Marriage is meant to protect society ...

Marriage is meant to protect society from the threat of Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock baby

There are 7 comments on the www.dailykos.com story from Jan 30, 2013, titled Marriage is meant to protect society from the threat of Bristol Palin's out-of-wedlock baby. In it, www.dailykos.com reports that:

In the quest to protect 'Merica from the creeping gay threat, the brave defenders of the sanctity of Newt Gingrich's three marriages have come up with what is quite possibly the most epically ridiculous argument ever:

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.dailykos.com.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#1 Jan 30, 2013
This is not a new point.

It only stands out because all of the others have been abandoned as clearly unreasonable.

This one would make sense if procreation was a requirement of marriage, but it is not.

But beyond the religious argument, it is all they have left. It has already been addressed and found to be irrelevant, as denial of equal treatment does nothing to encourage straight people to behave more responsibly. It provides nothing for straight people while harming gay people for no good reason.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#2 Jan 30, 2013
Gill v. OPM:
"But even if Congress believed at the time of DOMA's passage that children had the best chance at success if raised jointly by their biological mothers and fathers, a desire to encourage heterosexual couples to procreate and rear their own children more responsibly would not provide a rational basis for denying federal recognition to same-sex marriages. Such denial does nothing to promote stability in heterosexual parenting. Rather, it "prevents children of same-sex couples from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of a stable family structure, when afforded equal recognition under federal law.

Moreover, an interest in encouraging responsible procreation plainly cannot provide a rational basis upon which to exclude same-sex marriages from federal recognition because, as Justice Scalia pointed out, the ability to procreate is not now, nor has it ever been, a precondition to marriage in any state in the country. Indeed, "the sterile and the elderly" have never been denied the right to marry by any of the fifty states. And the federal government has never considered denying recognition to marriage based on an ability or inability to procreate.

Similarly, Congress' asserted interest in defending and nurturing heterosexual marriage is not "grounded in sufficient factual context for this court to ascertain some relation" between it and the classification DOMA effects.

What remains, therefore, is the possibility that Congress sought to deny recognition to same-sex marriages in order to make heterosexual marriage appear more valuable or desirable. But the extent that this was the goal, Congress has achieved it "only by punishing same-sex couples who exercise their rights under state law." And this the Constitution does not permit. "For if the constitutional conception of 'equal protection of the laws' means anything, it must at the very least mean" that the Constitution will not abide such "a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group."

Neither does the Constitution allow Congress to sustain DOMA by reference to the objective of defending traditional notions of morality. As the Supreme Court made abundantly clear in Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, "the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law..."
http://docfiles.justia.com/cases/federal/dist...

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#4 Jan 30, 2013
Not Yet Equal wrote:
This is not a new point.
It only stands out because all of the others have been abandoned as clearly unreasonable.
This one would make sense if procreation was a requirement of marriage, but it is not.
But beyond the religious argument, it is all they have left. It has already been addressed and found to be irrelevant, as denial of equal treatment does nothing to encourage straight people to behave more responsibly. It provides nothing for straight people while harming gay people for no good reason.
It's simply more of sinners trying to divert attention from their own sins and claiming it's in the name of Mom, Dad, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#6 Jan 30, 2013
The State of Snakes wrote:
I don't think
Well, one thing we can both agree on!

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#9 Jan 30, 2013
It won't.

Simple as that.

DNF

“Judge less, Love more”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark Ohio

#10 Jan 30, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
Where on Earth does queer Ricky from Kansas find this crap?
If you promise that you will never reveal this to anyone I'll let you in on a Topix secret.

See the headline? Notice it's in Black? Then underneath in blue is a link to the source.

I'm not surprised you didn't know this since listing sources isn't a habit of yours.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#11 Jan 30, 2013
DNF wrote:
<quoted text>If you promise that you will never reveal this to anyone I'll let you in on a Topix secret.
See the headline? Notice it's in Black? Then underneath in blue is a link to the source.
I'm not surprised you didn't know this since listing sources isn't a habit of yours.
Duh dummy, I guess it's not a secret anymore.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Kids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BIC prepares to make cuts after millage increas... 7 min TarAndFeathers 23
News Do black lives REALLY matter? 1 hr Right Wing 2
News Fort Lauderdale: Police giving funding to Oniku... (Mar '08) 1 hr judomonkey 7
how to hack person on moviestarplanet get there... (Jun '13) 3 hr cheesecakekitty33 786
News Michelle and Jim Bob Duggar trying to get pregn... (Oct '13) 5 hr not a fan 11
News Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 6 hr peter pan 31,819
News Josh Duggar Resigns From Family Research Council 9 hr Tazo 16
More from around the web