Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That case wasn't even about SSM, but thanks for proving that you know nothing about the subject of how marriage and reproduction are (not) connected in the governments eyes.
You seem to have skipped over the questions, yet again. MAybe if I re-post them you will finally answer them.
1. Does your new marriage rules only apply to same sex couples that can not or do not have children, or will it also apply to the elderly that marry, or sterile heterosexuals, or heterosexuals that do not want children?
2. Will you be voiding my mothers second marriage since she is post menopausal, and can not longer have children and is too old to adopt?
3. How about my sisters marriage? She had to have a hysterectomy due to a medical condition and can no longer reproduce, and her new husband doesn't want any children so she will not be adopting either.
4. How will promoting marriage for a couple that has biological children and gives them up for adoption, be more important than promoting marriage for the couples that adopt those children?
It's a different sort of family, but I'm not saying we should not support them too.
Almost any person, or any two people can adopt a baby, or use a surrogate mother or sperm donor, to raise their own offspring, and we do support these people for the sake of the children.
Except they should not be allowed to have the legal protections that come with marriage according to the OP.
We do encourage adoption in this country, but two men raising adopted children is not marriage. Call it a domestic partnership, give these two men all the benefits and such that raising children together merits, but it's still not marriage.
Is what they are doing a good thing, most definitely! Should we have laws in place to protect them, and policies in place to assist them, yes.
We do have a law in place capable of protecting them via the conference of legal protections and benefits - it just so happens that that civil, secular law is titled "civil marriage." The title of a law is irrelevant to access.
It isn't up to the federal government to decide marriage. It is up to the States, the federal government has not the power to make any ruling on this. The 10th amendment makes this very clear.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It isn't up to the federal government to decide marriage. It is up to the States, the federal government has not the power to make any ruling on this. The 10th amendment makes this very clear.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
You're forgetting that the Constitution delegates this regulatory power to the United States:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It isn't up to the federal government to decide marriage. It is up to the States, the federal government has not the power to make any ruling on this. The 10th amendment makes this very clear.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The question: Why the government should promote heterosexual marriage
The answer: Because it benefits the nation as whole. It benefits the married, the unmarried and even the gays.
Promoting traditional marriage builds the foundation for the entire nation, while promoting SSM benefits a handful of gays. See the problem?
Nope, because the two are not mutually exclusive. The legalization of same-sex marriage does not dissolve traditional marriages or families as proven by countries and states around the world that have both.
Your arguments are illogical and rooted in bigotry, nothing more.
It isn't up to the federal government to decide marriage. It is up to the States, the federal government has not the power to make any ruling on this. The 10th amendment makes this very clear.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
It seems the federal government DOES have the ability to make decisions nation wide on marriage, they have done so already.
Loving v Virginia.
Not to mention the 10th amendment does not trump the 14th amendment.
AMENDMENT XIV
SECTION 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So, if a state has laws that offer protections, like marriage, they can not deny a segment of society the right to have those protections without first showing how doing so would further a compelling state interest.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
