Definitely not-they can still adopt.
You know…just like same sex couples.
because the State doesn’t have the time or resources to worry about individual cases. Everyone seems to be asking about specific exceptions that don’t fall within the broad assumption. As a general rule, and what has been true throughout history, same sex couples cannot conceive children, opposite sex couples can. It’s that simple, and the reason why states would argue for the distinction.
Are there not enough children without parents for the straight couples to adopt? Is in vitro fertilization banned by the courts because it is “unnatural”?
Maybe you missed this in biology class, reproduction is not contingent on marital status.
BuzzFeed is going to town on this nonsense from Davis. My favorite on that list is this one.
Kim Davis, who has been married four times, thinks that Gays and Lesbians are going to ruin the sanctity of marriag.
And my own opinion just now, exclusively posted on the SDMB: as soon as you say sanctity in your argument, you admit that your argument is religious, not constitutional.
When does this particular stupid ‘’‘argument’‘’ get added to the Tired topics list?
It’s not like we haven’t spent a few thousand posts showing bigots that this argument is entirely based in bigotry.
I think once the court rules against her.
The ruling is very likely to be 6-3 to overturn Obergefell.
So old non-reproducing people shouldn’t be allowed to marry, right?
No, everyone is pointing out clear, easy to identify categories of people that would be barred from marriage, if “encouraging procreation” was the actual goal of marriage. The fact that these broad, easily identified categories are not being barred from marriage, while gay people are being barred from it, demonstrates that the “encouraging procreation” excuse is a lie, and the actual reason is simple discrimination against queer people.
Not to white knight anyone here, but @We_re_wolves_not_werewolves has already stated that they agree that SSM should be legal, it’s just that the courts reasoning in Obergefell was not that strong.
Had the plaintiffs used @Saint_Cad’s contract idea, maybe that would make it more resistant to overturning by the current court.
Not as SOL as her ex-husbands, I daresay.
Thank you. I tried to make it clear that I thought Obergefell was a pragmatic decision that brought about social good. I fully support it as a societal benefit. It allowed my cousin, who I care very much for, to marry. In my mind however, it is not a very good legal decision, and rests on shaky doctrinal grounds and flawed historical analysis. Again, what prompted my initial input on this thread (and this is only my personal take), was that it was an activist decision, where the majority clearly had an outcome they wanted in mind beforehand, and structured their argument and analysis to fit that outcome. It’s not always a bad thing for courts to do! But lacking a rock solid legal basis does make these kind of decisions more susceptible to being overturned.
The “Religious Right” in this country is the Christian Church’s version of the Taleban.
I fear we have an activist court right now, and i don’t think it matters a whit what the grounds of a decision are. I’m looking forward with dreas to them overturning Griswald and Loving, too.
I’d say they’re the winners here.
I’d say it is a great legal decision showing that the United States is not a fundamentalist theocracy and instead the laws are based on secular principles. If you want an example of a landmark decision based on shaky legal ground (beside Wickard) I would put forth Roe v. Wade. I agree with the decision but I don’t think the Warren Court ever came up with a good constitutional justification for the right to an abortion, nor its limitations. So it being overturned, while a horrible decision, is not surprising.
completely agree with you on this one as well
Life would be a whole lot easier if instead of this right to privacy basis, the Court decided in Griswold that people have a fundamental right to make reproductive choices. Not only would it give the right to contraceptives at issue in that case, but now abortion has a firm legal basis and would have been harder to overturn. Specific to this thread, it would (or should) remove all of the marriage => children arguments and the hypocrisy needed to justify marriage between different-sex marriages that are unable or unwilling to have children being legal but same-sex marriage being illegal.
Question: If marriage is to be limited to a man and woman because marriage is about begetting children, then is there an argument that married couples should be required to have children? Because if they are not going to have children, there is no reason to get married.
Well, required to try. That’s why birth control would be illegal.
There actually is historical precedence for essentially this. In some contexts, a marriage wasn’t legally consummated until the first act of sexual intercourse between the couple, which in the days before effective birth control, was functionally equivalent to “trying” to have kids.
edited to add link
So, you want to go from the shaky legal grounds of the Right to Privacy to the SCotUS making up a right that isn’t even hinted at in the CotUS???
I’m not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on your Constitutional law work, there, Saint_Cad.