Wow, Big Blockhead. Very clever! One must be a genius like you to think something like that up! You win! Your problem is you refuse to concede marriage has anything to do with raising children. I think it has very much to do with it. The main reason why there is an institution of marriage that is given support by society is because it is the ideal and favored construct within which to raise children. Again, and of course I think you are in truth being particularly dense on this issue, or merely pretend to be because you recognize that discussions of raising children run counter to this whole personal freedom nonsense (as if the government is preventing homos from living with each other), the fact that couples marry but do not have children is not an argument against society's definition of marriage and marriage's purpose. It is enough that a marriage between a man and a woman has the potential to lead to the birth of children and those children being raised by their biological parents that justifies society to label, support and venerate that relation. Whether gay couples should be able to adopt is not the issue at all. It is whether society can first identify an ideal construct or not, and if it can identify that ideal construct, can it choose to limit the designation or not? Since gay marriage can NEVER meet the ideal definition, society should be able to say a gay coupling is not marriage.
Ok, so following this logic, what about a relationship where the man and/or the woman is sterile, and it has been medically documented? From your logic that marriage should be blocked as well since there is a ZERO percent chance that the marriage could lead to the birth of a child. The point, again, being that no matter how much you want to make marriage this governmental sacred cow of procreation, the fact that there are exceptions, already approved by society, and the world as we know it hasn't collapsed, then how could SSM further derail this ideal?
You know, that kind of argument is ridiculous. First of all no one wants a society where the government gets into medical certifications and assessments. Again, a man and a woman NORMALLY have the potential to have children, and that is enough of a rational basis. Arguing the rare exception is exactly that, and ignores the GENERAL situation.
I'm still a little confused by your stance here. What's your basis that a child raised by loving biological parents is better then a child raised by equally loving adoptive parents?
Adoption can be a wonderful thing. But I frankly think the answer to your question is it should be obvious. It's what people think, and act upon. Do you hear of parents who have their babies switched on them by a hospital? Why does that seem so clearly wrong to (assuming not you) virtually anyone else? There are other reasons, like children wondering where they came from. I know an adoptee who went to a good deal of trouble to find her birth mother. It's quite common as I understand it. Other than that, a society that emphasizes birth parents raising their children limits transactional costs and confusion. Again, that should be obvious.
And you are wrong. It's been shown to you probably 100 times in this thread that the two are separate and independent events. No, it isn't. Adoptive parents are given tax breaks and benefits that are identical to those received by biological parents. So do single parents. And legal guardians. There are zero benefits for married, biological parents that aren't available for any person or couple raising a child. In short, the government does absolutely nothing to promote that setting as "ideal". By allowing gay couples to adopt, society has already deemed them fit to raise children. Beyond this, as I said, gay adoptive parents get the same benefits that straight, biological parents get. The bottom line is, your raising children argument has absolutely no merit.
P.S. - 9th Circuit Court of Appeals puts a halt to gay marriage pending appeal. I'm shocked. A bad sign for the anti-Prop 8 crowd.
