# Is there anyone here against gay marriage AND civil unions? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 7, 2004, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470 "2004-11-07T06:08:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/41 "2004-11-08T17:03:37Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > To the real point, civil rights are protected by the Constitution and are not subject to popular referendums. It doesn’t matter how many morons think that homosexuality is “abnormal” ( a meaningless word to begin with, but as far as it goes, also contradicted by all scientific study), they are not permitted to abridge the constitutional right of equal protection for anyone else. I have not posted before now because the thread seemed to invite posters that did not support either civil unions or same-sex marriages. I have long been a supporter of same-sex civil unions, and have recently become convinced that “marriage” is the correct term to apply to these unions. However, I write now to dismiss the notion that the federal constitution protects the right of people to enter into same-sex marriages. There is no such protection in the constitution. In _Lawrence_ dicta from the majority made clear that they did not see such a right being discovered, and there is no federal case law whatsoever that lends approbation to same-sex marriage. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/42 "2004-11-08T17:06:03Z")
> [@TeaElle](#): > > I truly want to buy Huerta a copyeditor’s services, because if he’s answered Dio’s question, it’s been buried under mounds and mounds of superfluous words that muddle whatever point may have been there at some point. > > The best thing I can fathom out of that last stream of consciousness is that Huerta says that the onus is on supporters of SSM/CU to prove that “equal protection” means, well, equal protection. He’s begging for people to get into tautologies to try to prove something that is plain on its face. Is there something I missed? If it were “plain on its face,” would it have taken 140 years for the Supreme Court, and every legislature in the country, to figure out that the equal protection clause clearly forbade laws against sodomy? You must have an even lower opinion of their intellectual capabilities than I do. Without going into far more constitutional law than is necessary, helpful, or likely to be understood by those who apparently haven’t read any, there’s been a long running debate as to exactly what equal protection means. The view you’re suggesting (that it means “everyone gets identical rights” or “everyone gets every right they want”) has never been a meaningfully-accepted view, and so is irrelevant. I.e., “Equal protection”=“same rights” is **not** a tautology because that’s not how it’s ever been construed. Remember the discussion of “similarly situated?” Babies don’t get to fly airplanes, illegal aliens don’t get to be president, and the equal protection clause has nothing to say about either outcome, so long as whatever laws on the books (against baby pilots, or illegal alien presidents) are enforced even-handedly. There’s dozens of years of debate, again by people who may even be as smart as you, over what exactly “equal protection” means in the Constitution. Even the _Lawrence_ court did not go so far as to pretend that the rationale was as simple as “equal protection means equal protection a/k/a identical rights for all, duh, how much easier can it get?” which is about the level of the “legal” analysis I’ve seen from the holders of that view here. If you haven’t read the law, please don’t waste our time arguing as to what the Constitution “should” mean or “obviously” means; I promise I won’t argue with you as to how thoracic surgery, or madrigal-singing, “clearly” ought to be performed, “you moron” (as **Diogenes** would put it). If it were that obvious, this discussion would have been settled in 1865. ---
**Author:** ![SlyFrog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a3d4f5/32.png) [@SlyFrog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlyFrog)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/43 "2004-11-08T17:08:59Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > Exactly. Underneath all the words, all he’s really saying is that “I don’t want the government to say that being gay is normal.” Or to put it more precisely, he’s saying that he wants the government to say that homosexuality is _not_ normal by passing discriminatory legislation. > > He also consistently has the equal protection argument backwards and seems to think that homosexuals have an obligation to prove that they _deserve_ equal protection rather than the 'phobes having an obligation to prove that they don’t. No, he has given fairly standard references to constitutional law and the history thereof (and in a format that suggests to me that he has gone to law school or at least taken a Con Law class), and why you misunderstand the meaning of “equal protection” in a legal and constitutional sense. Once again, you may not like or agree with the answer, but he has answered, and he is not just saying “I don’t want the government to say that being gay is normal.” He may in fact think that, but that is not his sole response. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/44 "2004-11-08T17:10:21Z")
Ys it is. ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/45 "2004-11-08T17:16:22Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > He also consistently has the equal protection argument backwards and seems to think that homosexuals have an obligation to prove that they _deserve_ equal protection rather than the 'phobes having an obligation to prove that they don’t. You just came tantalizingly close to an otherwise-unprecedented understanding of how the legal system in America **actually** is structured. It is absolutely the case that a party or class claiming protection under a clause of the Constitution that has never previously been construed as extending such a right, or protecting such a class, has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case for why such right should be recognized by the courts or society for the first time. In the legislature, which is really the appropriate forum for such argument, the proponent of a never-before-recognized, sui generis right would similarly have to carry the burden of persuading enough legislators of the propriety of the right before it would even make it onto the agenda. I don’t care if you like this. This is how the system **as it actually exists** works. I suspect your knowledge of parliamentary procedure is on a par with your knowledge of civil procedure in the courts – but by calling attention to this deficiency (and tying it into your gem of a misunderstaning that the American legal system would ever place the initial burden of going forward to prove a negative on the party resisting creation of a never-before -recognized right), you’ve made it plain that “equal protection” for you is just a talismanic mantra, primitively and dimly perceived as having something to do with that all-purpose argument-winner, “The Constitution,” which will allow you, by its very magical mention, to vanquish all moronic foes and establish the supremacy of your policy preference. Whatever – but don’t then pretend to be arguing law or policy as they exist under the actual American system as explained in public schools to the average ninth grader, but apparently not to you. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/46 "2004-11-08T17:27:16Z")
Quiz for the disinterested reader: which poster is explaining how the legal system actually works, and which poster is explaining how he or she wants things to be? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/47 "2004-11-08T17:45:19Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > However, I write now to dismiss the notion that the federal constitution protects the right of people to enter into same-sex marriages. There is no such protection in the constitution. In _Lawrence_ dicta from the majority made clear that they did not see such a right being discovered, and there is no federal case law whatsoever that lends approbation to same-sex marriage. That was the case in Massachusetts until earlier this year, too. There was no case law until there was a case. The existence of the constitutional right of marriage extended to all of its citizens wasn’t recognized until plaintiffs came forward to make it inescapable that the right existed. The federal situation today doesn’t appear to be fundamentally different from the Massachusetts situation of 2003. You “dismiss the notion” that it will ever be different a bit prematurely, perhaps? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/48 "2004-11-08T18:01:56Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was the case in Massachusetts until earlier this year, too. There was no case law until there was a case. The existence of the constitutional right of marriage extended to all of its citizens wasn’t recognized until plaintiffs came forward to make it inescapable that the right existed. The federal situation today doesn’t appear to be fundamentally different from the Massachusetts situation of 2003. You “dismiss the notion” that it will ever be different a bit prematurely, perhaps? “Inescapable” is perhaps strong language in itself – except in the sense that the winner writes the history books. On the actual law, I’m with **Bricker** – what the Constitution doesn’t clearly forbid, it allows, and since 1789 (and 1865), it has indisputably allowed the States to extend special marriage rights to heterosexual married couples and not extend them to homosexuals who want to be “married.” On what could happen in the Supreme Court . . . well, that’s the disadvantage of having an unelected, life-tenured super-legislature imposing its policy views to create new rights. I’m not sure exactly how much more or less of a legal fiction it would require to “discover” a right to “gay marriage” than it did to discover the right to sodomy; both would be radical departures from judicial and common law precedent, and the fact that the Supreme Court ultimately decided it just didn’t care, and made the leap on sodomy, makes it far from certain that they won’t be emboldened, by the lack of any effectual recourse for the disenfranchised electorate, from making the next leap. **Bricker** points to the dicta in _Lawrence_ disavowing any notion of a constitutional right to homosexual marriage. Of course that’s true, and the non-existence of such a right is a trivial axiom, but it’s in the nature of slippery slopes that those coasting down the slope deny, all the while, that things are going to slip any further. The Supreme Court has shown fetishistic reverence for its own holdings and dicta (no matter how misguided) when the results-driven Justices liked the result such precedent would lead to, but has cavalierly ignored its and everyone else’s precedent when the prior holdings and dicta didn’t support the desired policy outcome of the majority of the legislators, er, Justices. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/49 "2004-11-08T18:41:07Z")
