Gay marriage - why?

[eagl]

Lukster,

Because a male/male couple, who may legitimately (under our laws) have custody of one or more children, have the same challenges that a male/female couple have when raising a child.

Are you saying that a child in the custody of a male/male couple does not have the right to be raised with the same legal benefits provided to his next door neighbor who is being raised by a male/female couple?

Let's take it a step further.  Are you saying that a male/female couple who cannot have children on their own and therefore adopt a child, somehow deserve special rights that a male/male couple do not?  What is the difference there, except for a social bias against same-sex domestic partnership?  

Right now in the US, the only difference between those couples is that the US federal government gives the male/female couple very specific rights and benefits including very strong legal protections, and the same sex couple is explicitly denied those protections, on the basis of their sex alone.

Think very hard about your assumptions, because in this case, they are being driven by societal norms, not any conceivably fair reflection of the legal or constitutional realities of the issue.

[eagl]

Ok Lazs, let's test your claim that they have the same rights.

3 people.  Joe, Mark, and Jane.

Joe has the right to marry Jane.
Mark has the right to marry Jane.
Jane has the right to marry Joe.
Jane has the right to marry Mark.

But Mark does not have the right to marry Joe, and Joe does not have the right to marry Mark.

More simply...  
Let's say both Jane and Joe want to marry Mark.
In light of the very clear and specific guidance in the constitution, tell me how it could possibly be constitutional for any law to be passed that permits Jane and forbids Joe from marrying Mark.

Not only that, tell me how it can possibly be constitutional to pass a law that gives legal and financial rights/benefits to Jane if she lives in the same house as Mark, privledges that are given even if they are never formally married, but specifically denies those rights and benefits to Joe if he is living in the same house under the same circumstances as the Jane/Mark situtation.

The question of protecting couples that can have children keeps coming up, but this is a false argument because male/female couples that either cannot, or simply do not, have children, are still given the rights and benefits denied to same-sex couples.  The ONLY difference is the sex of the partners.  And since the constitution specifically states that laws cannot be passed that discriminate on the basis of sex, where does that leave us?

Right or wrong from a moral standpoint, the constitution flat-out forbids any type of sex discrimination and that constitutional protection must apply to all laws, not just the ones we find emotionally appealing.

[lukster]

Custody of a child does not equal reproducing which is the only thing that continues the human race. If a male adopts a child he does gain the tax exemption that anyone with a dependent enjoys. That another male would stay home to nurture the child is an anomaly.

The continuance of the human race is dependent on the male/female relationship resulting in offspring. Looking at this from a purely self serving viewpoint, males are tradtitionally the providers. What benefit does society derive from granting two males the same breaks?

[eagl]

2 more points Lazs.

First, goats are not constitutionally protected.  The constitution and laws stemming from the rights and responsibilities laid out in the constitution, largely govern relationships between humans.

That said, a law permitting or forbidding marriage (or domestic partnership) between a man and a goat would not be unconstitutional.  The constitution simply does not cover legal equality of non-human animals.

Second regarding your concern about laws passed in good faith...  There were many laws in the past that were based on racial discrimination.  Many of those laws were passed with the specific intent to comply with the "separate but equal" legal construct.  Guess what - no matter how much faith and "honest" thought was put into those laws, they had to be tossed because the underlying assumption and underlying legal principle was flawed and unconstitutional.

Again, my point stands that the exact same arguments used to justify racial discrimination are being used once again in the arguments justifying unconstitutional laws that concern legal status of same-sex partners, whether you call it "marriage" or not.

[eagl]

lukster,

The same societal benefits that are gained by giving those breaks to male/female couples who are not able to have children "naturally" and who must adopt if they want to raise children.

I'll break one of my rules and drag my wife into this, because it will illustrate how wrong your discrimination justifications are.

My wife and I may not be able to have children, and we may have to adopt if we want to raise children.  Not only that, but she makes a hell of a lot more money than I do, so if we want to have a stay at home parent present in our child's life, it's probably going to be me doing the Mr. Mom bit.  Oh yea, we're outside your mystical child-rearing age.

According to your logic, my wife and I should get no legal benefits, no tax breaks, and no rights of survivorship if one of us should die.  If the house is in her name because she's the wage earner, I should get evicted if she dies.  If only one of us is listed on the adoption paperwork, the other one should lose custody if the adoptive parent dies.

Wait, that's not what you meant?  Ok, so how is my personal situation any different from a male-male couple in our same situation, except for the sex of one of the partners?  There is NO factual difference, yet you say the laws should treat our situations differently based on sex alone.

