This is why marriage needs to be separately recognized

[Natoma]

http://www.msnbc.com/news/952184.asp?0cv=CB20

This is exactly why religious and federal recognition of marriage need to be completely and utterly separate. Some people in this piece believe that legalizing gay marriage would also mean that their church would have to perform the ceremonies, when that is not the case at all. I truly wonder what level of support federal recognition of gay marriages would be have if the religious/federal aspects were defined in the manner I've stipulated in the past.

For those who hadn't read, I said that marriage should be a term left to the religions, much in the way that baptism is left to each religion, with no legal recognition or rights afforded to that status. Basically the way that you can get baptized in your church, and everyone of your faith recognizes that, but the government does not.

To receive federal rights and privileges currently accorded marriage, one would need to enter into a Civil Union, or whatever people want to call it. This way gay and straight couples would be able to receive federal benefits and rights, but it would be left to each individual religion whether or not to perform marital rites. This would completely decouple religion from state wrt marriage, and would satisfy those who feel their religion is being encroached upon by some vast left wing conspiracy, and those who feel that the government has no business legislating marital restrictions on gay couples.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Yes, so we pretty much feel the same way on this, with one possible cavaet:

To receive federal rights and privileges currently accorded marriage, one would need to enter into a Civil Union, or whatever people want to call it. This way gay and straight couples would be able to receive federal benefits and rights, but it would be left to each individual religion whether or not to perform marital rites.

What you haven't addressed, is whether or not you think the state should be able to legislate for or against homosexual civil unions. Just separating "marriage" from legal government recognition, doesn't address the fundamental question of whether or not states should be able to create a law that denies homosexual couples the benefits / rights of whatever civil unions the state declares as acceptable.

 

[Saem]

What I'm wondering is how does one make this decision?

As I see it the idea of marriages/civil unions is so that people start families (man and a woman) have kids and raise them well. You encourage this through various incentives --usually financial-- to make sure society grows and evolves -- not just increase the population.

I don't believe homosexuals are condusive to that process.

Homosexuals can't have kids on their own, without some intervention be it technological or adoption or what have you. I don't see why they should be getting benifits which the gorvernment puts into place for marriages which yield to the social evolution.

Then their is their ability to raise a child, which is very questionable. In nature it's strongly suggested that a man and a woman have children together. In society it is strongly suggested that a man and a woman raise them together. Broken homes and single parents situations tend to seriously hurt the chances of the off spring prospering. This is definately not desirable by society. It's been shown time and time again that men and women are quite different in their thinking process, they're quite different in how they rear children. I'm sure many off us can see how fathers and mothers play different roles and this isn't merely coincidence -- regardless of what the "EVERYTHING is learned behaviour" retards have to say. Additionally, there are certain biological functions such as breast feeding, without this immunities aren't passed on from generation to generation and you get physically inferior children. There are plenty of things that would be imbalanced in homosexual family unit or would go unfulfilled. Chances are moreso than in a hetrosexual family unit.

I don't see how a state could go along with supporting such unions.

 

[Natoma]

To receive federal rights and privileges currently accorded marriage, one would need to enter into a Civil Union, or whatever people want to call it. This way gay and straight couples would be able to receive federal benefits and rights, but it would be left to each individual religion whether or not to perform marital rites.

What you haven't addressed, is whether or not you think the state should be able to legislate for or against homosexual civil unions. Just separating "marriage" from legal government recognition, doesn't address the fundamental question of whether or not states should be able to create a law that denies homosexual couples the benefits / rights of whatever civil unions the state declares as acceptable.

I don't think the states should be able to legislate for or against civil unions. It should be a federal matter imo, which will provide equal rights and privileges for all who enter into a civil union as accorded by equal protection of the laws.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I don't think the states should be able to legislate for or against civil unions. It should be a federal matter imo, which will provide equal rights and privileges for all who enter into a civil union as accorded by equal protection of the laws.

The constitution also provides for state's rights to make their own laws. It should not be a federal matter IMO...or at most the a union should be recognized at the federal level, if it's recognized at the state level.

