Huh? There’s nothing about anything that makes it “‘fundamental to the survival and existence of the human race’ other than procreation.” Pretty much all we need to do to perpetuate the human race is live long enough to procreate and then do so. But human procreation vastly predates human marriage. And various other species manage to survive without marriage. So, I don’t think there is actually anything about marriage or anything else that makes it “fundamental to the survival and existence of the human race.” There is something about procreation that does so.
Exactly.
Now examine Skinner v. Oklahoma, and then tell me why the Loving court cites Skinner for the proposition that “marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race” (keeping in mind Skinner does not involve marriage issues) in determining that marriage is a fundamental right? What we’re left with is “the right to marriage flows from the right to procreate” as I asserted previously.
If Americans will succumb to disillusionment as a result of gay marriage while Canadians who casually legalized it nearly seven years ago have not, I can only assume a fundamental weakness and cowardice in the American character.
Sorry if that offends, but other explanations are lacking.
What state has passed an anti-gay marriage law or amendment that is targeted at one gender? The target is formal recognition of sexual orientation, and stratocaster is correct.
erm…
Perhaps my point was missed - legal discrimination based on orientation is as pointless as based on gender. You’re basically offering us “It’s not stupidity, it’s idiocy!” as though that was preferable.
the marriage rate is dropping in both countries. In Canada, it was reported dropping below 50% in 2006:
http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsCAN.shtml
And was reported dropping below 50% in the U.S. for the first time in 2010:
So it appears Canada is quicker to disillusionment in marriage than the U.S. to me.
Don’t get me wrong; there are other factors at play, too, my argument here is we simply do not need one more factor to disillusion people as Canada thought it did.
You haven’t established that even if “disillusionment” is the cause, that gay marriage was a trigger. Besides, if the rate is indeed dropping in both countries, and gay marriage is a factor, I’m sure you can establish that the rate of “disillusionment” is significantly higher in Canada, no? And, I’m sure, you can also rule out other factors, like a general loosening of social mores that was underway well before this particular issue came to such prominence over the last 15 years, no?
Otherwise, please explain to me why Americans are such delicate hothouse flowers that they simply can’t handle gay marriage.
My point is there is no gender discrimination in marriage laws and it’s pointless to analyze them for such. And while there is discrimination against gays in marriage laws, “gay” is a different question than “gender.”
Please do not imply that I’m an idiot until the rules change, so that I can characterize your arguments as idiocy (the product of an idiot) as well.
So?
I don’t know if you’re an idiot. My position is that you’re arguing for something idiotic. You’re free to say the same about me, of course, but I invite you to strengthen such a claim by proving how gay marriage hurts anyone in any manner whatsoever.
because a lot of them are bigoted homophobe false christian religious freaks. Aren’t they?
When they speak, do you really think, “these people aren’t disillusioned over marriage issues?”
And as much as we’d claim their views are illogical, this does not change the fact that they exist. My angle here is not that they must get their way, but that society cannot afford the desires of the 2% (in a context of granted privilege) over affirming marriage for the asshole 50% (ina context of right).
Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few.
let’s instead argue about the interests of society as a whole instead of trying to isolate individual harm.
But if you must know, I was turned down once when I proposed, on the basis that marriage is meaningless. She’s willing to cohabitate, I’m not.
If using one characteristic alone to assign people to a pool of possible spouses isn’t discrimination based on that characteristic, then how were miscegenation laws ever held to be “invidious racial discrimination”?
Discrimination based on sexual orientation is just a form of discrimination based on gender. If you give a benefit to men who are in relationships with women, you are discriminating against women if you don’t also give it to women in relationships with women, and vice-versa.
Or perhaps you’d care to demonstrate that Canadians haven’t succumbed to disillusionment in marriage.
Otherwise, I suppose that Canadians and Americans are similar in character.
I gather, and it’s unclear to me how pandering to their ignorance is useful, as was pandering to the ignorance of the people who feared integrating the schools.
It never would have occurred to me, honesty. I’d be thinking “Wow, these people really hate the fags, don’t they, even to the point of hurting them out of pure spite, to no benefit to themselves.”
Sure, you can. That’s the nature of a constitutional democracy - to enshrine protections for minorities even in the face of majority disapproval.
The majority you’re describing “needs” to treated like the thumbsucking spiteful children that they are.
Thanks, Captain Amazing and David42, for the cite and link to Bruning. And I agree with David42 that there’s no conflict between this decision and the 1st Circuit opinion. Maybe the Supreme Court will grant certiorari because it’s an important issue and/or because it fits in with other cases making their way through the pipeline, but they could easily duck this one if they choose. If they choose not to duck, I think whether they affirm or overrule Baker will be the dog and the 1st Circuit decision will be the tail. Personally, I hope they overrule Baker. We’ll see. If not in this case, in another. Eventually, they’ll have to decide the question.
Well, the courts simply do not see it that way. Sexual orientation is the target in anti-gay marriage laws, we care not whether it’s a woman married to a woman or a man married to man, the object is NOT to favor one sex over the other, which is what gender discrimination is all about.
Sorry, proving negatives is for suckers.
Of course they are, probably more so than any bordering nations in history. Your popular culture is basically our popular culture - in light of how many Canadians were involved in its creation.
[sub]Nathan Fillion, really?[/sub]
A false equivalency, of course. Gay is not a race issue.
It’s not pandering. it’s a question of how many kids will be in welfare/domestic relations cases. Deal with reality.
I find no evidence to conclude that the only reason to fail to support gay marriage is animus toward gays. When these people say they do not necessarily hate fags, but are considering other factors, why do you not take it at face value as their opinion on the issue? Why must you assign another motive, other than reasoning this motive is easy to defeat?
if you were taking a poll, and there were two boxes for “why I don’t agree with gay marriage” and one was “preservation of marriage” and another was “hate fags” would you check “hate fags” everytime someone told you “preservation of marriage?”
I find no logic in your changing their views for them, nor see a way you could prove they are lying.
Unless a compelling government interest comes along, in which you can kiss the protections goodbye, time and time again. There is no way to balance all the rights of all people all at the same time. And I do not concede gay marriage is even a right, or that gay should be a protected status as a class or recognized minority.
I find no compelling interest in so doing, however childish you want them to appear. Many hold these views out of religious beliefs and I do believe the first amendment would protect them from treatment that follows a determination they need punished for not being as mature as you are.
If I had my guess, they won’t take this case but will take California’s Prop 8 which I erroneously called Amendment 2 earlier.