How do supporters of so-called same-sex "marriage" believe this union can be consummated?

[sedonaman]

Here is another thread on SS"M" forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9633989#post9633989

The Hawaii court decision has some real dynamite:

The right to marry someone of the same-sex, is not “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and thus it is not a fundamental right. See Glucksberg, 521 U.S. at 720-21 (“[w]e have regularly observed that the Due Process Clause specially protects those fundamental rights and liberties which are, objectively, ‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.’ . . . This approach tends to rein in the subjective elements that are necessarily present in due-process judicial review”)

Because a fundamental right or suspect classification is not at issue, Plaintiffs’ due process claim is subject to rational basis review.

Plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is also subject to rational basis review.

Significantly, the Ninth Circuit, which is binding authority on this Court, has affirmatively held that homosexuals are not a suspect class. [A class of individuals based on race, national origin, alienage (the official status of an alien), or religious affiliation.]

Rational basis review is the “paradigm of judicial restraint.” Under rational basis review, a law is presumed constitutional and “[t]he burden is on the one attacking the legislative arrangement to negative every conceivable basis which might support it.”

Rational basis review does not authorize “the judiciary [to] sit as a super legislature to judge the wisdom or desirability of legislative policy determinations made in areas that neither affect fundamental rights nor proceed along suspect lines.”

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden. Specifically, the legislature could rationally conclude that defining marriage as a union between a man and woman provides an inducement for opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby decreasing the percentage of children accidently conceived outside of a stable, long-term relationship. The Supreme Court has stated that a classification subject to rational basis review will be upheld when “the inclusion of one group promotes a legitimate governmental purpose, and the addition of other groups would not.”

It is undisputed opposite-sex couples can naturally procreate, and same-sex couples cannot. Thus, allowing opposite-sex couples to marry furthers this interest and allowing same-sex couples to marry would not do so.

The legislature could also rationally conclude that other things being equal, it is best for children to be raised by a parent of each sex. Under rational basis review, as long as the rationale for a classification is at least debatable, the classification is constitutional. Both sides presented evidence on this issue and both sides pointed out flaws in their opponents’ evidence. Thus, the Court concludes this rationale is at least debatable and therefore sufficient.

Accordingly, Hawaii’s marriage laws are not unconstitutional. Nationwide, citizens are engaged in a robust debate over this divisive social issue. If the traditional institution of marriage is to be restructured, as sought by Plaintiffs, it should be done by a democratically-elected legislature or the people through a constitutional amendment, not through judicial legislation that would inappropriately preempt democratic deliberation regarding whether or not to authorize same-sex marriage.

“[T]he unique social institution of marriage involving the legal relationship of matrimony between a man and a woman is a protected relationship of fundamental and unequaled importance to the State, the nation, and society.”

It reasserted that marriage should be dealt with by the legislature, not the courts: “[T]he question of whether or not to issue marriage licenses to couples of the same sex is a fundamental policy issue to be decided by the elected representatives of the people.”

The Minnesota Supreme Court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims determining, inter alia, that a right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is not a fundamental right. The court further determined that the Equal Protection Clause was “not offended by the state’s classification of persons authorized to marry” and that there was “no irrational or invidious discrimination.” Id. at 187. The United States Supreme Court summarily dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal “for want of a substantial federal question.”
scribd.com/doc/102440860/Hawaii-Decision-Jackson-vs-Abercromnie

 

[livingwordunity]

Well, no you can’t, then. But when it comes to a legally recongised relationship, I don’t see why it should matter.

Because every relationship can’t be called a marriage. Calling every kind of relationship a marriage would be like saying “marriage is everything, and everything is marriage”. Liberals and “gay” activists are seeking to bastardize the definition of marriage to make it meaningless.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Marriage is not simply a contract or just any relationship. If it were then there would be no reason to argue for SSM as one would simply make a contract.

What is it, then?

Because every relationship can’t be called a marriage. Calling every kind of relationship a marriage would be like saying “marriage is everything, and everything is marriage”. Liberals and “gay” activists are seeking to bastardize the definition of marriage to make it meaningless.

Well, it’s only a marriage if it’s made a marriage. Through a legal contract.

 

[livingwordunity]

Because every relationship can’t be called a marriage. Calling every kind of relationship a marriage would be like saying “marriage is everything, and everything is marriage”. Liberals and “gay” activists are seeking to bastardize the definition of marriage to make it meaningless.

Well, it’s only a marriage if it’s made a marriage. Through a legal contract.

That doesn’t address anything about what I said.

 

[johnnyjones]

But I thought as many gay people say “it isn’t all about the sex”. It is. Again, they are forced to throw out traditional consumation due to a “genitalia barrier” but claim normality.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

That doesn’t address anything about what I said.

What you said was that there is this definition of the word marriage that can never be changed, which is total nonsense.

But I thought as many gay people say “it isn’t all about the sex”. It is. Again, they are forced to throw out traditional consumation due to a “genitalia barrier” but claim normality.

Homosexuals are pretty normal, I guess, as long as you don’t include the bedroom antics.

Nah, but seriously, I just don’t see what’s harmful or particulary wrong with same-sex marriage. If they want it, let them have it.

 

[livingwordunity]

What you said was that there is this definition of the word marriage that can never be changed, which is total nonsense.

A rose can be called a skunk, and a skunk can be called a rose. But a rose will still be a rose, and a skunk will still be a skunk.

 

[johnnyjones]

What you said was that there is this definition of the word marriage that can never be changed, which is total nonsense.

Homosexuals are pretty normal, I guess, as long as you don’t include the bedroom antics.