Bleat away all you want. I never said marrriage and having children cannot be done separately. But you have to be a first class idiot to argue they have NOTHING to do with each other. Congratulations. And being fit to raise children does not mean that gay couples are the ideal in that regard. Take a logic course already, and put it to use. You are horrible at this stuff.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/17/same.sex.marriage/index.html?hpt=T2 (CNN) -- An appeals court ruling temporarily blocking same-sex marriages from resuming in California drew strong reactions from opponents and supporters of the state's controversial 2008 referendum on the issue. Couples hoping to marry rushed to cancel their plans after an order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals late Monday set aside a federal judge's decision earlier this month that would have permitted same-sex marriages to resume in California as early as Wednesday. And advocates on both sides of the issue said they were prepared to make their arguments in court. "This delay is just really going to screw us up," said Harry Seaman, who was planning to marry his boyfriend Friday afternoon. Video: Legal fight over same-sex marriage Video: What is California's Proposition 8? RELATED TOPICS Same-Sex Marriage Proposition 8 U.S. Court of Appeals Friends and family had already been invited to celebrate, he said. "We got the first appointment we could get," he said. "I knew something was going to happen, but I just didn't know it was going to happen before we even got a chance." The appeals court Monday set a fast schedule to hear the merits of the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, the 2008 initiative defining marriage as only between one man and one woman. Oral arguments will now be held the week of December 6, meaning a decision on whether same-sex couples can legally wed likely will not be decided until sometime next year. Andy Pugno, an attorney representing supporters of Proposition 8, said California's voters should be happy about Monday's ruling. "We just think today is a good day for the voters in general, to see the vote of the people actually upheld, even though it's not the final word yet," he told CNN affiliate KCRA. "We still have appeals to go through, but for the time being the vote of the people has been upheld." Opponents of Proposition 8 said they were disappointed by the ruling, but planned to continue their fight. "Every additional day that couples must wait to marry again in California is painful, but despite the terrible disappointment for the many couples whose right to marry has been delayed yet again, today's ruling includes another significant victory for our side," Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said in a statement. "The court did the right thing by putting the case on a fast track and specifically ordering that Prop 8 proponents show why they have a legal right to appeal." Opponents of Proposition 8 will not appeal Monday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court, according to spokesman Yousef Robb with the American Foundation for Equal Rights. Opponents could ask the Supreme Court to intervene on the narrow question of whether to allow the stay to be lifted, but both sides of the debate agree the odds of the justices getting involved at this stage are very slim. The case has had an up-and-down series of rulings and referendums. The state's high court had allowed same-sex marriage, but then the voter referendum two years ago passed with 52 percent of the vote. The California Supreme Court subsequently allowed that initiative to stand, saying it represented the will of the people. Opponents of the law next filed a federal challenge, saying the law violated 14th Amendment constitutional protections of due process and equal protection. Judge Vaughn Walker on August 4 agreed, ruling that the voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage violated federal civil rights laws. His 136-page opinion concluded that Proposition 8 "fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." The Reagan-appointed judge added, "Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples." Same sex marriage is currently legal in five states and in the District of Columbia, while civil unions are permitted in New Jersey. The five states are Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Walker's landmark ruling assured a swift federal appeal that ultimately may reach the Supreme Court. One sticking point could be whether Proposition 8 supporters in court -- all private citizens and groups -- have legal "standing" to continue appealing the case. State officials, including the governor and attorney general, support individual same-sex couples challenging the law. Such state "actors" traditionally defend voter referendums and legislation. Some legal experts say if the appeals court eventually rules Proposition 8 backers cannot bring their petition for relief, the Supreme Court may not seek to intervene further, giving no clear guidance on the larger question of the constitutionality of same-sex marriage nationwide. The high court, in a 1997 unrelated appeal, had expressed "grave doubts" about the ability of such private groups to challenge rulings that strike down ballot initiatives. Walker's ruling had given the losing side a chance to appeal, and he held off allowing same-sex marriages from resuming until an emergency injunction request could be decided by the higher court. Among the federal appeals judges who agreed Monday to block same-sex marriages from resuming immediately was Sidney Thomas, a Montana native who was interviewed this spring by President Obama for the Supreme Court vacancy that eventually went to Elena Kagan. Why did CNN use this guys name? Harry seaman has to be made up or he changed to it.