Homosexual unions do not necessarily fall under equal protection, even though you assert it. There is clearly a judgement to be made here.

Polygamists presumably don't fall under equal protection, do they? Or do you think laws against polygamy are unconstitutional?

I think states should be able to define legal unions as they see fit. Mostly as Saem explained it. The reason WHY civil unions / marriages are even recognized / sanctioned in the first place by government, is because there is some intrinsic, moral value behind them that we support. "The People" see a value in such unions, which is why they are encouraged.

If you start focing the government to recognize any and all types of unions (homosexual, or polygamous, or incestual for example....) then you indiscriminantly diminishing or negating the very basis for recognitition of such unions.

So the logical solution then is to let each state decide what their own morality is with respect to unions. If NY wants to recognize homosexual unions, fine. If Nebraska only wants one-man-one-woman...fine. If Utah wants polygamy...cool. The only other "fair" solution is to not have any recognition what-so-ever of unions by any government, at any level.

 

[Natoma]

As I see it the idea of marriages/civil unions is so that people start families (man and a woman) have kids and raise them well. You encourage this through various incentives --usually financial-- to make sure society grows and evolves -- not just increase the population.

I don't believe homosexuals are condusive to that process.

Yet not all marriages culminate in the rearing of children. Even fertile couples do not always choose to have children. Should the impetus behind marriage always be children? I thought it was to strengthen the monogamous bond between two people when forming their family, which might result in child birth/rearing, but not always.

Homosexuals can't have kids on their own, without some intervention be it technological or adoption or what have you. I don't see why they should be getting benifits which the gorvernment puts into place for marriages which yield to the social evolution.

Infertile couples and Seniors are able to marry even though they can't have kids on their own without some technological intervention or adoption. Yet they are able to enjoy the rights and privileges conferred upon marriage.

So why should they receive benefits that the government puts in place for marriages?

Then their is their ability to raise a child, which is very questionable.

Why is the ability to raise a child questionable?

In nature it's strongly suggested that a man and a woman have children together.

Males and females are the only combination that can, sexually, have offspring. This is understood.

In society it is strongly suggested that a man and a woman raise them together. Broken homes and single parents situations tend to seriously hurt the chances of the off spring prospering. This is definately not desirable by society.

Broken homes and single parent situations put a strain on the chances of the child prospering because of the strain placed on the single parent financially and emotionally, not to mention the strain placed on the child financially and emotionally.

Stable two parent homes indeed are best for children. But the sex of those parents shouldn't have any bearing on the quality of child rearing. Studies have shown that children raised in homosexual homes were no more or less likely to be well adjusted and prosperous than those raised in heterosexual homes.

It's been shown time and time again that men and women are quite different in their thinking process, they're quite different in how they rear children. I'm sure many off us can see how fathers and mothers play different roles and this isn't merely coincidence -- regardless of what the "EVERYTHING is learned behaviour" retards have to say. Additionally, there are certain biological functions such as breast feeding, without this immunities aren't passed on from generation to generation and you get physically inferior children. There are plenty of things that would be imbalanced in homosexual family unit or would go unfulfilled. Chances are moreso than in a hetrosexual family unit.

I don't see how a state could go along with supporting such unions.

Any two different people would bring a different perspective to the table. That alone would provide the differences in rearing children. For instance, I would say that my uncle is far more nurturing of his two kids than his wife is. And my grandmother is definitely more of a hardass than my grandfather is. Does that break with gender roles? Certainly. Do they bring different perspectives to the rearing of children? Certainly.

Additionally, I've looked into the breast feeding situation. Children that are breast fed vs formula fed aren't any more or less likely to have immunity problems due to vaccination programs that are available today. 100 years ago this would most certainly be true, but it isn't the case today. Millions of parents today feed with formula and their children aren't unhealthy or malnourished.

 

[Natoma]

The constitution also provides for state's rights to make their own laws. It should not be a federal matter IMO...or at most the a union should be recognized at the federal level, if it's recognized at the state level.

