That they will.Part 1 of 2
At Federal Trial and Appellate courts it's been ruled unconstitutional; SCOTUS will rule by the end of June.
But your are advocating it be codified in law. Part of the issue with bans on interracial marriage bans is that they banned only certain racial pairings not all, and they did fully address mixed race individuals. Blacks couldn't marry whites but they could marry Asians, for example. There are only toe sexes, and human reproduction is sexual.No one is advocating mandatory gender segregation within marriage. That was what was wrong with anti-miscegeneation laws: they mandated racial segregation.
I suppose that depends own how one defines "race". At one time in U.S. history, Italians and Irish were considered separate races. Besides people tend to marry within their own ethnic/religious/economic/ social,group anyway.In case you haven't noticed, a majority of marriages still aren't interracial.
That depends in the court. What is the point of gender segregation within marriage? It fundamentally alters the very nature of the relationship and the reason for its existence.However, voluntary segregation by marriage participants passes constitutional muster in the case of race as it would in the case of gender.
You implied it.I didn't say the idea of male/female marriage originated with you.
Sorry, others aren't bound by your definition of the "institution of marriage". The institution is what society defines it to be.
In the majority of U.S. states it is, and practically speaking, considering the number of opposite sex marriages compared to same sex marriages, I would say conjugal marriage, as in husband and wife, it still is.However, you did assert it as the definition of of the institution of marriage with which gays should comply when the reality is that definition is no longer universal within the US.
Why not....it doesn't make sense to bar same sex sibling from marriage. No risk of sexual reproduction there.Yes, society could and in some places already has (except for your incest marriage example, as I'm not aware of any legal jurisdiction that's legalized sibling marriage).
I was a bit young....didn't really have an opinion. Besides my wife and I are of different "racial" backgrounds.Were you that indignant when the restriction on interracial marriage was removed too?
Blatant lie? Okay ya lost me there. I'm trying to maintain the flow here. Gays can public ally voice opinions though.Really, there's no need for you to post a blatant lie, even in jest. Gays have no control over what other citizens may or may not do.
First "gay" is a relatively modern sexual political identity label. Second, same sex sexual behavior is not new, it's existed, and experienced various levels of tolerance depending on the time and place.No. Just because gays have been discriminated against in most societies is no reason to continue to do so.
Actually it's to join the sexes, creating kinship is part of that. Some states do allow first cousins to marry.Since the fundamental accomplishment of marriage is to create kinship between participants that weren't previously related by blood, it works just as well for same sex as opposite sex participants.
Monogamous conjugal marriage, as in husband and wife, is crucial to a stable society. It connects men and women, and the children.Why does it matter to the government if one man and one woman marry? After all, there is no longer any legal stigma associated with illegitimacy since SCOTUS ruled it a quasi-suspect class. And siblings can have private consensual sex and procreate now regardless of whether they have legal recognition of their coupling.