# Arguments against same sex marriage the same as arguments against interracial marriage **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 10, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485 "2012-05-10T07:21:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/61 "2012-05-11T00:48:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Correct. > > Well, the “think of the children” argument is rather broadly characterized; in the case of same-sex marriage, it’s to encourage the creation of chidlren; with miscegenation, it was to NOT create mixed-race children. First, with modern technology SSM does not mean that one (or maybe both in the case of a F-F marriage) can have children. Someone already mentioned that it could increase the production of children. Second, the argument quoted in the OP was a bit more subtle. The reason to not create mixed race children was not because they were inherently bad but because everyone would supposedly hate them. And in some cases at least you could tell - (though not our mixed race President.) No one can tell by looking at a child if he or she is the child of a SSM, so that is a reason for. And you can’t tell by who is with them - a child down our street was born of an OSM, which dissolved when her mother came out. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/62 "2012-05-11T01:15:02Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Huh? I assume you mean “hospital visitation, adoption” and not “housing, employment and school bullying”. Hospital visitation is a non-issue. Everyone nowadays, gay, straight, bi or undetermined, should have a durable power of attorney for health care. I am not aware of any such properly executed document being invalidated on account of homosexuality. If anyone knows of such a case, please inform. Otherwise, I’ll consider that to be red herring. Nonsense. Many, perhaps most people have no such “durable power of attorney”. And the effort and expense needed to get hundreds of separate little legal arrangements to duplicate what legally married people get with one is no “red herring”. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > I also find it absurd that two guys who live together and love each other want me, as society, to recognize their relationship as a marriage. Me, as society, isn’t getting anything out of this deal. Well, whoop-te-do, you don’t get anything out of a lot of things. And I’m not surprised you find it “absurd”; that seems a common reaction among victimizers when their victims complain about being victimized. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Bob & Emily at least had the potential of producing and raising the next generation. Two gay guys don’t. Neither do sterile heterosexual couples. The difference of course between the two couples is that the goal of this distinction is to target the homosexual couple for oppression and abuse. No one cares about sterile heterosexual couples because it’s the ability to reproduce that’s a red herring. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/63 "2012-05-11T01:15:54Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Nope. There are clear denunciations of “foreign wives” (the closest thing to interracial marriage that was possible given the populations of men and women who were within accessible range of each other) in the Old Testament. That’s about as “traditional” as it gets. Did you not actually read my posts? I already cited this situation in my second post, noting the exclusions of Ezra and Nehemiah. I also noted that they were not the same thing. There was no general prohibition on marriage between unlike groups, only a prohibition against Hebrews marrying outside the tribe. Voyager has pointed out that Boaz and Ruth explicitly would have violated that law. (Moses also would have violated that rule.) Now, it might be argued that the law was only created at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, so it did not apply to Moses and Boaz, but regardless, the law was never used to prohibit exogamous marriages among other groups than the Hebrews. We have no record of a prohibition in Judea or Israel against Assyrians marrying Cushites or Macedonians marrying Babylonians. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/64 "2012-05-11T01:36:54Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Nonsense. Many, perhaps most people have no such “durable power of attorney”. And the effort and expense needed to get hundreds of separate little legal arrangements to duplicate what legally married people get with one is no “red herring”. Perhaps you recall a little incident several years ago called the [Terry Schiavo case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case). The couple were hetero and married and still a hell of legal mess was created, which would have been easily resolved with a durable power of attorney for health care. It is immaterial to the present discussion that most people don’t have one. Everyone should have one. If you don’t have one presently, do yourself a favor and have one prepared. Most states, I believe, provide statutory forms for free for download, meaning there is little to no effort or expense. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Well, whoop-te-do, you don’t get anything out of a lot of things. And I’m not surprised you find it “absurd”; that seems a common reaction among victimizers when their victims complain about being victimized. Of course I, as an individual don’t get a lot out of a lot of things. I was speaking there as the general society though, the bulk of which don’t get anything out of gays marrying each other. It makes them happy, which is nice, but so what? What do they need society’s approval for, especially if society as a whole doesn’t give a hoot or get any benefit? Further, I’d be interest in seeing how you reached the assumption that I am, in your words, a “victimizer”. I’d call myself more of a innocent, albeit mouthy, bystander to tell you the truth. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Neither do sterile heterosexual couples. The difference of course between the two couples is that the goal of this distinction is to target the homosexual couple for oppression and abuse. No one cares about sterile heterosexual couples because it’s the ability to reproduce that’s a red herring. Not being allowed to marry doesn’t equal oppression. Being thrown in jail, as the couple in\* Loving\* were facing, is oppression. A person complaining when he isn’t allowed to get what he/she wants is more akin to cry-baby behavior than it is to oppression. “Help, help, I’m being oppressed”. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Wayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bruce\_Wayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Wayne)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/65 "2012-05-11T01:42:21Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > It was never expressly proscribed because, as my high school geometry teacher used to say, it was intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer. IMHO. YMMV. Any wedding vow I’ve ever heard went something along the lines of “in sickness and in health, til death do us part” and other similiar phrases. The point of marriage is love, not procreation. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/66 "2012-05-11T01:42:24Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > A _geometry teacher_ used that argument? > > This makes the Baby Euclid cry… Indeed. Euclid had four axioms he was okay with and a fifth he was less comfortable about, and “derp derp gay marriage bad” wasn’t one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/67 "2012-05-11T01:45:56Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Perhaps you recall a little incident several years ago called the [Terry Schiavo case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo_case). The couple were hetero and married and still a hell of legal mess was created, which would have been easily resolved with a durable power of attorney for health care. It is immaterial to the present discussion that most people don’t have one. Considering that you were using the existence of such things as an excuse for forbidding homosexuals marriage, it’s by no means immaterial. Nor do i see you offering to pay for it. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Of course I, as an individual don’t get a lot out of a lot of things. I was speaking there as the general society though, the bulk of which don’t get anything out of gays marrying each other. It makes them happy, which is nice, but so what? What do they need society’s approval for, especially if society as a whole doesn’t give a hoot or get any benefit? They need it to function like any other couple, and not be locked out of their spouse’s funeral, inheritance, hospital, and hundreds of other things. Plus of course it’s your obligation to explain why they deserve to be singled out and punished, not theirs to explain why they deserve to be treated like anyone else. Serial killers can get married, but not homosexuals; I think that helps demonstrate the depth of the hatred behind forbidding them marriage. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Further, I’d be interest in seeing how you reached the assumption that I am, in your words, a “victimizer”. You are calling for the oppression of same sex couples; you are trying to victimize them. This is true regardless of what excuses you make. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Not being allowed to marry doesn’t equal oppression. Being thrown in jail, as the couple in\* Loving\* were facing, is oppression. A person complaining when he isn’t allowed to get what he/she wants is more akin to cry-baby behavior than it is oppression. Once again demonstrating the hatred and contempt that is at the base of opposition to same sex marriage. Not logic, not morality; you just regard them as inferior beings, unworthy of respect, empathy or decent treatment. ---
**Author:** ![zamboniracer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/e9a140/32.png) [@zamboniracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zamboniracer)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/68 "2012-05-11T01:49:00Z")
Having demonstrated, I think, that some arguments against SSM are NOT identical to the ones used against interracial dating I shall now retire from this thread, in order to lick my wounds and watch ESPN. Good night! ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/69 "2012-05-11T02:36:52Z")
I am not a constitutional lawyer (nor do I play one on the Internet), but wouldn’t the 14th Amendment apply to same sex marriages? It seems to me that the phrase: “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” prohibits North Carolina from amending their Constitution to specifically abridge the privilege of same sex couples to be married and accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples. I am absolutely certain that this has been ‘handled’ by those who would oppose same sex marriages, but I would appreciate a little clarification on the matter. I also understand that this thread was split to allow such discussions to be carried on without totally hijacking the original poster’s intent but I don’t know where I should go. Direction would be appreciated. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/70 "2012-05-11T02:49:15Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > That’s the - to my mind specious - argument the SSM people and to my mind many incorrect courts, rely on. Taking the dicta of _Loving_ that marriage (as it was then understood to be always between a man and a woman) is a fundamental right and spinning it into saying marriage, as same sex couples and others now define it, is a fundamental right. It ain’t the same. But if it ain’t the same for heterosexual and homosexual couples, then it ain’t the same for fecund and non-fecund heterosexual couples either. If you want to acknowledge marriage between a man and a woman as a fundamental right, there is AFAICT no consistent logical reason that you can use to justify it that will simultaneously _apply to **all** heterosexual couples AND **not** apply to **any** homosexual couples._ I can accept (not agree with, but accept) the position that it’s specious to argue that same-sex couples have a right to marriage. But to be logically consistent, that position has to recognize that if it’s specious to argue for homosexuals’ right to marry, then it’s equally specious to argue for non-fecund heterosexuals’ right to marry. There is no social goal or purpose that non-fecund heterosexual marriage achieves for society that homosexual marriage doesn’t also achieve. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/71 "2012-05-11T02:53:40Z")
The thing that confuses me about the “marriage is for breeders” argument is I was always told marriage was an act of love, a commitment for sharing life. Apparently, instead it’s for finding someone to knock up. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/72 "2012-05-11T02:54:52Z")
It can be two things! ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 9:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/73 "2012-05-11T09:21:02Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > Me, as society, isn’t getting anything out of this deal. Society didn’t get anything from Loving either. Well, there are arguments that it’ll be better for the [economy](http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-4167209.html), but opposing discrimination is also good for society. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Not being allowed to marry doesn’t equal oppression. Being thrown in jail, as the couple in Loving were facing, is oppression. Their trial resulted in suspended sentences. Besides, you’re dead wrong: > [@zamboniracer](#): > > Taking the dicta of Loving that marriage (as it was then understood to be always between a man and a woman) is a fundamental right and spinning it into saying marriage, as same sex couples and others now define it, is a fundamental right. It ain’t the same. > [@UDHR](#): > > Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage is one of the rights the United States subscribes to. > [@zamboniracer](#): > > “Help, help, I’m being oppressed”. repressed\* ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 9:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/74 "2012-05-11T09:36:00Z")
I remember reading an anecdote about a family on holiday in Florida where a woman’s wife was taken ill and transported to a private hospital. The woman in question had her attorney document with her, but it wasn’t recognised as the hospital discriminated against homosexuals. Probably illegal, but it still occurs. A few more rights of marriage are listed [here](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html). ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 9:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/75 "2012-05-11T09:38:10Z")
accidental double post ---
**Author:** ![grude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47774/32.png) [@grude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/grude)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/76 "2012-05-11T10:28:13Z")
> [@gamerunknown](#): > > I remember reading an anecdote about a family on holiday in Florida where a woman’s wife was taken ill and transported to a private hospital. The woman in question had her attorney document with her, but it wasn’t recognised as the hospital discriminated against homosexuals. Probably illegal, but it still occurs. > > A few more rights of marriage are listed [here](http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html). It can happen to hetero couples too if they don’t meet whatever stereotype the gatekeeper is applying. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/77 "2012-05-11T11:06:26Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > The problem with this argument is that it assumes the choice issue is significant. It is not. I can choose to burn a flag in protest or not; my speech is still protected. I can confess to a crime or not; my right to refuse self-incrimination is still protected. Choice has always been a red herring troll on the issue. > > The real issue of choice is just: _choosing what person to marry_. This choice—so-called “fundamental” choice by SCOTUS—is what is being denied. Whether someone chooses to be gay or not is of no relevance whatsoever. It is not a troll because the SCOTUS considered immutability an important component as to whether a group should get extra scrutiny for EP protection. Immutability is not required (such as for religion which has heightened scrutiny) but for something like racial discrimination immutability of a trait is a big part of it. As such, if the court deems being gay is merely a choice, it certainly could impact their decision on whether sexual preference deserves heightened scrutiny. > [@](#): > > It is clear that by “immutability” the Court has never meant strict immutability in the sense that members of the class must be physically unable to change or mask the trait defining their class. People can have operations to change their sex. Aliens can ordinarily become naturalized citizens. The status of illegitimate children can be changed. People can frequently hide their national origin by changing their customs, their names, or their associations. Lighter skinned blacks can sometimes “pass” for white, as can Latinos for Anglos, and some people can even change their racial appearance with pigment injections. See J. Griffin, Black Like Me (1977). At a minimum, then, the Supreme Court is willing to treat a trait as effectively immutable if changing it would involve great difficulty, such as requiring a major physical change or a traumatic change of identity. **Reading the case law in a more capacious manner, “immutability” may describe those traits that are so central to a person’s identity that it would be abhorrent for government to penalize a person for refusing to change them, regardless of how easy that change might be physically.