Homosexual unions do not necessarily fall under equal protection, even though you assert it. There is clearly a judgement to be made here.

Full Faith and Credit stipulates that laws formed in one jurisdiction have to be recognized in all other jurisdictions. If one state recognizes homosexual unions in its "Civil Union" clause, and another state does not, that would be in violation of Full Faith and Credit, and also Equal Protection. Much in the way that state-by-state DOMAs are in violation of Full Faith and Credit and Equal Protection (currently how they're being fought in the Supreme Court of various states such as Mass. and NJ.)

Polygamists presumably don't fall under equal protection, do they? Or do you think laws against polygamy are unconstitutional?

Frankly I don't know enough about the laws against polygamy to understand the full legal ramifications. However, my personal belief on the matter is that polygamy should be legal. There is no objection imo for someone to be legally bound to multiple partners. But as I said, I don't know the full legal ramifications of the laws that are on the books.

I think states should be able to define legal unions as they see fit. Mostly as Saem explained it. The reason WHY civil unions / marriages are even recognized / sanctioned in the first place by government, is because there is some intrinsic, moral value behind them that we support. "The People" see a value in such unions, which is why they are encouraged.

Agreed. However, does it not make sense for that intrinsic moral value to also include the monogamous stabilization of relationships? That is part of the intrinsic moral value of marriage is it not?

If you start focing the government to recognize any and all types of unions (homosexual, or polygamous, or incestual for example....) then you indiscriminantly diminishing or negating the very basis for recognitition of such unions.

Recognition of any and all types of unions would first of all be predicated on whether or not those unions are legal. You couldn't talk about gays being married while the sodomy laws were on the books could you? If polygamy is made legal, or incest is made legal, then we can discuss the ramifications of that decision, as scalia pertinently pointed out in his dissent.

So the logical solution then is to let each state decide what their own morality is with respect to unions. If NY wants to recognize homosexual unions, fine. If Nebraska only wants one-man-one-woman...fine. If Utah wants polygamy...cool. The only other "fair" solution is to not have any recognition what-so-ever of unions by any government, at any level.

You and I know that is never going to happen. Given our current state, that morality is in direct conflict with Full Faith and Credit and Equal Protection.

 

[RussSchultz]

Christ, isn't twice enough?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Full Faith and Credit stipulates that laws formed in one jurisdiction have to be recognized in all other jurisdictions.

Right, so if my state has 6% sales tax...all other states must have 6% sales tax?

If one state recognizes homosexual unions in its "Civil Union" clause, and another state does not, that would be in violation of Full Faith and Credit, and also Equal Protection.

So, why don't you go to Vermont and get "married" then? What's the problem?

Polygamists presumably don't fall under equal protection, do they? Or do you think laws against polygamy are unconstitutional?

Frankly I don't know enough about the laws against polygamy to understand the full legal ramifications.

What is there to know? more than 2 people want to be married to one another. You are denying them "equal protection rights" by not allowing them to do so, are you not?

However, my personal belief on the matter is that polygamy should be legal.

This has nothing to do with your beliefs. This has to do with consistency. If you say homosexual unions are protected by the constitution, then so should you apply that to polygamy and incestual unions.

Agreed. However, does it not make sense for that intrinsic moral value to also include the monogamous stabilization of relationships? That is part of the intrinsic moral value of marriage is it not?

Sure, it can be argued that way. And if it's agreed by the majority that should become law. That's the point. That particular view would also support incestual marriages, btw.

Other value systems don't rely solely on the relationship itself, but on kids. You simply can't dictate moral values. You have one set, you can argue and publically support your set, but that doesn't mean everyone will, or should, agree with it.

Recognition of any and all types of unions would first of all be predicated on whether or not those unions are legal.

Right.

You couldn't talk about gays being married while the sodomy laws were on the books could you?

Sure you could. Where is it written that marriage must include any sort of particular sexual conduct at all?

If polygamy is made legal, or incest is made legal, then we can discuss the ramifications of that decision, as scalia pertinently pointed out in his dissent.

You aren't making sense.

