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.
The most common state interest discussed in same-sex marriage case law relates to procreation, either the interest in encouraging procreation for the sake of ensuring the continuation of society or the interest in responsible procreation. In one of the earliest opinions, arising from a challenge to Washington’s marriage law, the court asserted, “The fact remains that marriage exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.” The court also said that the state’s failure to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples “is based upon the state’s recognition that our society as a whole views marriage as the appropriate and desirable forum for procreation and the rearing of children.” The court rejected the contention that the fact that some married couples do not have children defeats this interest, noting that “[t]hese . . . are exceptional situations.”
It went on to say,
Quote:
Further, it is apparent that no same-sex couple offers the possibility of the birth of children by their union. Thus, the refusal of the state to authorize same-sex marriage results from such impossibility of reproduction rather than from an invidious discrimination “on account of sex.” Therefore, the definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman is permissible as applied to appellants . . . because it is founded upon the unique physical characteristics of the sexes and appellants are not being discriminated against because of their status as males per se.
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit noted that “homosexual marriages never produce offspring.” In a dissent to the Supreme Court of Hawaii’s decision that marriage is a form of sex discrimination, Judge
Heen stated his belief that the purpose of the marriage law is “to promote and protect propagation.”
Quote:
[The state] has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the stable environment traditionally associated with marriage, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest. Essentially, the State asserts that by legally sanctioning a heterosexual relationship through marriage, thereby imposing both obligations and benefits on the couple and inserting the State in the relationship, the State communicates to parents and prospective parents that their long-term, committed relationships are uniquely important as a public concern.
Actually, the propagation of humanity is but one reason. There are many other reasons...
Quote:
The next relevant state interest is related to the others. It is that marriage provides the next generation the training and attributes necessary to sustain a liberal democracy.
The link between marriage and social order has been noted by the U.S. Supreme Court in an oft-cited statement,
Quote:
Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution, in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.
then why let older hets marry?, why let retarded ppl marry? then why let convicts marry? why let barren women marry?
Freaking read the statement I quoted.
Quote:
The court rejected the contention that the fact that some married couples do not have children defeats this interest, noting that “[t]hese . . . are exceptional situations.”
then why let older hets marry?, why let retarded ppl marry? then why let convicts marry? why let barren women marry?
There are a lot of somewhat non-retarded anti-gay marriage arguments out there and his is not one of them. In fact, it's probably one of the worst arguments you can make. As you pointed out, we let an indefinite number of people marry who cannot have children, so long as they are of the same sex. Additionally, his argument ignores the possibility of having children without getting married, something about 40 percent of America is doing.
Look at the difference between "in principle" and "incidental". Marriage between two elderly people is incidentally sterile but marriage between two men or two women is IN PRINCIPLE sterile.
Likely itslike alot of thing i the senate and the House that will never go much beyond. Look at some of the things that have flew thru committeee to actual approval in the House.
There are a lot of somewhat non-retarded anti-gay marriage arguments out there and his is not one of them. In fact, it's probably one of the worst arguments you can make. As you pointed out, we let an indefinite number of people marry who cannot have children, so long as they are of the same sex. Additionally, his argument ignores the possibility of having children without getting married, something about 40 percent of America is doing.
It's not my argument. It's the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's argument. It's the Supreme Court's argument.
And my argument doesn't ignore the possibility of having children without getting married!!!!!! I posted about it IN THE ORIGINAL FREAKING POST!!!!!!
READ what you argue against before you argue against it!!!!
To act as if concepts are laughable means that you want to be irrational.
Stop being irrational.
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.