** Racial discrimination, for example, would not suddenly become constitutional if medical science developed an easy, cheap, and painless method of changing one’s skin pigment." > > SOURCE: [Sergeant Perry Watkins, Plaintiff-appellant, v. United States Army, et al., Defendants-appellees, 875 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1989) :: Justia](http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/875/699/179345/) (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 11:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/78 "2012-05-11T11:25:34Z")
> [@zamboniracer](#): > > That’s the - to my mind specious - argument the SSM people and to my mind many incorrect courts, rely on. Taking the dicta of _Loving_ that marriage (as it was then understood to be always between a man and a woman) is a fundamental right and spinning it into saying marriage, as same sex couples and others now define it, is a fundamental right. It ain’t the same. Others, the majority of this board, certainly, disagree with me. I can live with that. Nothing specious about it. Something need not be criminal for the courts to say an EP analysis is necessary. It can be the government denying benefits to one group for example. The point is one group is burdened by the government more than another. This does not mean the government has to be 100% even in everything. There are plenty of examples where the government burdens a particular group more than another. The vast majority of those fall under a Rational Basis standard that the state needs to meet for it to pass muster under an EP analysis. Rational Basis is an incredibly low hurdle for the government to pass. Pretty much if the state can express a reason, nearly any reason at all beyond “We don’t like Group B” it will pass legal muster. (In _Plyler, Cleburne,_ and _Romer_ the court applied what is sometimes called _Rational Basis with Bite_ where they did weigh individual interests against the state’s even though no suspect class was at issue.) However, for some groups the courts have deemed a heightened scrutiny is necessary. If the government burdens some groups based on, say, gender or religion or skin color, then the government must come up with a substantially better argument as to why it is burdening one group over another and also prove that the law that does so is as narrowly tailored as possible to meet the goal the government wants. Currently sexual preference is not listed among the groups which should get heightened scrutiny. Many think it should since it fits neatly into the criteria used when granting other classifications heightened scrutiny. So far though the courts are reluctant to go there. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/79 "2012-05-11T13:37:09Z")
Homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry because there’s no chance for procreation. What a dumb argument - as though heterosexual marriage is needed to encourage procreation. You (the societal you) want to get the benefit of children being born? Well, I’ve got good news for you. People fuck every day whether they’re married or not - an activity that frequently results in children being born. You see … that’s how it works. Society doesn’t \*need \*marriage at all. Society has decided that we like marriage. And here’s the good news … since we humans made up the concept of marriage in the first place, we can define it however the fuck we want. That’s the beauty of making up shit. ---
**Author:** ![lawbuff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/13edae/32.png) [@lawbuff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lawbuff)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485/80 "2012-05-11T20:15:14Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > I am not a constitutional lawyer (nor do I play one on the Internet), but wouldn’t the 14th Amendment apply to same sex marriages? It seems to me that the phrase: “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” prohibits North Carolina from amending their Constitution to specifically abridge the privilege of same sex couples to be married and accorded the same rights as heterosexual couples. The Courts recognize the “Precedential” value of Baker; > **[Baker v. Nelson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson)** > > Richard John Baker v. Gerald R. Nelson, 291 Minn. 310, 191 N.W.2d 185 (1971), was a case in which the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that construing a marriage statute to restrict marriage licenses to persons of the opposite sex "does not offend" the U.S. Constitution. Baker appealed the decision, and on October 10, 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question". > Because the case came to the Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not... This is why any state which permits SSM has done so under the authority of thier own Constitution’s. Baker and DOMA together dissuade the states from saying SSM prohibitions violate the federal constitution or the Full Faith and Credit Clause. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arguments-against-same-sex-marriage-the-same-as-arguments-against-interracial-marriage/621485.md?page=5)