Polygamous relationships are no more "illegal" than homosexual ones. I can live with 50 men and women and consider ourselves "married", just as you can live with your partner and consider yourselves married.

You and I know that is never going to happen.

I don't know that.

Given our current state, that morality is in direct conflict with Full Faith and Credit and Equal Protection.

I disagree.

 

[Humus]

Then their is their ability to raise a child, which is very questionable. In nature it's strongly suggested that a man and a woman have children together. In society it is strongly suggested that a man and a woman raise them together. Broken homes and single parents situations tend to seriously hurt the chances of the off spring prospering.

If a single woman or a single man can adopt, then I see no reason why two men or two women can't adopt. It can hardly be worse. Likely better.

 

[Saem]

The adoption process isn't easy. Being a single parent AFAIK basically takes you out of the running in most cases.

 

[Natoma]

Full Faith and Credit stipulates that laws formed in one jurisdiction have to be recognized in all other jurisdictions.

Right, so if my state has 6% sales tax...all other states must have 6% sales tax?

No, but if I purchase something from that state, that state's sales tax is used, irregardless of the state I'm in.

If one state recognizes homosexual unions in its "Civil Union" clause, and another state does not, that would be in violation of Full Faith and Credit, and also Equal Protection.

So, why don't you go to Vermont and get "married" then? What's the problem?

We would if NYC recognized the status, and if the Civil Unions in Vermont provided all of the rights and privileges conferred upon marriage, which they do not. Civil Unions in Vermont do not enjoy the thousands of federal protections and privileges conferred upon marriage, only the protections and privileges given by Vermont itself.

Polygamists presumably don't fall under equal protection, do they? Or do you think laws against polygamy are unconstitutional?

Frankly I don't know enough about the laws against polygamy to understand the full legal ramifications.

What is there to know? more than 2 people want to be married to one another. You are denying them "equal protection rights" by not allowing them to do so, are you not?

However, my personal belief on the matter is that polygamy should be legal.

This has nothing to do with your beliefs. This has to do with consistency. If you say homosexual unions are protected by the constitution, then so should you apply that to polygamy and incestual unions.

As I said before, polygamy and incest would first have to be legal imo before you can discuss whether or not those unions should be recognized. That's one reason I would have rather gotten the sodomy laws off the books first, then go for recognition. It was argued, successfully, that gay unions should not be recognized because they were illegal.

Agreed. However, does it not make sense for that intrinsic moral value to also include the monogamous stabilization of relationships? That is part of the intrinsic moral value of marriage is it not?

Sure, it can be argued that way. And if it's agreed by the majority that should become law. That's the point. That particular view would also support incestual marriages, btw.

So does the view proffered by Saem that marriage is for raising kids, which would not exclude heterosexual incestual couples. But that's an entirely different debate, which is why I didn't bring it up.

Other value systems don't rely solely on the relationship itself, but on kids. You simply can't dictate moral values. You have one set, you can argue and publically support your set, but that doesn't mean everyone will, or should, agree with it.

Agreed. However, I'm looking past my own particular morals on these matters and seeing what our constitution provides on the subject.

You couldn't talk about gays being married while the sodomy laws were on the books could you?

Sure you could. Where is it written that marriage must include any sort of particular sexual conduct at all?

This is what many states used to keep gay unions from being recognized actually. There are quite a few judicial decisions on the matter.

If polygamy is made legal, or incest is made legal, then we can discuss the ramifications of that decision, as scalia pertinently pointed out in his dissent.

You aren't making sense.

Polygamous relationships are no more "illegal" than homosexual ones. I can live with 50 men and women and consider ourselves "married", just as you can live with your partner and consider yourselves married.

Actually a man in Utah (i recently read about the case) was arrested for engaging in a polygamous relationships. Though the official mormon church now denounces polygamy, certain sects still believe in it and practice it. One wonders if polygamy laws could be struck down based on freedom of religion laws.

But anyway, polygamous relationships are certainly illegal and you can be arrested for it. You can't be arrested for a homosexual relationship anymore.

