Opposition to Gay Marriage - Any Basis Other Than Intolerance and Bigotry?

[Gadawg73]

The equal protection clause angle has already been covered....Any couple of opposite sexes may get married, no matter their sexual behavior.

The same logic was used in Loving v. Virginia, any couple of the same race may get married to members of the same race, no matter their race.

Bad argument then, bad argument now.

Race/ethnicity and behavior are two different bases....Moreover, gender can be objectively quantified, whereas homosexuality is a behavior.

After that, do we now have same-sex statutory marriages between straight couples, who merely wish to get in on the horn o' plenty of special gubmint benefits and dispensations carved out for married couples?...If not, how do you objectively test for gayness?

Privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious manner the grantor of said privileges sees fit...That's the nature of a privilege.

Really? That didn't work out to well for the anti-miscegenationist didn't it.

If Civil Marriage is a "privilege" and privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious reason the granter of said privileges sees fit ... then the Loving v. Virginia case would not have happened.

Bottom line is it did and the idea that States do not have to function under the 14th Amendment lost.


>>>>

Civil marriage, not statutory marriage....Two different legal worlds.

Besides that, the Loving case involved male and female litigants.

Gender can not be objectively quantified in many cases.
And who does the quantifying when a supposed male and female apply for a marriage license?
What government official checks for a vagina and a penis when obtaining a marriage license?

 

[Oddball]

Gender can't be objectively quantified?...Since when?

And supposing a same-sex couple fooled the license-issuing bureaucrat, they'd be up for charges of fraud if ever found out.

The only way you iron this one out for good is separate marriage and state.

 

[Gadawg73]

Gender can't be objectively quantified?...Since when?

And supposing a same-sex couple fooled the license-issuing bureaucrat, they'd be up for charges of fraud if ever found out.

The only way you iron this one out for good is separate marriage and state.

Not what I said so read my post 3 times more.
Many humans are transgender and many have a penis AND a vagina.
So what gender are they?
And you want those bureaucrats making that decision?
Who has ever been charged with fraud on a marriage license?
If marriage is a contract then how else do you enforce a contract unless the state, the courts and THE LAW are involved?

 

[Seawytch]

The equal protection clause angle has already been covered....Any couple of opposite sexes may get married, no matter their sexual behavior.

The same logic was used in Loving v. Virginia, any couple of the same race may get married to members of the same race, no matter their race.

Bad argument then, bad argument now.

Race/ethnicity and behavior are two different bases....Moreover, gender can be objectively quantified, whereas homosexuality is a behavior.

After that, do we now have same-sex statutory marriages between straight couples, who merely wish to get in on the horn o' plenty of special gubmint benefits and dispensations carved out for married couples?...If not, how do you objectively test for gayness?

Privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious manner the grantor of said privileges sees fit...That's the nature of a privilege.

Really? That didn't work out to well for the anti-miscegenationist didn't it.

If Civil Marriage is a "privilege" and privileges can be denied for any capricious and invidious reason the granter of said privileges sees fit ... then the Loving v. Virginia case would not have happened.

Bottom line is it did and the idea that States do not have to function under the 14th Amendment lost.


>>>>

Civil marriage, not statutory marriage....Two different legal worlds.

Besides that, the Loving case involved male and female litigants.

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation laws were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

 

[Oddball]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

 

[Seawytch]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

It's called precedence. Based on precedence how can the SCOTUS rule against gay marriage equality. What basis would they be able to use? What is the reasonableness in preventing gays and lesbians from legal marriage equality?

Why would homosexuality have to be quantifiable? Heterosexuality isn't.

 

[Vanquish]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

Absolutely wrong.

First of all, gayness is a declaration of status. People clarify their status, legally, to the government, in lots of ways. Taxes are a perfect example. There are legal ramifications of being "married filing jointly" and "single". Millions of dollars can rest on that distinction, my friend.

Before we go further, saying that homosexuality is a choice smacks of anti-gay fear/hate/intolerance. Could you, right now, get a hard on/wet (sorry, I dont know what gender you are) just by CHOOSING? Could you look at Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie and CHOOSE to find them attractive? Of course not. If you can, I'd argue you're already gay yourself. I'd love to hear your answer to this.

Moving on...Loving absolutely DOES apply. Bans on same-sex marriages distinguishable from the ban on interracial marriages struck down in Loving. Before Loving was decided, most Americans were opposed to interracial marriages, and anti-miscegenation laws still existed in 16 states.

