Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

Experience tells me that women know best about women issues and men likewise. If children are a natural follow on from marriage (which will inevitably mean they are a 'natural' follow on from gay marriage) then I don't see how this issue is to be resolved.Given that there is more to bringing up children that just a female/female view or a male/male view.Unless homosexual male now = hetrosexual female and vice versaEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Er..kids aren't extraneous to the issue of marriage. Not in Ireland and likely not in your neck of the woods either. You'll (likely) find that the states view of marriage (the institution) revolves around the issue of encouragement of procreation, protection and raising of kids. Rights and benefits and protections are aimed thus.To suppose marriage to be other than child directed (whilst accepting that childless marriages occur) is to talk out of your arse.

I'm insisting nothing of the sort. I'm insisting that marriage (the institution) has traditionally attracted state benefits and protection due to it's being the environment wherein children could be expected to be procreated and raised. Consider it the states quid pro quo.That a minority of folk couldn't/chose not to // have children doesn't impact on the reasons for those benefits / protections accruing to the institution in the first place. No system can expect to cover all possible angles.

I thought I was answering that question.The main thrust of the states support of marriage has to do with procreation and child rearing. Things which are of supreme benefit to the progression of the state.Gay marriage cannot produce children nor can it rear children in an arguably superior male/female domain (all things considered)

On the one hand the unconditional love of a father - he's a lucky son. But this is debate..If he said he wanted to marry you? Anything about the institution of marriage that wouldn't be up for negotiation to your mind?

The system is child centred at root. Anomalies occur and should not be seen as something to be encouraged or promoted - given that the state sees it as beneficial to have kids and kids brought up in the arguably ideal male/female scenarioCouples who cannot but want to have kids can be seen to be benefitting without their willing to benefit. The state might be argued to take a compassionate view in that case. Although strictly within its rights to withhold benefits.Folk who benefit but who chose hands down not to reciprocate the states provision can be seen as "sponging" (parasiting) from the state. The state choses not to act in this case.If gays wanted marriage they might consider it without the benefits and protections that accrue from the states provision associated with child procreation and rearing. There are no compassionate reasons for benefitting from state protection and no reason to introduce more "spongers""Sponging" should not be seen as a necessarily pejorative term. Given the states "desire" however, a willed refusal to engage in quid pro quo should attract an appropriate term. It doesn't matter much what it is, so long as the protection and benefits don't accrue to the non-conforming position.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Perhaps the case of the "son" of a gay couple marrying one of the "parents"Any objection?

State reasons for support of the institution of marriage are currently and traditionally child-focussed. If you want to argue that we should "go chinese" for reasons of world over-population then fire away. You wouldn't be arguing against marriage but for something else that is not marriage. A rose by any other name..Rights are what you are given by the State you live in. Not what you assume you should have.

Not if you ignore essential parts of the argument. Remember.. The issue is not that gay (and other) family units can't be established. Obviously they do get established.The issue is what the State "desires" and what it wants to "encourage". Clearly replacement of it's dying population is something desirable and something to be encouraged in order that the State itself survive. That a gay couple could adopt and form a family unit is irrelevant to the issue of procreation. Such a family unit doesn't contribute towards establishing this desired situation and there is no reason for the State to attach benefit and protection to the gay family unit state in this regard.One could argue long and hard about the relative merits of gay parenting vs. traditional parenting. Each side would attempt to introduce data to support each others case. Whatever the case, the State is entitled to arrive at a view as to what is ideal. And if that view is that male/female parenting is the ideal to be sought after (faults and failures notwithstanding) it is entitled to take steps to promote and encourage what it considers to be in the best interests of the state.Lastly and to reject the claim of unmarried mixed sex unions claiming the same benefits as married couples there is the quid pro quo of marriage itself. All other things considered, the relationship which is prepared to make a solemn and public declaration of commitment and which is prepared to cast its individual worldly goods into the collective marriage pot is one which is more likely to result in a stable platform for child procreating and rearing than one which is not so constituted. If that is what the state is after then that is what the state is entitled to pursue.It's not a question of human rights. It's a question of a tate/individual 'business' transaction.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

There is no need for the State to micro-manage to the extent you suggest in order that overall State goals be achieved. Some people not being able to have kids won't affect the overall result. Some people not wanting to won't either. If many people decide they don't want kids then the state can add more inducement to do so. If there are too many kids then the State can add disincentive (the one child policy in China being an case in point)What should be plain as the nose on your face is that the State will seek to encourage stable family platforms of a type which produce children and rear them to adulthood. And the means whereby it will do so is to attach rights and privileges and benefits to the desired family unit and/or disincentivise non-desirable family units.To suppose the State would do otherwise (however you read US law) is to suppose a State wishing extinction upon itself.

What ignoring of the central point. Go back and read what the State is trying to achieve and how it sets about achieving it. The reason for it doing as it does is because it is not extinction-minded but survival-of-the-fittest minded.It is not a human right to receive the benefit of incentives for which you do not qualify.