Given our current state, that morality is in direct conflict with Full Faith and Credit and Equal Protection.

I disagree.

Why?

 

[Natoma]

The adoption process isn't easy. Being a single parent AFAIK basically takes you out of the running in most cases.

Not always. It really depends on the financial status of that single parent, not to mention their emotional state. If that single parent is making $100K, for example, has no criminal record, etc, they are certainly in the running to adopt.

It's a case by case basis. However, not looking at any details, adoption agencies are generally more prone to give adoptive rights to two parent homes rather than single parent homes.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

No, but if I purchase something from that state, that state's sales tax is used, irregardless of the state I'm in.

Right. And if you get a civil union in Vermont, and move back to NY...NY doesn't say "You're no longer a civil union in Vermont."

We would if NYC recognized the status,

Shouldn't they? If Vermont has the status, shouldn't NYC recognize it "Full Faith and Credit"?

According to and if the Civil Unions in Vermont provided all of the rights and privileges conferred upon marriage, which they do not. Civil Unions in Vermont do not enjoy the thousands of federal protections and privileges conferred upon marriage, only the protections and privileges given by Vermont itself.

Right.

As I said before, polygamy and incest would first have to be legal imo before you can discuss whether or not those unions should be recognized.

I simply do not follow your logic. It cannot be illegal if it's constitutionally protected.

If you claim homosexual marriage is constitutionally protected based on "Equal Protection", then incestual marriage and polygamous marriage are also constitutionally protected. And any laws opposed to them are therby illegal.

Whether or not sodomy is illegal is not really relevant.

That's one reason I would have rather gotten the sodomy laws off the books first, then go for recognition. It was argued, successfully, that gay unions should not be recognized because they were illegal.

It was never argued that gay unions should be not constitutionally protected because thay are illegal. That's the point I'm getting at.

So does the view proffered by Saem that marriage is for raising kids, which would not exclude heterosexual incestual couples. But that's an entirely different debate, which is why I didn't bring it up.

No, it can exclude heterosexual incestual couples. One's moral code might say that incestual couples "just ain't right" for raising kids...because, it just ain't right!"

You don't seem to understand that it's your all-inclusive claim to "equal protection" is the slippery slope that is the basis for forcing such relationships as legal.

I'm NOT claiming that state recognized marriage is something that falls under "equal protection." I can thereby discriminate almost however I please.

What you can argue, is that my stance is a slippery slope for states not allowing things like interracial mariage.

Agreed. However, I'm looking past my own particular morals on these matters and seeing what our constitution provides on the subject.

And it doesn't provide for equal protection of homosexuals on civil unions, as far as I can tell. I'm looking past my own particular morals too. It's the morals of the majority of any particular state.

This is what many states used to keep gay unions from being recognized actually. There are quite a few judicial decisions on the matter.

I'd like to see some, because it doesn't make much sense. Marriage is not a sexual act. I'd wager that many states keep gay unions from being recognized simply because they thing it's wrong to do so.

Actually a man in Utah (i recently read about the case) was arrested for engaging in a polygamous relationships.

What case? I don't see how that's possible unless he actually had multiple marriage licenses. (Attempted to "legally" marry, or was legally married to more than person.) Of course...THAT is against the law. But simply having a polygamous relationship? Multiple people simply pledge their love for one another in some way, or sex mith multiple partners?

In what case is that illegal?

Though the official mormon church now denounces polygamy, certain sects still believe in it and practice it. One wonders if polygamy laws could be struck down based on freedom of religion laws.

Freedom of religion isn't all encompassing. My religion can't endorse murder, and therefore have laws against murder stricken down.

But anyway, polygamous relationships are certainly illegal and you can be arrested for it. You can't be arrested for a homosexual relationship anymore.

I would really like to know where you can be arrested for a polygamous relationship...

 

[Natoma]

No, but if I purchase something from that state, that state's sales tax is used, irregardless of the state I'm in.

Right. And if you get a civil union in Vermont, and move back to NY...NY doesn't say "You're no longer a civil union in Vermont."