Quick question for Jack, since I have no clue on this. If the appellate court rules that the pro-8 team has no standing, what likelihood is there that the Supreme Court even accepts the case? http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_gayma...DeW5faGVhZGxpbmVfbGlzdARzbGsDY2FsaWZvcm5pYWdh
I've been following this for the last couple of days. Both sides thought that this standing issue played to their favor. At first. Now, everyone is stepping back and saying doubleyoo-tee-eff. It's a little crazy because, near as I can tell, Judge Walker allowed them to participate in the case as if they had standing and then ruled on the standing issue eight months later, after he had reached a decision. Seems like he was trying to be cute and play tricks with their appellate standing. Just a guess. If the 9th Circuit rules that the intervening defendants lack standing, seems to me that the only issue SCOTUS could address would be the issue of standing itself. That would be the only Article III issue alive. But, if the Court took that issue up and decided that the defendants DID have standing, they would then have a live controversy to decide, and I guess the Court could accept jurisdiction directly from the District Court. That would be a horrible result, though. No matter how the Court ultimately ruled.
You have completely ignored the part of my post that was most relevant and disproved your argument. Answer directly this simple question: What benefits do straight, married parents get that any other parent does not? In other words, in what way does the government "promote the ideal situation for raising a child"?
First of all, what supports and subsidies SHOULD be given is another matter, but it does speak to this question. What I mean is we should recognize that the legal definition of marriage is merely a starting point. Once a definition is made and agreed upon, the question becomes literally what should be done with this designation. What support, what subsidies, should be given? I think more than is currently the case, but returning to your question. First of all I find it rather odd you would be asking this question. Certainly the proponents of gay marriage think there is some benefit involved. They certainly are not seeking the right to marry for masochistic reasons, all jokes along those lines to the contrary. But putting that oddness of your perspective aside, something I have unfortunately gotten used to, I can think of several benefits. Legal. The law has developed many principles and policies that only apply to "normal" marriages, such as mutual rights and corrsponding obligations of parents, as a couple, automatically arising out of a birth of a child. These can be modified by FURTHER and OTHER legal measures, such as adoption, divorce proceedings and related custody disputes. But the availability and application of such rights and obligations on an automatic basis is certainly a benefit in knowing what the deal is. There are many other legal benefits involved, such as the laws of intestate succession and property divisions, modifications of testamentary rights such as the right of election, that society and the law apply to marriages, of at least a perceived benefit to the parties affected. The list is really quite long. Related to that is that the CHILDREN of such couplings automatically benefit as well, as their parents are responsible for them under the law, pending of course FURTHER and OTHER legal proceedings that might modify those obligations. I believe even though these policies and principles take the form primarily of undertakings as it applies to both of the parents that it still amounts to a benefit to both, at least so far as both parties are clear that by having children they know what the rules are going forward regarding not only themselves but also concerning their respective and joint obligations to the child. In short, clarity of responsibility is a benefit. Taxes and Subsidies, direct and indirect. Deductions and child credit provisions concededly are available to single parents, but what about unmarried spouses? Marriage again provides clarity here. Beyond that, notwithstanding how marriage can actually penalize the tax exposure of some, for most it does not do so. And that amounts to a subsidy. Property Rights. This is different than the points raised above about succession rights on death, and obligaitons that arise on the birth of children. Marriage brings with it many rights and obligations to and respecting property as between the husband and wife, but also alters the relationship they have to others. This aspect is frankly being diluted in some areas, such as housing laws that prohibit "discrimination" based on marital status. Imo housing providers (landlords) should be able to consider the legal status of marriage in deciding who to rent to, as married couples on the whole are less likely to skip, making them a better propsect to rent to despite what could be otherwise equally (bad) credit scores and other elements relevant to the screening process. THe list goes on and on. Public Veneration. Perhaps as important as anything is that the designation of marriage should and imo still does amount to a seal of approval of the relationship. This in effect is the public, civil manifestation of the way in which the religious ceremony of marriage calls upon all present to support the couple in the future, helping them get through rough times, that sort of thing. The public recognition of a couple's marriage means, still, that there is a perceived permanence to the relationship, in turn leading one would hope to altered behaviors by those around the couple. Why are wedding anniversaries the subject of public recognition? And quite critically occasions for expression of APPROVAL? Why do people say isn't it great when a married couple has a tenth, twentyfith, fiftieth anniversary? That is only a short list.
