Prop 8 overruled by gay judge!

[geekette]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Technically, the goats don't have the same standing before the court as two human beings. A better analogy perhaps might be two first cousins or a brother and sister couple seeking a marriage license. Perhaps bigamists as well.

States have historically made exclusions to marriage licenses. There have been examples of such statutes that were wrong - inter-racial marriage prohibitions for example.

States also didn't permit "chattel property" (aka "slaves") to marry because they could not legally consent--as property.

But "gay marriage" doesn't equate nor is it exemplary of inter-racial marriage. Inter-racial marriages were banned because of racist notions about the children of such unions. "Gay marriage" produces no children so the "racial" and discriminatory complaints don't even apply.

States have the right to control how children are "bred." It's an uncomfortable topic - but it is important. As a society we have stated that no marriage unions can exist between brother and sister and other closely related individuals because of the dangers of inbreeding. That is the basis of all marriage laws.

Gays do not represent anything even remotely related to "inbreeding" as they are not even breeding at all. Therefore, they have no standing (IMHO) in the marriage debate.

If a couple of bachelor gentlemen want to share housing to save expenses then it's probably not a whole lot of my business as long as they keep their lawns up. From my experience, these types tend to have fantastic lawns and gardens. So, hook up as you please, just don't come before the county clerk unless you have an issue involving human breeding.

Marriage is not strictly for procreation. We don't require prospective heterosexual couples undergo fertility tests prior to marriage. We let heterosexual couples marry who have absolutely no intention of having children. (Like elderly folks getting married for companionship.) Additionally, the judge talks in the opinion at length about the testimony he received on the impact of same-sex marriage on children and found the testimony that there was no difference between children from straight and gay marriages to be persuasive.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by geekette

States also didn't permit "chattel property" (aka "slaves") to marry because they could not legally consent--as property.

Marriage is not strictly for procreation. We don't require prospective heterosexual couples undergo fertility tests prior to marriage. We let heterosexual couples marry who have absolutely no intention of having children. (Like elderly folks getting married for companionship.) Additionally, the judge talks in the opinion at length about the testimony he received on the impact of same-sex marriage on children and found the testimony that there was no difference between children from straight and gay marriages to be persuasive.

"Marriage" can be for whatever reasons one wants it to be, even for something so "trivial" as tax purposes. However, marriage laws have historically been concerned with procreation, even when misguided as in the case of bans on inter-racial marriages. It is the subject of marriage laws and the role of government in formulating those laws that is under discussion here, not the question of why one person chooses to spend the rest of their life with another.

The children from "gay marriages" must be present through adoption by either one or both of the "gay partners" as they are impossible to produce by the coupling of same sex partners. Thus, historically all marriage laws centered around procreation and forbade consanguinity for obvious eugenic reasons. Racial laws concerning marriage were added as the world (and people's minds) grew smaller. In all cases the concern expressed by government involved the children of the potential union. The happiness of the couple involved was never considered to be a legal matter.

I fully realize that developments in medicine will complicate, if not completely confound my position. But I need to find some sort of ground upon which to stand so I have chosen the historical outlook.

"What was the purpose of any marriage law?" The historical approach shows that government administered marriage laws for the purposes of addressing the offspring of such unions. If no offspring are possible then neither a government sanction nor a ban is not really warranted. You simply are dealing with something that is not "marriage."

Gay couples adopting children is a separate issue from gay couples producing children. IMHO.

[geekette]

Originally Posted by pelathais

"Marriage" can be for whatever reasons one wants it to be, even for something so "trivial" as tax purposes. However, marriage laws have historically been concerned with procreation, even when misguided as in the case of bans on inter-racial marriages. It is the subject of marriage laws and the role of government in formulating those laws that is under discussion here, not the question of why one person chooses to spend the rest of their life with another.

The children from "gay marriages" must be present through adoption by either one or both of the "gay partners" as they are impossible to produce by the coupling of same sex partners. Thus, historically all marriage laws centered around procreation and forbade consanguinity for obvious eugenic reasons. Racial laws concerning marriage were added as the world (and people's minds) grew smaller. In all cases the concern expressed by government involved the children of the potential union. The happiness of the couple involved was never considered to be a legal matter.

I fully realize that developments in medicine will complicate, if not completely confound my position. But I need to find some sort of ground upon which to stand so I have chosen the historical outlook.

"What was the purpose of any marriage law?" The historical approach shows that government administered marriage laws for the purposes of addressing the offspring of such unions. If no offspring are possible then neither a government sanction nor a ban is not really warranted. You simply are dealing with something that is not "marriage."

Gay couples adopting children is a separate issue from gay couples producing children. IMHO.

I'm going to disagree with you on the legal purpose of marriage at a very fundamental level. It was not, as you say, a way to regulate procreation and offspring. It was a way to regulate the movement of property (a woman) from the possession of her father to her husband.

Early American suffragists (women who wanted the vote) noted that they had about the same amount of rights as slaves, given that marriage left women in what was essentially legal childhood. This began to change when husbands were being sued for and found responsible for the torts (civil wrongs--example: the slander case of the UPC pastor) of their wives. As a result, laws were passed emancipating wives, not because it was the right thing to do but because it cost their husbands less.

The problem with marriage today is that even if we accept your definition, it has gone so much beyond that. So many benefits are based on the marital status--and it has nothing to do with whether or not the married couple have children. These are two separate things in the law. And, I note, you do not address the fact that we allow heterosexuals who are unable to conceive children due to age or fertility to marry. We are not requiring couples to prove their ability to have children prior to issuing a marriage license.

I'm 50 years old and single. Absent some heroic intervention in the way of "reproductive technology", it's very unlikely I could bear a child at my age. But if I showed up at the county courthouse today with my boyfriend in tow and my money in hand, the government would issue me a marriage license and not ask any questions about my ability to have children. If marriage was strictly about procreation, that wouldn't happen. It's not.