They're not the same situation. The state you live in recognizes the other states' sales tax laws and applies them accordingly. NYC does not recognize the civil union status from Vermont at all.

We would if NYC recognized the status,

Shouldn't they? If Vermont has the status, shouldn't NYC recognize it "Full Faith and Credit"?

Yes, they should. NY is being sued over this currently.

If you claim homosexual marriage is constitutionally protected based on "Equal Protection", then incestual marriage and polygamous marriage are also constitutionally protected. And any laws opposed to them are therby illegal.

Whether or not sodomy is illegal is not really relevant.

The legal state of Marriage is constitutionally protected by equal protection. The ability of homosexuals to enter into marriage is protected because homosexuality is not illegal in this country. Polygamy and Incest are illegal in this country, which makes them ineligible to partake in the legal constructs formed for legal relationships.

There is a small but perceptible difference between the legal recognition of a union and the illegality of a sexual relationship.

That's one reason I would have rather gotten the sodomy laws off the books first, then go for recognition. It was argued, successfully, that gay unions should not be recognized because they were illegal.

It was never argued that gay unions should be not constitutionally protected because thay are illegal. That's the point I'm getting at.

I never said that was the line of argumentation. States have been sued for the laws on the books which prevented gay men and women from entering into marriage. However in many cases they lost because it was successfully argued that their sexual relationships were illegal, thus they could not be conferred the status of marriage.

That is why Justice Scalia stated in his dissent that striking down sodomy laws would be a portent to legalizing gay marriage.

So does the view proffered by Saem that marriage is for raising kids, which would not exclude heterosexual incestual couples. But that's an entirely different debate, which is why I didn't bring it up.

No, it can exclude heterosexual incestual couples. One's moral code might say that incestual couples "just ain't right" for raising kids...because, it just ain't right!"

He didn't stipulate that. He merely stated that the ability to raise children in a man/woman relationship is what is right.

You don't seem to understand that it's your all-inclusive claim to "equal protection" is the slippery slope that is the basis for forcing such relationships as legal.

It's not a slippery slope at all. The slope ends where the legality of a sexual relationship is called into question. If the sexual relationship is not illegal, then there is no legal reason to prevent people in that sexual relationship from entering into the legal construct of marriage.

I'm NOT claiming that state recognized marriage is something that falls under "equal protection." I can thereby discriminate almost however I please.

I don't understand exactly what you're saying here.

What you can argue, is that my stance is a slippery slope for states not allowing things like interracial mariage.

??

Ok I'm definitely not understanding what you're saying.

Agreed. However, I'm looking past my own particular morals on these matters and seeing what our constitution provides on the subject.

And it doesn't provide for equal protection of homosexuals on civil unions, as far as I can tell. I'm looking past my own particular morals too. It's the morals of the majority of any particular state.

No it provides for equal protection of the laws, as well as Full Faith and Credit of the laws. That alone is what is being argued in Massachussetts and New Jersey, as well as a few other states. Apparently most feel that

This is what many states used to keep gay unions from being recognized actually. There are quite a few judicial decisions on the matter.

I'd like to see some, because it doesn't make much sense. Marriage is not a sexual act. I'd wager that many states keep gay unions from being recognized simply because they thing it's wrong to do so.

I'm googling now to see if I can find the names of some cases. I remember reading about them a couple of years ago. Marriage in and of itself, as a legal construct, is not a sexual act. However, sexual acts implicitly occur within marriage. It was successfully argued that marriage/civil unions could not be legalized for gay couples because the sex itself was illegal.

I'll report back when I find it.

Actually a man in Utah (i recently read about the case) was arrested for engaging in a polygamous relationships.

What case? I don't see how that's possible unless he actually had multiple marriage licenses. (Attempted to "legally" marry, or was legally married to more than person.) Of course...THAT is against the law. But simply having a polygamous relationship? Multiple people simply pledge their love for one another in some way, or sex mith multiple partners?

In what case is that illegal?

