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

Jan 30, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.dailykos.com

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:

Comments
1 - 7 of 7 Comments Last updated Jan 30, 2013

Since: Jun 11

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 30, 2013
 
It won't.

Simple as that.

DNF

“Liberty AND Justice”

Since: Apr 07

Born in Newark, Ohio

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

80 Users are viewing the Gay/Lesbian Forum right now

Search the Gay/Lesbian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
CO Baker Found Guilty for Denying Gay Couple We... (Dec '13) 4 min Frankie Rizzo 16,109
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 5 min Pietro Armando 52,577
Biggest Gay Lies 10 min The Good Reverend 1,238
Lubbock man says he was fired for being gay; la... 10 min Dan 115
The gay cafe for GLBT, friends and family (Oct '09) 10 min Frankie Rizzo 67,664
Losing Streak Lengthens for Foes of Gay Marriage 12 min Frankie Rizzo 2,568
Rubio talks abortion, gay marriage as he works ... 13 min Tennessee 37
Cake the Gay Away: Oregon Bakery Now Makes Ex-G... 1 hr Truth 30
•••
•••