Or are you really saying that my wife and I should not receive legal marital status if we can't have kids?  If that's what you mean, because that's what you said in your last post, then you might want to remain clear of the 5ish percent of women in this country who are unable to bear children because that's a terribly insensitive thing to say.

[eagl]

Moral arguments and the general "ickyness" that most people feel about homosexuality aside, it makes me SICK that the justifications people bring up against same-sex marriages apply not only to me and my wife, but millions of other couples.

Yet another common situation - A woman has a child before she gets married, and for whatever reason (cervical cancer, internal injuries, whatever), is unable to conceive another child.  She then marries a man who binds himself legally and emotionally to this woman and child.  He provides support and security.  In recognition of this supporting relationship we call a "family", the government at the behest of society (voters) has provided numerous legal benefits covering everything from right of survivorship and inheritance, to cash tax benefits.  The ability to bear children is out of the picture entirely, and so is religion because these two people can get married in a court or by a state appointed entity authorized to validate and issue marriage certificates.

That same situation however, if the man is replaced by a second woman, receives NONE of the same rights, benefits, or legal protections for no reason other than the sex of the second partner.

Again, tell me how that passes the constitutional test that states no law will be passed that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, or creed (religion)?

The legal construct we call "marriage" has NOTHING to do with the ability of the couple to have children, otherwise the federal government would only recognize the marital status of couples who do in fact self-generate offspring.  Since there is no such test or requirement to be considered married, and in fact such a test would be considered discriminatory in itself, any such considerations have ZERO legal value.

Lukster I know you don't mean it personally, but what you're basically saying is that my wife and I should not be permitted to be married because we can not self-generate offspring.  Most people would be deeply offended by that.

By logical extension, maybe you can imagine how offended same-sex partners feel when you say that they shouldn't be allowed to be married, since you state these general principles that would exclude traditional couples like me and my wife, but still apply them only to same-sex couples.

We have a word for that... "discrimination".

[lukster]

Sensitivity has little to do with the reality of the situation. I will grant that it is the basis for considering giving two males the same protections as the male/female union. Anyhow, the legal benefits of marriage were provided because society decided that it was profitable to encourage this union. Call it discrimination if you want. That word doesn't always have the impact of shame that some who use it expect of it.

[eagl]

Lukster, what you are determined to ignore is that discrimination of this type is explicitly forbidden by the US constitution.  There is no argument you can make that gets past this fact.

People used to think it benefitted society to have slaves.  Later, it was decided that slaves were bad but it was still ok to discriminate based on race.  Guess what...  Society doesn't have a say when it comes to discrimination because the constitution is very clear on this point.

[lukster]

Originally posted by eagl
Lukster, what you are determined to ignore is that discrimination of this type is explicitly forbidden by the US constitution.  There is no argument you can make that gets past this fact.

I disagree. Granting tax breaks to those who are married is certainly no more discriminative than affrimative action. How is deciding who qualifies for marrigae any different than deciding who qualifies for affirmative action? If you happen to think affirmative action is non-constitutional I'll come up with another example.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by FUNKED1
"all a means to attract and distract"

seems to have worked well

[storch]

this guy has far too much time on his hands and an unhealthy interest in the internal goings on of the super power that owns him.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Sixpence
seems to have worked well

Doubt it. Many will be looking closely at their candidates postion on illegal immigration. This is a sore issue that has been festering for many years. It won't go away with a little lip service.

[eagl]

Lukster,

Half of affirmative action is unconstitutional in my opinion, so again you're drawing parallels to the race issue to justify discrimination.

The half of affirmative action that gives minorities specific targeted assistance to address a societal imbalance does not appear to me to be unconstitutional.  The part where that assistance comes at the direct expense of another person with race as the only discriminator IS unconstitutional however.

If a pot of money exists for the sole purpose of addressing a problem, it is not discrimination to give it out according to the plan to address that problem.

If however there is a merit-based discriminator in place and the legitimate winner of such a merit-based selection process is displaced by another person solely on the basis of race, then a law supporting such a process would be unconstitutional.

[BluKitty]

Do any of you realize how much of a slap in the face this timeing was?

Bushes Saturday address was the 25th anniversary of the 'discovory' of AIDS.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0605-04.htm

By a man who lost in Florida in 2000 and rigged Ohio in 2004.  I refuse to call him "President" ...He's a criminal

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by BluKitty
Do any of you realize how much of a slap in the face this timeing was?

Bushes Saturday address was the 25th anniversary of the 'discovory' of AIDS.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0605-04.htm

What does AIDs have to do with this?  Unless you are saying that it is and was spread predominantly through permiscuous gay men.  If not I fail to see the corilation.