Google "utah polygamy case". Here's a link

http://www.vidaenelvalle.com/24hour/nation/story/966414p-6775413c.html

Holm was 32 when he allegedly took Stubbs as a "spiritual" wife, which is not a legal marriage. He has three wives and 21 children, according to prosecutors and his own attorney. Stubbs said she was Holm's third wife.

He's being prosecuted on bigamy and underage sex. Though I'm surprised they've charged him with bigamy since he married this girl spiritually, not through the state. Not sure exactly what the lawyers are getting at, but there might be something in the state law that I'm not aware of that allows them to make that charge.

This is an instance where someone was married through their religion, which contradicts state law, and they are being prosecuted for it.

Though the official mormon church now denounces polygamy, certain sects still believe in it and practice it. One wonders if polygamy laws could be struck down based on freedom of religion laws.

Freedom of religion isn't all encompassing. My religion can't endorse murder, and therefore have laws against murder stricken down.

Agreed. However, legal marital recognition and murder are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

They're not the same situation. The state you live in recognizes the other states' sales tax laws and applies them accordingly. NYC does not recognize the civil union status from Vermont at all.

No. The state I live in does not apply any other state's sales tax at all. Nor does any other state.

Yes, they should. NY is being sued over this currently.

And we'll see how that goes.

The legal state of Marriage is constitutionally protected by equal protection. The ability of homosexuals to enter into marriage is protected because homosexuality is not illegal in this country.

Then why can't homosexuals get legally married? The constitution trumps all other laws.

Polygamy and Incest are illegal in this country, which makes them ineligible to partake in the legal constructs formed for legal relationships.

You are simply not making sense.

If polygamy is onstitutionally protected, then there can be NO laws that discriminate against it. Be they marriage, or any other legal construct. They would be unconstitutional and stricken down, then any laws

There is a small but perceptible difference between the legal recognition of a union and the illegality of a sexual relationship.

Yes, there is. But if a sexual relationship is constitutionally protected, then it both cannot be illegal, and cannot be discriminated against wrt civil unions.

I never said that was the line of argumentation. States have been sued for the laws on the books which prevented gay men and women from entering into marriage. However in many cases they lost because it was successfully argued that their sexual relationships were illegal, thus they could not be conferred the status of marriage.

That doesn't mean that if the sexual relationship is legal, that the states must confer marital status. It just means a different case with a different argument.

Ultimately, a state can make whatever rules it wants to...so long as it's not unconstitutional.

He didn't stipulate that. He merely stated that the ability to raise children in a man/woman relationship is what is right.

That doesn't matter. Anyone can stipulate whatever moral they want to. John Smith can stipulate that "homsexuals raising kids is wrong because that's the way I feel."

It's not a slippery slope at all. The slope ends where the legality of a sexual relationship is called into question.

No, it doesn't. The slope doesn't end becayse you are claiming constitutional protection of said relationship.

If the sexual relationship is not illegal, then there is no legal reason to prevent people in that sexual relationship from entering into the legal construct of marriage.

Unless of course, "the people" just say they don't want it! That's my point. The only way the "will of the people" can be thwarted, is if it's unconstitutional.

And you are arguing that marriage constructs are something that's constitutionally protected by "equal protection."

And if that's the case, then Polygamy is protected, as is incest. There's no way around it. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I don't understand exactly what you're saying here.

I'm saying that the construct of marriage / civil unions does not include the concept of equal protection of everyone. If it was, polygamy and incest marriages would be constitutionally protected. If it is constitutionally OK to have laws against such marriages, it's constitutionally OK to have laws against homosexual marriages. The reason for barring polygamy and incest marriages are simply moral ones.

What you can argue, is that my stance is a slippery slope for states not allowing things like interracial mariage.

??

Ok I'm definitely not understanding what you're saying.

I'm saying that there's nothing stopping me from taking my argumentation and saying "the state can make a law prohibiting read-heads from marrying blonds", if that's what the people want to do. That's the slippery slope that my point of view runs into.

Yours, is the opposite...that there's nothing we can do to prevent any kind of union we deem wrong...like incest or polygamy. They are OK by default.