Nah, but seriously, I just don’t see what’s harmful or particulary wrong with same-sex marriage. If they want it, let them have it.

I would expect you to feel that way as an Atheist. Talk to some doctors and emergency room nurses at a San Fransico hospital (or elsewhere) and hear about the “beauty” of same sex consumation.

 

[northernstar]

Menopause is just as natural as the fact that not every act of marital intercourse between fertile hetero couples results in a pregnancy. God gives children when he wills it and puts a natural limit on it with menopause. When my wife reaches menopause and stops having children, our marriage will still be valid because we still have the unitive aspect of marriage (the penis is made for the vagina), and our bodies are still ordered to procreation even if the eggs have run out. With God all things are possible, except for God to contradict himself.

Thanks for the reply, your opinion makes sense. I am looking to get married to a male and we do not have sex anymore – medical reasons for him, but I love him just the same and wanted to know that getting married would be as important / special as I envision it.
THanks

 

[fix]

Regular Atheist:

What is it, then?

Are you really unaware? Seems impossible.

 

[livingwordunity]

I would expect you to feel that way as an Atheist. Talk to some doctors and emergency room nurses at a San Fransico hospital (or elsewhere) and hear about the “beauty” of same sex consumation.

Or ask the maid service in hotels when they have to change the brown sheets.

 

[vz71]

That this is a lousy argument against gay marriage, and you’ve just stated why.

Pointing out the facts is never a lousy argument.

 

[livingwordunity]

Nah, mate. :tsktsk: Civil marriage is nothing but a legal contract, surely.

So, if I marry a woman and we don’t have sex, our marriage isn’t real and therefore we’re not entitled to any of the benefits of marriage?

If you believe that civil marriage is nothing more than tax benefits in a legal contract why don’t the ones arguing for “same-sex marriage” just ask for the tax benefits without trying to redefine marriage? Why do they want to make believe that a homosexual couple can be like Ward and June Cleaver?

 

[sedonaman]

…
Nah, but seriously, I just don’t see what’s harmful or particulary wrong with same-sex marriage. If they want it, let them have it.

So we’re going to re-structure society just because you can’t see something?

 

[vz71]

If you believe that civil marriage is nothing more than tax benefits in a legal contract why don’t the ones arguing for “same-sex marriage” just ask for the tax benefits without trying to redefine marriage? Why do they want to make believe that a homosexual couple can be like Ward and June Cleaver?

You nailed it.

The homosexual agenda is not about law.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

If you believe that civil marriage is nothing more than tax benefits in a legal contract why don’t the ones arguing for “same-sex marriage” just ask for the tax benefits without trying to redefine marriage? Why do they want to make believe that a homosexual couple can be like Ward and June Cleaver?

I’m not sure. Ask them. A lot of the time it seems to be a bit childish - a case of “They have it, so I want it.” As long as they’re entitled to the same benefits, I’ll stop supporting them, regardless of the name of the thing they’re entitled to.

Obviously, though, you’re assuming all homosexuals have the same motive. I’m sure many would be happy with Civil Unions.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m not sure. Ask them. A lot of the time it seems to be a bit childish - a case of “They have it, so I want it.” As long as they’re entitled to the same benefits, I’ll stop supporting them, regardless of the name of the thing they’re entitled to.

Obviously, though, you’re assuming all homosexuals have the same motive. I’m sure many would be happy with Civil Unions.

I can guarantee that if same-sex couples would just ask for all the extra tax benefits instead of arguing that marriage should be redefined they would meet with little or no resistance.

 

[CopticChristian]

What you said was that there is this definition of the word marriage that can never be changed, which is total nonsense.

Homosexuals are pretty normal, I guess, as long as you don’t include the bedroom antics.

**Nah, but seriously, I just don’t see what’s harmful or particulary wrong with same-sex marriage. If they want it, let them have it. **

Regular,

What they want they shall not have. Hawaii Circuit court said so.

 

[CopticChristian]

I’m not sure. Ask them. A lot of the time it seems to be a bit childish - a case of “They have it, so I want it.” As long as they’re entitled to the same benefits, I’ll stop supporting them, regardless of the name of the thing they’re entitled to.

Obviously, though, you’re assuming all homosexuals have the same motive. I’m sure many would be happy with Civil Unions.

Regular,

They can call it what they want. But what they want is to rewrite history and the dictionary. The Ninth Circuit Court points out the history of marriage in their Hawaii decision.

scribd.com/doc/102440860/Hawaii-Decision-Jackson-vs-Abercromnie

1. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that the definition ofmarriage as “a consensual, contractual personal relationshipbetween a man and a woman. . . . is not peculiar; indeed it is traditional.

” Smelt, 447 F.3d at 680 & n.18 (citing 2 SamuelJohnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (London, W. Strahanet. al. 1755) (Marriage is: “The act of uniting a man and womanfor life.” To marry is: “To join a man and woman.”);

NoahWebster, A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language 185(1806) (Marriage is: “the act of joining man and woman.”);

Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1384 (3d ed. 1986)(Marriage is: “the state of being united to a person of theopposite sex as husband or wife.”);

Black’s Law Dictionary 972(6th ed. 1990) (Marriage is: “Legal union of one man and onewoman as husband and wife.”);

The Compact Oxford EnglishDictionary 1039 (2d ed. 1994) (Marriage is: “The condition ofbeing a husband or wife. . . .”)).

 

[livingwordunity]

Regular,

What they want they shall not have. Hawaii Circuit court said so.

I wouldn’t put too much faith in the courts. They change their minds like we change our underwear. I think it’s because the USA was founded on Protestantism which promotes the dangerous idea that nothing is sacred and everything subject to a vote.