

Love = Sexual Relations?

What a myopic and stupid belief. It doesn't even warrant a response because the claim is so ignorant that I'm surprised that anyone wanting to be taken seriously would even make it.

Currently a "grandmother" or "mother" and "daughter" related by blood would be prohibited from marrying because it would be an incestous marriage. If it was the former "step-mother" (i.e. grandmother of the child) and her "step-daughter" (after divorcing the father of the child) I believe that they can be married in all of the states that allow same-gender marriage. I don't see any problem with this and, as I've noted, the prohibitions against "incestous" marriage should be repealed. Consenting adults are consenting adults and there should be no prophibitions against them forming personal/financial partnership contracts (i.e. marriage contracts) under our laws.

 

Tell that to these courts who believe that the intent to exclude homosexuals motivated by animus towards homosexuals that creates this right to marriage. I wish instead of all gay defendants it was instead a gay couple, a closely related couple and a platonic couple seeking marriage, forcing the court to reveal the inequities of what they propose by limiting marriages expansion to homosexual couples. And reveals their true intent to promote homosexuality as opposed to promoting equality.

 

The law that is being challenged limits marriage by gender, removing it would not permit related individuals marrying. It would be impossible to see those people launching a singular case to remove all limitations.

 

Probably a remote concern of SCOTUS, since it takes a super-duper majority to amend the Con, and then ratification of 3/4ths of the states, within 10 years, as I recall.

 

Yeah, because they dont have this animus limited to homosexual couples, directed towards them so no constitutional right to marriage under the courts reasoning.