I'm googling now to see if I can find the names of some cases.

OK.

I remember reading about them a couple of years ago. Marriage in and of itself, as a legal construct, is not a sexual act. However, sexual acts implicitly occur within marriage. It was successfully argued that marriage/civil unions could not be legalized for gay couples because the sex itself was illegal.

Even if that's the case, that doesn't stop a different line of argumentation. The sex might be constitutionally protected (NOT by equal protection, but by "right to privacy"), but that doesn't mean the legally recognized relationship is.

Holm was 32 when he allegedly took Stubbs as a "spiritual" wife, which is not a legal marriage. He has three wives and 21 children, according to prosecutors and his own attorney. Stubbs said she was Holm's third wife.

He's being prosecuted on bigamy and underage sex. Though I'm surprised they've charged him with bigamy since he married this girl spiritually, not through the state.

That's my point entirely. I don't see that charge holding up. As I said, if he actually "legally" married more than one person (two marriage certificates) It is certainly illegal.

This is an instance where someone was married through their religion, which contradicts state law, and they are being prosecuted for it.

But not convicted. You can prosecute someone for anything.

 

[Himself]

I think the problem with same sex unions in terms of legal benefits is that it would be easy to abuse. Unless the government actually has someone watch the couple having sex, there is little to differentiate 2 straight males from 2 gay males, if they want to play the system. The kinds of things in place to promote families and more children are done under the assumption of a straight couple, so if straight couples are to become insignificant or meaningless in terms of the law then the benefits should go by the wayside. If you take marriage as a term out of it, and you still differentiate between straight and gay couples, then there is no change from what we have now. If you don't differentiate, then the system becomes a farce of legal loopholes for people to abuse.

 

[Humus]

How would they abuse it do you figure? Two straight men pseudo-marry each other as a gay couple to get benefits?

 

[Malo]

a register just got approved in south sydney australia which basically has one benefit. to prove to people that you are a couple, and this really only applies to government services, loans etc. It does not extend to state or federal laws.

 

[Althornin]

What I'm wondering is how does one make this decision?

As I see it the idea of marriages/civil unions is so that people start families (man and a woman) have kids and raise them well. You encourage this through various incentives --usually financial-- to make sure society grows and evolves -- not just increase the population.

I don't believe homosexuals are condusive to that process.

Homosexuals can't have kids on their own, without some intervention be it technological or adoption or what have you. I don't see why they should be getting benifits which the gorvernment puts into place for marriages which yield to the social evolution.

Then their is their ability to raise a child, which is very questionable. In nature it's strongly suggested that a man and a woman have children together. In society it is strongly suggested that a man and a woman raise them together. Broken homes and single parents situations tend to seriously hurt the chances of the off spring prospering. This is definately not desirable by society. It's been shown time and time again that men and women are quite different in their thinking process, they're quite different in how they rear children. I'm sure many off us can see how fathers and mothers play different roles and this isn't merely coincidence -- regardless of what the "EVERYTHING is learned behaviour" retards have to say. Additionally, there are certain biological functions such as breast feeding, without this immunities aren't passed on from generation to generation and you get physically inferior children. There are plenty of things that would be imbalanced in homosexual family unit or would go unfulfilled. Chances are moreso than in a hetrosexual family unit.

I don't see how a state could go along with supporting such unions.

Well, by this stunning bit of logic, Marriages that dont result in children should be declared null and void, with all back benefits due.

Also, to apply the same "parenting" logic to "proper" couples, one would have to evaluate each couple in deciding their child raising abilities. Some people arent fit to raise kids, irregardless of what sex they marry.

Joe:

Polygamists presumably don't fall under equal protection, do they? Or do you think laws against polygamy are unconstitutional?

Yes, i do think laws agaisnt polygamy are wrong. Why dont you?
Its not your right to say how another group of men and women should live - it doesnt affect you negatively, so whats your problem?

I'm looking past my own particular morals too. It's the morals of the majority of any particular state.

So, you think that it should be alright, if a state outlawed unions between men and women, and ONLY allowed unions between same sex couples?