Can you fire someone for being gay in the workplace today?? No. You can't. So you have to agree that it's a protected class. As such, you have to determine what level of scrutiny applies then apply it. Segregating same-sex unions from opposite unions cannot possibly be held rationally (that's the level of scrutiny we're talking about here) to advance or "preserve" what was stated in the Goodridge case were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources.

And the way the law works...you combine holdings in different cases (Loving, Lawrence) to get a clearer application on the next case.

The fact that the Founding Fathers didn't find it polite to discuss homosexuality or give gays rights for cultural reasons (similar to African-Americans) doesn't mean they shouldn't have them.

Ultimately, as time goes on, the younger kind is getting more liberal about such things and gay folk will get the rights they deserve. But it can't happen soon enough.

 

[bodecea]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

The same way you objectively determine "straightness"....besides, this is a gender issue, not a sexual orientation issue.

 

[bodecea]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

It will be...indeed it will be.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Race/ethnicity and behavior are two different bases....Moreover, gender can be objectively quantified, whereas homosexuality is a behavior.

After that, do we now have same-sex statutory marriages between straight couples, who merely wish to get in on the horn o' plenty of special gubmint benefits and dispensations carved out for married couples?...If not, how do you objectively test for gayness?

The proper terminology is "Same-sex Marriage" because the civil/statutory laws are written based on gender.

There is no Civil Marriage law in the United States Civil/Statutory/Constitutional (that I'm aware of that bars two homosexuals from entering into Civil Marriage, the barrier is to members of the same sex.

Race/ethnicity are biological conditions, gender is also a biological condition. There is no difference.

Civil marriage, not statutory marriage....Two different legal worlds.

Civil Marriage and Statutory marriage are in the same legal worlds, just depends on if you think in terms of Civil Law or Statutory law, two different words for the same thing.

Besides that, the Loving case involved male and female litigants.

So?

The point was that no Civil Marriage cases had ever been decided on the United States Constitution, that is incorrect. Loving was a Civil Marriage (or Statutory Marriage, the terms are interchangeable) decided by the Supreme Court based on the 14th. There is no functional difference for discrimination based on race/ethnicity or one based on gender when their is no compelling government reason to discriminate on either.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

The laws are defined in terms of gender a "quantifiable" conditions. Thank you for that.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

Laws do not bar homosexuals from entering into Civil Marriage, the discriminatory (as in deciding factor) is the gender of the individuals involve.


Now we all know why the invidious law was written based on gender, the intent is to deny homosexuals Civil Marriage, but the fact is the law is written in terms of gender.



>>>>

 

[logical4u]

Gender can't be objectively quantified?...Since when?

And supposing a same-sex couple fooled the license-issuing bureaucrat, they'd be up for charges of fraud if ever found out.

The only way you iron this one out for good is separate marriage and state.

Not what I said so read my post 3 times more.
Many humans are transgender and many have a penis AND a vagina.
So what gender are they?
And you want those bureaucrats making that decision?
Who has ever been charged with fraud on a marriage license?
If marriage is a contract then how else do you enforce a contract unless the state, the courts and THE LAW are involved?

Define "many", preferably with a number.

 

[logical4u]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

Absolutely wrong.

First of all, gayness is a declaration of status. People clarify their status, legally, to the government, in lots of ways. Taxes are a perfect example. There are legal ramifications of being "married filing jointly" and "single". Millions of dollars can rest on that distinction, my friend.

Before we go further, saying that homosexuality is a choice smacks of anti-gay fear/hate/intolerance. Could you, right now, get a hard on/wet (sorry, I dont know what gender you are) just by CHOOSING? Could you look at Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie and CHOOSE to find them attractive? Of course not. If you can, I'd argue you're already gay yourself. I'd love to hear your answer to this.

Moving on...Loving absolutely DOES apply. Bans on same-sex marriages distinguishable from the ban on interracial marriages struck down in Loving. Before Loving was decided, most Americans were opposed to interracial marriages, and anti-miscegenation laws still existed in 16 states.

Can you fire someone for being gay in the workplace today?? No. You can't. So you have to agree that it's a protected class. As such, you have to determine what level of scrutiny applies then apply it. Segregating same-sex unions from opposite unions cannot possibly be held rationally (that's the level of scrutiny we're talking about here) to advance or "preserve" what was stated in the Goodridge case were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources.

And the way the law works...you combine holdings in different cases (Loving, Lawrence) to get a clearer application on the next case.

