The purpose of this thread is to discuss the legal issues around gay marriage, not moral or religious, except as those things impact the legal questions.
Which I have already pointed out in the other thread is prohibited by the United States Code.
Right, you "pointed that out." Then I quoted the actual language of the U.S. Code, which didn't say anything of the sort. DOMA didn't "prohibit" gay marriage. It says that the U.S. government won't recognize it for purposes of federal law and that one state doesn't have to recognize another state's gay marriage. It never prohibits any state from recognizing it. Furthermore, it doesn't prevent the Supreme Court from engaging in the kind of Fourteenth Amendment analysis that I did at the top of this thread. In fact, Congress
can't prohibit the Court from doing that. The Constitution says so. You oughta read it some time. It's really neat.
Try not to forget for a moment that it is homosexuality infringing on every one else to conform to their ideas, not the other way around.
You are a blithering idiot!
I got news for you, sweetheart, for the most part gays couldn't care less what you think about them. All they are asking for is the right to marry. They aren't trying to impose anything on you. They're just asking for the same rights as you.
The LAW says, without invoking any religious connotations, that homosexuality is an abomination.
Now you are either a blithering idiot or a liar!
Cite any law in the U.S. that calls homosexuality an abomination. And it must be a law in the U.S., since U.S. law is the topic of this thread.
As long as I'm bitch-slapping you, I'll take up a few points you mention in another post.
What does promoting marriage lead to that you would consider detrimental to society?
The societal acceptance of homosexuality which perverts the natural order of God's law.
Well, lookie here, a smattering of honesty from the mighty christian. At last, you've told us what you're really trying to prevent. Let's see how that fits in with the Fourteenth Amendment analysis that is the focus of this thread.
Hmmmm, I'm at least 100% certain that no court in this country would find that preventing a "perversion of the natural order of god's law" is even a legitimate state interest, much less compelling.
quote:
You can be monogamous without marriage.
It is an awful lot harder, though. Don't you agree?
I do agree, but you are asking me to exonerate a greater sin out of a lesser one.
Nobody is asking you to exonerate anything, mate. This thread is about what the law should allow. Despite your gargantuan ego, I guarantee that your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. It's a legal question, not a moral one, that we're debating on this thread.
The institution of marriage is vital to promoting monogamy and stable families. Surely you aren't going to contest that, are you?
No. And certainly stable families include mothers and fathers. Wouldn't you agree?
Whoa, look at that! Why, it's something relevant to this thread, despite your best efforts to remain off topic. It's actually quite plausible that a court might find promoting stable families as either a compelling or an important state interest. So, let's see whether banning gay marriage would advance that interest in any way.
Well, we know that the American Academy of Pediatrics thinks it's actually bad for kids if gay marriage isn't legalized. They said so right
here. You got any actual facts to support your filthy prejudice?
I wholeheartedly agree that the singling out of homosexuals over their perceived sin with more ferocity than any other sexual sin by Christians or, whomever, is wrong.
***
The belief, among various cultures, is that homosexuality is an aberration. They are entitled to that belief just as the avowed homosexual is entitled to disagree.
Wow, something else you said that's accidentally on topic. In this quote, you're recognizing that gays are in fact exactly the kind of discrete and insular minority that the Court was talking about in the
Carolene Products footnote that I quoted upthread, thus demonstrating the appropriateness of heightened judicial scrutiny of laws that discriminate against them.
It's rather funny, actually. Every time you open your mouth, you make the case for legal recognition of gay marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment stronger and stronger. You might be the best friend that a gay marriage advocate ever had!
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
™ Version 4.2