Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: shrumpage
You bring up an interesting point about required literacy when it comes to elections about limiting access.
"a compelling state interest." The compelling interest of the state is to promote families. Basically to say " we value this type of relationship male/female, over male/male or female/female because it can create famlies" It is the significant biology difference between the two types of relationship. That would be the states reason to want to promote one over the other.
But the states would need to show that
not restricting marriage to male/female would somehow have a
negative consequence with regard to promoting families. And this is where the states would have a real problem. I have never heard a believable argument as to how allowing men to marry men or women to marry women would interfere with women marrying men. Or how a man/woman marriage would somehow be "damaged" (in terms of "family") by allowing same-sex couples to marry.
You asked for the compelling reaons - i didn't say interfering with other couples. I was giving a reason why. 1. the couples are different in a signifcate way. 2. and why the state would be interested in promoting one above the other.
But you
haven't provided a reason why the state would promote one above the other. The operative word is "above".
Look at it this way:
For the sake of this discussion, we'll assume that "family" is only a "straight thing" (in reality, I don't agree with this assumption at all). Now, if as you claim, marriage "promotes family", then a law which allows marriage by ANY two adults clearly promotes "family" for heterosexuals just as well as a law which is restricts marriage to heterosexuals. That is, whether the marriage law is restrictive or non-restrictive, heterosexual couples are going to receive the same benefits, and "family" will be promoted.
So the state must be able to justify NOT that it sanctions an institution called "marriage" in order to "promote family". Rather, is must justify why it EXCLUDES certain types of couples. It must state what the "compelling state interest" is in EXCLUDING same-sex couples. Since the states clearly do NOT exclude all sorts of heterosexual couples that DON'T and/or CAN'T have children, it's clear that the state CANNOT claim that it wants to limit the benefits of marriage solely to those who raise families. Thus, if the state claims that the purpose of creating marriage is to promote families, then it must demonstrate how excluding certains types of "non-family" couples (but not excluding ALL non-family couples) from the definition of marriage FURTHERS that objective. The state is not allowed to be arbitrary.
Get it?
Besides, it's obvious that same-sex couples can procreate (witness my lesbian cousin), can adopt, and can have families. How can it possibly be in the states' interest to interfere with that?
Um no it is not obivous - by defination they can't procreate. And the state is NOT interfering with that - i assume the state leaves same-sex couples alone. It is the couple that is asking something from the state.
You're really out on a limb here.
The definition of procreation: "to beget or bring forth (offspring)"
As much as you'd like it to be, the definition is NOT, "to beget or bring forth (offspring) by means of a man having sexual relations with his wife".
Thus, if a member of a heterosexual couple goes to a sperm bank (because her husband is sterile) and thereby gets pregnant and give birth, are you claiming that isn't "procreation"? How is it any different if a member of a lesbian couple gets such a donation? Or if a gay man gets a woman to be a "womb donor"?
And when, in a few years, technology allows gay couples to produce babies using only the genetic material from the gay couple, will you claim that isn't "procreation" because, "it's not natural"? I bet you wouldn't make that statement to a heterosexual couple that can't conceive naturally, yet succeeds using technology.
And many marriages (same-sex and heterosexual) DON'T have children (either by choice or because it's impossible [too old, physically incapacitated, etc.].
And that is why having the childern is NOT a requirement to be married. But the majority of marriages do produce offspring.
You've missed (or are intentionally evading) the point: If the state does not exclude "non-procreating" heterosexual couples from marrying, how can it justify excluding "non-procreating" same-sex couples? Don't respond with, "Well, a heterosexual couple is capable of procreating." To keep this simple: If a woman who's received a hysterectomy isn't barred from heterosexual marriage by the state, how can the state justify excluding same-sex couples?
Besides, family isn't the only benefit engendered by marriage. So why is it in the states' interests to pretend that the other benefits shouldn't be available to all, even if we make the (absurd) assumption that "family" is only a "straight thing"?
I never said family was a benefit endedered by marriage. I said promoting one type of couple over the other because of their inheritant differences. And by promoting, i mean encouraging and supporting off. The state does have a vested interest in promoting families. But procreating families is a only a "straight thing."
But, again, the state is not allowed to be arbitrary. Under the equal-protection clause, it must justify disparate treatment. The state can claim it's trying to promote "families" all it wants, but then it must justify:
Why isn't it promoting same-sex families? (Are you REALLY going to make the claim that Debbie and Anne, and their two children Tommy and Denise are NOT a family?)
Why isn't it excluding heterosexual non-families?
And then there's the most obvious point: Marriage confers benefits that have nothing to do with "family". How can the state justify confering such benefits on one class of couple, but not on another?
And as a final point, and I'm not going to be pretty about this: All the arguments I hear about "family" are so obviously lacking in any serious credibility (take your ridiculous claim about "procreation"), that they're clearly just a "cover" for the real issue: The right thinks same-sex couples are "unnatural". More plainly, they're "not according to the Bible". And the right doesn't want the state to condone "immoral relationships". That's the bottom line. You are not being honest here. You can't really believe the arguments you're spewing. At least come out and admit what you REALLY believe.