The fact that the Founding Fathers didn't find it polite to discuss homosexuality or give gays rights for cultural reasons (similar to African-Americans) doesn't mean they shouldn't have them.

Ultimately, as time goes on, the younger kind is getting more liberal about such things and gay folk will get the rights they deserve. But it can't happen soon enough.

Declaring "status" is opening up the legal system to a very expensive can of worms. There is no way to "document", accurately if a person is homosexual. If there was, the homosexuals would be the first to try to suppress it because they would claim deliberate targeting would be possible with this knowledge. This puts us back to square one.... legalizing homosexual marriage would cause massive cases of fraud for government money, and for the legal system. Legalizing homosexual marriage would also set a precedent (as a few on here want to point out) that if a "group" wants to declare its own status, then they too, can force the government to change the laws to encourage their behavior.

 

[Vanquish]

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

Absolutely wrong.

First of all, gayness is a declaration of status. People clarify their status, legally, to the government, in lots of ways. Taxes are a perfect example. There are legal ramifications of being "married filing jointly" and "single". Millions of dollars can rest on that distinction, my friend.

Before we go further, saying that homosexuality is a choice smacks of anti-gay fear/hate/intolerance. Could you, right now, get a hard on/wet (sorry, I dont know what gender you are) just by CHOOSING? Could you look at Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie and CHOOSE to find them attractive? Of course not. If you can, I'd argue you're already gay yourself. I'd love to hear your answer to this.

Moving on...Loving absolutely DOES apply. Bans on same-sex marriages distinguishable from the ban on interracial marriages struck down in Loving. Before Loving was decided, most Americans were opposed to interracial marriages, and anti-miscegenation laws still existed in 16 states.

Can you fire someone for being gay in the workplace today?? No. You can't. So you have to agree that it's a protected class. As such, you have to determine what level of scrutiny applies then apply it. Segregating same-sex unions from opposite unions cannot possibly be held rationally (that's the level of scrutiny we're talking about here) to advance or "preserve" what was stated in the Goodridge case were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources.

And the way the law works...you combine holdings in different cases (Loving, Lawrence) to get a clearer application on the next case.

The fact that the Founding Fathers didn't find it polite to discuss homosexuality or give gays rights for cultural reasons (similar to African-Americans) doesn't mean they shouldn't have them.

Ultimately, as time goes on, the younger kind is getting more liberal about such things and gay folk will get the rights they deserve. But it can't happen soon enough.

Declaring "status" is opening up the legal system to a very expensive can of worms. There is no way to "document", accurately if a person is homosexual. If there was, the homosexuals would be the first to try to suppress it because they would claim deliberate targeting would be possible with this knowledge. This puts us back to square one.... legalizing homosexual marriage would cause massive cases of fraud for government money, and for the legal system. Legalizing homosexual marriage would also set a precedent (as a few on here want to point out) that if a "group" wants to declare its own status, then they too, can force the government to change the laws to encourage their behavior.

Nice try, but no.

First of all, regular marriages are entered into for sham reasons all the time: economic, immigration, homosexuality cover up, love (ok the last one was a joke).

Second of all, I get where you're going with the whole "don't brand me" thing, but those who want to be branded will step up and ask to get married or be treated as gay, and others wont. It's as simple as that. No one will be forced to choose a status that they don't want. Again, legal status is used already so it's not really that big a deal (except if you hate gay marriage).

Great job at creating a boogeyman with the fraud thing. The fraud is that men and women are being forced to live a lie already. They can't marry whom they love. Do you really think, if given the choice between being able to get married and declared officially gay and not getting to marry, but be "safe from branding" 100% of gays would choose the latter? Highly doubtful. I'm betting Ellen Degeneres would come out again in order to get to marry Portia di Rossi. (Hell, I'll declare I'm gay to marry Portia di Rossi)

As WW explained, it's a gender-based discrimination case...to which we apply...intermediate scrutiny. "It must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest" Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)

There's no force, other than religious pressure, both organized and individual, that has kept this illegal. It's just a matter of time until the tolerance and understanding of a more enlightened generation changes that.

 

[kaz]

Gender can't be objectively quantified?

My wife went to Smith College, an all women's school. They banned the use of the word "she" because it discriminates against transgenders. Ironically if you believe transgenders aren't women, shouldn't they be expelled from a women's college? Liberalism is very complicated. No wonder they are so smart.

 

[logical4u]

Absolutely wrong.

First of all, gayness is a declaration of status. People clarify their status, legally, to the government, in lots of ways. Taxes are a perfect example. There are legal ramifications of being "married filing jointly" and "single". Millions of dollars can rest on that distinction, my friend.