> [@Huerta88](#): > > “Inescapable” is perhaps strong language in itself – except in the sense that the winner writes the history books. :shrug: Read the text yourself, and then tell me how you can escape its conclusions. > [@](#): > > what the Constitution doesn’t clearly forbid, it allows, and since 1789 (and 1865), it has indisputably allowed the States to extend special marriage rights to heterosexual married couples and not extend them to homosexuals who want to be “married.” As I pointed out, it hasn’t been challenged on that point - yet. The Constitution also used to “indisputably” allow states to ban interracial marriage, ya know, but that was thrown out when actually challenged, and not very long ago at that. > [@](#): > > but it’s in the nature of slippery slopes that those coasting down the slope deny, all the while, that things are going to slip any further. It’s also in the nature of opponents left with only emotion and not reason to argue that there’s not only a slope, but that it’s slippery. > [@](#): > > The Supreme Court has shown fetishistic reverence for its own holdings and dicta Etc. If you’re pointing out that judges are human too, and not immune from result-directed decisionmaking however it’s rationalized, then I agree. But the interesting parts always come from examining and comparing the convolutedness of the rationalizations. To deny equal protection rights to all citizens requires some \*extremely \* convoluted ones. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/50 "2004-11-08T18:44:41Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That was the case in Massachusetts until earlier this year, too. There was no case law until there was a case. The existence of the constitutional right of marriage extended to all of its citizens wasn’t recognized until plaintiffs came forward to make it inescapable that the right existed. The federal situation today doesn’t appear to be fundamentally different from the Massachusetts situation of 2003. You “dismiss the notion” that it will ever be different a bit prematurely, perhaps? On the contrary, the federal situation today is drastically different from the Massachusetts situation of 2003: [ul] [li]Many states - eleven just in the past election - have passed anti-same-sex marriage laws (and this is more signficant to the Supremes than to Massachusetts)[/li][li]These referenda appear to be, at least in part, a reaction to Massachusetts’ decision[/li][li]The dicta is _Lawrence_ is persuasive to federal analysis but not to Massachusetts’, since Massachusetts decided _Goodridge_ based on state law[/li][li]The same nine judges that decided _Lawrence_ would rule on the hypothetical Supreme Court same-sex marriage case, and they signalled their leaning fairly clearly already[/li][/ul] I’m not going to waste time proving this point; let me just ask you: if you could wave a magic wand and put such a case on the docket for the upcoming term, knowing that the decision would set a precedent… would you? ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/51 "2004-11-08T19:07:51Z")
I think we can agree that the only reason “anti gay marriage” policies were never challenged in the S.C. was because, under the only-recently-overturned judicial and popular consensus that there was no constitutional right to sodomy, it would have been a bit of a non-sequiter to argue that there is, however, a constitutional right to recognition of a union based in part on a possibly-illegal “sodomistic” relationship. We probably agree that if (with no change in the Fourteenth Amendment) the S.C. can suddenly “find” the right to sodomy, it is possible (though not necessary) that it could “find” a similarly-implied right to marriage for practitioners of sodomy. In fact, depending on the court’s make-up, I’d probably wager on this happening eventually, under the current mode of S.C. jurisprudence and political inclination. That is why I oppose the type of judicial “reasoning” that “finds” constitutional rights where none were manifestly intended by the Framers, recognized by generations of jurists or legislators, nor intended by the people who ratified the Constitution and amendments. The slippery slope to which I refer is not, specifically, the slippery slope toward marrying sodomites; it’s the slippery slope (long since embarked upon) toward allowing five doddering and not-long-for-this-world jurists to feel good about themselves by creating out of whole cloth “rights” not even implicit in the Constitution. This is especially inappropriate and not necessary (on my view, mind you) when Constitution clearly tells you how to **properly** go about creating such new rights – viz., through the process of drafting and passing laws and Amendments, not playing to some unelected Solon’s desire to leave a legacy that the law professoriat will coo over. Now . . . all that’s intentionally couched in argumentative language (so was your reference to such opposition being based only on emotion and not reason), but if you want to strip away the adjectives and adverbs, you’ll find a rational, and far-from-unconventional version of constructionist constitutional interpretation and jurisprudence. Here’s a funny thing: I’d be equally upset if the Supreme Court pulled out of its hat a “constitutional right” for a fetus not to be aborted – which wouldn’t be much more of a reach, right? I mean, all persons are entitled to “equal protection” and “due process” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” right? Except such an argument would be bogus, not least because I’m the first to admit the Framers probably had no notion of any embryo or fetus as a cognizable “person.” Now, there’s no danger of any Supreme Court in our lifetimes finding a “penumbra” that creates an affirmative fetal right to life, nor should there be – but at least the pro-life crowd understands this and has never tried to enact its utlimately-preferred policies (no abortions, **anywhere** ) through solely judicial means. They had the decency to proceed under the (unpassable) Human Life Amendment. If a “gay marriage” amendment is similarly unpassable, look to your fellow citizens for the fault, not to the courts or contitutional constructionists. YMMV on this, obviously, but it’s a coherent position. I cannot agree on you on the equal protection/convolutedness thing. Are you, in fact, taking the position I ridiculed, i.e., that “equal protection”=“same identical rights for everyone regardless of whether similarly situated?” If not, and I didn’t think you were, why is it necessarily “convoluted” logic to propose that “The existing marriage laws satisfy equal protection because they guarantee equally to everyone the right to one (not two concurrent) marriage(s), which marriage is defined as the union of two (not three) adult (not child) human (not non-human) beings of the opposite (not same) sex.” Why does that last part of the law’s definition make the equal protection defense objectively more convoluted than the fact that neither existing heterosexual marriage, nor contemplated “gay marriage,” provides a mechanism for a legally-sanctioned bigamy or menage a trois? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/52 "2004-11-08T19:14:45Z")
I started a thread topic on the followiing subject a few days ago, but I didn’t get any interest, so I’ll interject it here since it’s relavent and this thread seems to be pretty active. What exactly is a CIVIL UNION? I think we have a LOT of work to do to iron out exactly what is and is not part of a CU. For people to be talking about whether they are pro or anti without understanding the details is premature. Which “incidents of marriage” are in and which are out? I think that very few people will come out against the type “incidents” such as allowing gay partners to visit each other in the hospital. Those things seem like a no-brainer. These are issues which strictly concern the two individuals and require no real involvement by other members of society. But when it comes to giving special ecomonic benefits, I think a lot more resistance will be found. For instance, if a company that gives health benefits to spouses is **requried by law** to do the same for gay partners, that might not go over so well with the electorate. Similarly with social security benefits. Further, some of the recently passed amendments also ban civil unions. Aside from the “one amendment one issue” technicality that might overturn them, I’d be interested if our lawyers. like Bricker, can comment on the problems that might arise from trying to ban civil unions. Would such a ban spill over into other areas of contract law (or perhaps just other areas of law) and have negative consequences that would make such an out and out ban impractical? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/53 "2004-11-08T19:15:32Z")
**Bricker** , Lawrence was decided under equal protectionm ws it not? SCOTUS ruled in that case that it was unconstitutional to create a group of second class citizens with exclusionary legislation. IOW, they ruled that it was impermissable to have two different sets of rights for gay people and straight people. I know you disagreed on that ruling but you are not the final word and many, _many_ legal experts disagree with you on whether homosexuals are a class that qualifies under equal protection. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/54 "2004-11-08T19:20:52Z")
One more thing, even leaving sexual orientation aside, I would argue that equal protection applies under sex discrimination. The right of civil contract cannot be abridged based simply on the genitalia of either individual. A law which says a woman can’t have a contract with another woman is like saying she can’t buy a house. It’s discrimination based on gender. There is no such thing as “men and women” when it comes to civil rights, there are only individuals. Any legislation which places a genitalia test on a citizen is \*ipso facto[/i gender discrimination. You know I’m right. Just admit it. 🆒 ---
**Author:** ![Huerta88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/82dd89/32.png) [@Huerta88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Huerta88)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/55 "2004-11-08T19:27:32Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > One more thing, even leaving sexual orientation aside, I would argue that equal protection applies under sex discrimination. The right of civil contract cannot be abridged based simply on the genitalia of either individual. A law which says a woman can’t have a contract with another woman is like saying she can’t buy a house. It’s discrimination based on gender. There is no such thing as “men and women” when it comes to civil rights, there are only individuals. Any legislation which places a genitalia test on a citizen is \*ipso facto[/i gender discrimination. > > You know I’m right. Just admit it. 🆒 Since it’s nothing to do with the OP, since the maintenance of separate men’s and women’s restrooms is beyond dispute based solely on differing genitalia and is also beyond dispute constitutional, since “gender discrimination” per se is nowhere prohibited in the Constitution, and since all your “constitutional arguments” appear to have nothing (including your indisputably-strong conviction that you’re right and we’re morons) that would bespeak a recognized constitutional mode of analysis . . . I’ll respectfully decline. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/56 "2004-11-08T19:29:45Z")
The separation of men’s and women’s rooms is a courtesy, not a legal mandate. It’s done for privacy and comfort but it’s not illegal _not_ to do it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/57 "2004-11-08T19:29:58Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **Bricker** , Lawrence was decided under equal protectionm ws it not? SCOTUS ruled in that case that it was unconstitutional to create a group of second class citizens with exclusionary legislation. IOW, they ruled that it was impermissable to have two different sets of rights for gay people and straight people. I know you disagreed on that ruling but you are not the final word and many, _many_ legal experts disagree with you on whether homosexuals are a class that qualifies under equal protection. There is no right without a corresponding legal remedy. If you could wave a magic wand and put such a case on the docket for the upcoming term, knowing that the decision would set a precedent… would you? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/58 "2004-11-08T19:32:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > There is no right without a corresponding legal remedy. > > If you could wave a magic wand and put such a case on the docket for the upcoming term, knowing that the decision would set a precedent… would you? I don’t think I understand your question. Exactly what sort of case are you talking about? I see it as discrimatory laws being challenged on constitutional grounds. If such a law fails to pass judicial review on constututional grounds, that isn’t setting any precedent, it’s just protecting the status quo. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/59 "2004-11-08T19:34:26Z")
The status quo _in theory_, that is. I know it’s not status quo in practice. ---
**Author:** ![prisoner6655321](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@prisoner6655321](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/prisoner6655321)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470/60 "2004-11-08T19:38:19Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > That same argument was used in favor of laws banning interracial marriage. You still had the “right” to get married-you just had to marry someone of the same race. > > It was a lousy argument then, and it’s a lousy one now. This must be a matter of opinion because I don’t think it’s a lousy one now. Now I’m not saying that homosexuals CHOSE to be the way they are. But I don’t think it’s biological either. But what do I know? I only know of christian men who have been saved from the “sin” of homosexuality. Religious dogma? Maybe, but it doesn’t matter to this discussion, so let’s not argue about it here. > [@](#): > > There are plenty of people who marry and don’t have children. Some don’t want kids, and some can’t have them. Again-are they “getting something from society without giving something back?” :dubious: Quite possibly. Each of your situations has an answer: 1. Couples that don’t want to have children: Accidents happen. 1-4 out of 1000 couples (depending on the study) that have been surgically sterilized accidentally get pregnant. [Cite](http://healthcenter.ucdavis.edu/contraceptive_options/efficacy.html) [Cite](http://www.smartersex.org/contraception/efficacy_chart.asp) [Cite](http://www.twhc.net/contraception.htm) 2. Couples that do want to have children but can’t: They usually adopt, which is very good for society. Since it it a very loving male/female couple the child has a better chance of a happy life since all of its emotional needs will more likely be met. As I stated earlier, to be emotionally healthy each of us really needs a strong father and a loving mother. It’s possible to be healthy than otherwise, it’s just that having a strong loving male father and a loving doting female mother is the easiest way to be healthy. I’m sorry if this is sounding condescending. I don’t mean to be. The point I’m trying to make is that biologically our bodies and minds want a male father and a female mother. Whether you agree that homosexuality is biological or genetic doesn’t matter. If it’s caused by a mutation, you have to agree that it does not result in a normal… I don’t know… lifestyle. (Please don’t argue about what normal is. It’s a semantic argument. I just can’t think of the words, but you have got to understand what I mean.) And our bodies and minds aren’t evolved enough to accept it as children. There is an instinct to want a mother and a father. Adults can be a bit more tolerant, but what does a 4 year old son of two fathers think when he sees that all of his friends have a mother and only one father? He might begin to wonder, “what is wrong with women? What do my fathers know? Am I like them? I know I don’t like girls, so I must be gay too, right?” Then he might start looking at boys romantically, just because he has an example in his life. (I was romantically attracted to girls at age 6 - so none of this he’s too young for sex stuff. Kids understand romance. It’s instictive.) Of course I’m sure the fathers will try to keep their homosexuality as clear and understandable to the child as possible, but there are just some things children conclude for themselves. You as gay parents can’t cover all bases because you don’t know what your child is thinking. And he/she is very unlikely skilled at life and communication to formulate questions clearly. And even if he can ask a question, he might be too shy to ask it. It’s extremely important to stick to instinct when dealing with children, because actual clear communication isn’t possible. And homosexual couples are not instinctive to children. Children have problems with certain concepts. Often they formulate their own opinions and accept them as fact for years and years, without ever asking an adult about it. Now all of a sudden the opinion is fact to the now teenager. Once engrained, these things are extremely difficult to purge. I’m not trying to make judgements about homosexuality, but about role models. Children need strong male fathers and loving female mothers, because biologically their minds and bodies expect it. And same-sex marriages lack one or the other. Children need positive role models, and parents are the strongest role models for children. Again, I’m not talking about homosexuality. I’m talking about having a mother and father. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-anyone-here-against-gay-marriage-and-civil-unions/273470.md?page=4)