Before we go further, saying that homosexuality is a choice smacks of anti-gay fear/hate/intolerance. Could you, right now, get a hard on/wet (sorry, I dont know what gender you are) just by CHOOSING? Could you look at Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie and CHOOSE to find them attractive? Of course not. If you can, I'd argue you're already gay yourself. I'd love to hear your answer to this.

Moving on...Loving absolutely DOES apply. Bans on same-sex marriages distinguishable from the ban on interracial marriages struck down in Loving. Before Loving was decided, most Americans were opposed to interracial marriages, and anti-miscegenation laws still existed in 16 states.

Can you fire someone for being gay in the workplace today?? No. You can't. So you have to agree that it's a protected class. As such, you have to determine what level of scrutiny applies then apply it. Segregating same-sex unions from opposite unions cannot possibly be held rationally (that's the level of scrutiny we're talking about here) to advance or "preserve" what was stated in the Goodridge case were the Commonwealth's legitimate interests in procreation, child rearing, and the conservation of resources.

And the way the law works...you combine holdings in different cases (Loving, Lawrence) to get a clearer application on the next case.

The fact that the Founding Fathers didn't find it polite to discuss homosexuality or give gays rights for cultural reasons (similar to African-Americans) doesn't mean they shouldn't have them.

Ultimately, as time goes on, the younger kind is getting more liberal about such things and gay folk will get the rights they deserve. But it can't happen soon enough.

Declaring "status" is opening up the legal system to a very expensive can of worms. There is no way to "document", accurately if a person is homosexual. If there was, the homosexuals would be the first to try to suppress it because they would claim deliberate targeting would be possible with this knowledge. This puts us back to square one.... legalizing homosexual marriage would cause massive cases of fraud for government money, and for the legal system. Legalizing homosexual marriage would also set a precedent (as a few on here want to point out) that if a "group" wants to declare its own status, then they too, can force the government to change the laws to encourage their behavior.

Nice try, but no.

First of all, regular marriages are entered into for sham reasons all the time: economic, immigration, homosexuality cover up, love (ok the last one was a joke).

Second of all, I get where you're going with the whole "don't brand me" thing, but those who want to be branded will step up and ask to get married or be treated as gay, and others wont. It's as simple as that. No one will be forced to choose a status that they don't want. Again, legal status is used already so it's not really that big a deal (except if you hate gay marriage).

Great job at creating a boogeyman with the fraud thing. The fraud is that men and women are being forced to live a lie already. They can't marry whom they love. Do you really think, if given the choice between being able to get married and declared officially gay and not getting to marry, but be "safe from branding" 100% of gays would choose the latter? Highly doubtful. I'm betting Ellen Degeneres would come out again in order to get to marry Portia di Rossi. (Hell, I'll declare I'm gay to marry Portia di Rossi)

As WW explained, it's a gender-based discrimination case...to which we apply...intermediate scrutiny. "It must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest" Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976)

There's no force, other than religious pressure, both organized and individual, that has kept this illegal. It's just a matter of time until the tolerance and understanding of a more enlightened generation changes that.

So let me get this straight: it is a "fraud" for 2 people that love each other to play house?
It is okay to bilk the taxpayers out of tons of money and clog up the justice department to justify a few "pretend" (one or both people are pretending they are the other sex, for life) marriages?

 

[Oddball]

Race/ethnicity and behavior are two different bases....Moreover, gender can be objectively quantified, whereas homosexuality is a behavior.

After that, do we now have same-sex statutory marriages between straight couples, who merely wish to get in on the horn o' plenty of special gubmint benefits and dispensations carved out for married couples?...If not, how do you objectively test for gayness?

The proper terminology is "Same-sex Marriage" because the civil/statutory laws are written based on gender.

There is no Civil Marriage law in the United States Civil/Statutory/Constitutional (that I'm aware of that bars two homosexuals from entering into Civil Marriage, the barrier is to members of the same sex.

Race/ethnicity are biological conditions, gender is also a biological condition. There is no difference.

Don't try and cloud the issue with bullshit semantics...The issue here is GAYS (which is a behavior, not anything readily identifiable like ethnicity or gender) demanding statutory marriage licenses...There is ZERO demand form same-sex straights to obtain statutory marriage licenses.

An honest dialogue starts with honest semantics and you just failed straight out of the gate.

Civil marriage, not statutory marriage....Two different legal worlds.

Civil Marriage and Statutory marriage are in the same legal worlds, just depends on if you think in terms of Civil Law or Statutory law, two different words for the same thing.

No, they're not...Otherwise, gays wouldn't be sniveling about civil unions being a "second class" marriage.

Besides that, the Loving case involved male and female litigants.

So?

The point was that no Civil Marriage cases had ever been decided on the United States Constitution, that is incorrect. Loving was a Civil Marriage (or Statutory Marriage, the terms are interchangeable) decided by the Supreme Court based on the 14th. There is no functional difference for discrimination based on race/ethnicity or one based on gender when their is no compelling government reason to discriminate on either.



>>>>

Is English a second language for you?

Loving was decided on the basis of ethnicity, not gender....PERIOD!...The 14th Amendment doesn't apply insofar as the invocation of the Loving case is concerned, on account of both gender and the fact that statutory and civil/common law marriages exist on two differing legal planes.

 

[Oddball]

And during that fight, it was argued that anti-miscegenation were not discrimination because they applied equally to men and women. Different day, same argument.

Looking at precedent set in cases like Loving and Lawrence, how can the Supreme Court rule any other way than to support gay and lesbian marriage equality? THEY have to provide an overriding harm in allowing marriage equality. There isn't one.

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

The same way you objectively determine "straightness"....besides, this is a gender issue, not a sexual orientation issue.

No, it's not...There is no demand from straights to obtain same-sex statutory marriage licenses.

Bullshitter semantics never fly with me and you know it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

An honest dialogue starts with honest semantics and you just failed straight out of the gate.

You mean like claiming that Civil Law and Statutory Law are different things?

No, they're not...Otherwise, gays wouldn't be sniveling about civil unions being a "second class" marriage.

Since Civil Unions do not transfer across state lines like Civil Marriage, since Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, etc., etc. - they are "second class" to Civil Marriage.

Is English a second language for you?

No, that's why I didn't bite at the semantic game of "Civil" verses "Statutory Law'.

Loving was decided on the basis of ethnicity, not gender....PERIOD!...

No Loving was decided based on the law.

... the fact that statutory and civil/common law marriages exist on two differing legal planes.

Since there has been no case ever review in a Supreme Court case argued before the court, your denial of the 14th's applicability is only your opinion. The opinion of the SCOTUS in the current legal environment is unknown. The only case the Court has issued is Baker v. Nelson in the 1970's and it wasn't a written decision, it was a dismissal for want of a federal question. Since then the legal landscape has changed because now there are definitely federal legal questions. In the 1970's the federal government recognized (as they had for 200 years) ALL Civil Marriages valid under state law, with the passage of DOMA in 1996 the federal government established that they would now only selectively recognize some legal Civil Marriages but not others. Which of course goes along with the fact that in the 1970's there were no legal Civil Marriages under State law, now there there are 7 legal entities validating Same-sex Civil Marriages.

...the fact that statutory and civil/common law marriages exist on two differing legal planes.

Civil and Statutory Law Marriages are the same thing. In the limited number of State which still allow for Common Law Marriages - those marriages are defined under Civil/Statutory Law. In State that do not allow for Common Law Marriages - those marriages do not exist under Civil/Statutory Law (unless the marriage is recognized and established under another States Civil/Statutory Law and the couple moves to the new state under Full Faith and Credit.)


If State "A" does not provide for Common Law Marriage - then even if the couple lives together and presents themselves as "married", they in fact are not married under Common Law because the marriage is not valid under Civil/Statutory Law.

If State "B" does provide for Common Law Marriage - then once a couple lives together for the requisite amount of time and presents themselves as married - then they become "married" under the Civil/Statutory Law of the State.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

If it were the same argument, then Loving would be aplicable from the get-go...But it isn't, so it isn't.

Gender and behavior are two different things....One is quantifiable, the other is not.

How do you go about objectively determining "gayness"?...What's the clinical test procedure?

The same way you objectively determine "straightness"....besides, this is a gender issue, not a sexual orientation issue.

No, it's not...There is no demand from straights to obtain same-sex statutory marriage licenses.

Bullshitter semantics never fly with me and you know it.

Actually there are quite a few straights "demanding" the approval of Same-sex Civil Marriage. That logic doesn't fly since homosexuals are somewhere between 3%-10% of the population yet polls show that in excess of 50% of Americans now approve of Same-sex Civil Marriage and in the last two voter responses (California 2008, Maine 2009) 47%-48% voted in support of equal treatment of same-sex couples regarding Civil Marriage.


>>>>