Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[Betterave]

The ONLY reason?

Could you be more clear in your claims, please? And do you have a place where we could look up this “purpose” that you are claiming that “state” has in marriage? The state typically puts all relevant legal purposes in writing. I am sure that you must have a document or reference to support this claim about the “purpose” of the “state’s” legal purpose in marriage.

Actually questions about the nature and purpose of the state are philosophical questions. They’re not resolvable by referring to written legal statutes. In any case, I refer you again to Loving v. Virginia.

The reason I mention is the principal reason, it seems to me. It is not the ONLY reason, but any other reasons are probably auxiliary to it.

 

[Betterave]

you aren’t even quoting an entire sentence. Could you quote the entire paragraph, at least, please? I have not seen this document yet.

Actually that is an entire sentence. Anyway, ThomasToo posted the whole paragraph (I think) earlier in the thread.

 

[larkin31]

I’m just talking facts here, bro! The point is to get at the truth of the matter, no? The fact that a term is used in the Catholic faith is no reason to claim that it has no application to legal arguments. I should have thought that that was stating the obvious.

Now as ThomasToo mentioned, Loving v. Virginia states:

*Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… *

Now you might want to insist in an irrelevant legalistic sense that there is no reference to any kind of “order” in this statement, but obviously in the sense that matters that would be a false claim.

And in this case, any claims about broadening justice or broadening freedom appear to be groundless, apart from purely legalistic arguments which can hardly be decisive for deciding the truth of the matter.

here you go: the last section of the ruling opinion:

There can be no question but that Virginia’s miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry” as being “odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.” Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 100 (1943). At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the “most rigid scrutiny,” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they “cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose . . . which makes the color of a person’s skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.” McLaughlin v. Florida, supra, at 198 (STEWART, J., joined by DOUGLAS, J., concurring).

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. 11 We have consistently denied [388 U.S. 1, 12] the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

II.
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

These convictions must be reversed.

It is so ordered.

Shall we discuss whether this states that marriage is “ordered” to procreate (a Catholic phrase)? Or shall we discuss marriage access and the 14th amendment and discrimination of a class of citizenship, which this document actually focuses on?

 

[Betterave]

It doesn’t have application until it hs been shown to.

So far you have given one piece of one sentence from one case that does not in fact use the term, nor does it state what you are suggesting. The word the ruling appears to use is “fundamental to survival.” No one questions that in terms of the history of the west. Of course marriage has helped families and villages, etc, survive. Marriage helps societies in many ways.

I would like to read the entire ruling (I greatly enjoy reading legal documents).

The notion of “order” seems like a universal and self-evident one. Sorry, but it seems absurd to me to demand proof that it has some application. Can you give any reason for suggesting it might not? I’m not sure what you’re after here. This isn’t a court of law, we shouldn’t have to cite precedents and written statutes here; it’s a philosophical discussion… isn’t it? (I hope it is!)

 

[larkin31]

Actually questions about the nature and purpose of the state are philosophical questions. They’re not resolvable by referring to written legal statutes. In any case, I refer you again to Loving v. Virginia.

The reason I mention is the principal reason, it seems to me. It is not the ONLY reason, but any other reasons are probably auxiliary to it.

“auxiliary” status is not legally relevant, either. The question is whether the ability to procreate is a necessary requirement for access to marriage. You are claiming that it is, correct?

 

[larkin31]

The notion of “order” seems like a universal and self-evident one. Sorry, but it seems absurd to me to demand proof that it has some application. Can you give any reason for suggesting it might not? I’m not sure what you’re after here. This isn’t a court of law, we shouldn’t have to cite precedents and written statutes here; it’s a philosophical discussion… isn’t it? (I hope it is!)

haha

this is a VERY legal discussion. We are discussing a referendum being overturned in a court of law. You are claiming that the decision was wrong, but you don’t seem to be willing to discuss the terms of the law and the court.

I have now quoted Loving v Virginia in greater depth. Do you care to comment on it? YOU brought it up, after all.

 

[Betterave]

here you go: the last section of the ruling opinion:

Shall we discuss whether this states that marriage is “ordered” to procreate (a Catholic phrase)? Or shall we discuss marriage access and the 14th amendment and discrimination of a class of citizenship, which this document actually focuses on?

Let’s focus on what seems to be relevant here: the fact that the ruling states that marriage is “fundamental to * our very existence and survival.”*

 

[larkin31]

Let’s focus on what seems to be relevant here: the fact that the ruling states that marriage is “fundamental to * our very existence and survival.”*

I reject your use of “ordered” (the ruling did not), and that it is fundamental in no way precludes other equally fundamental purposes, nor is their any suggestion in the ruling that procreation is a necessary requirement for marriage. Both a “right” and a “fundamental” element are not “requirements”–which is what you want to do with your substitution of the word “order” into the document: you want to make this a legal precedent for restricting access to those only capable of procreation (and not allowing for IVF or surrogate birthing, both of which are ALSO legal practices by both heteros and gays). This, of course, is contrary to the spirit of Loving, which was to say that marriage is so important a right that it was unconstitutional to deny it to a class of citizens (blacks, in that case).

 

[Betterave]

“auxiliary” status is not legally relevant, either. The question is whether the ability to procreate is a necessary requirement for access to marriage. You are claiming that it is, correct?

No, I have very obviously NOT claimed that that is correct. Please read more carefully.

haha

this is a VERY legal discussion. We are discussing a referendum being overturned in a court of law. You are claiming that the decision was wrong, but you don’t seem to be willing to discuss the terms of the law and the court.

I have now quoted Loving v Virginia in greater depth. Do you care to comment on it? YOU brought it up, after all.

I have never claimed that the decision was wrong. I’m not a lawyer and so I obviously have no competency for addressing the legal intracacies of the case. I am addressing the arguments advanced in this thread. (I suggest you do the same - there’s not much point in us pretending to have a legal trial when we obviously have no legal authority to retry the case here. ) That said, I’m willing to discuss whatever you bring up. (Bed time now - good night!)

 

[ThomasToo]

Since persons of the same sex cannot pro-create, do you think the law should allow homosexuals to enter incestuous unions?

I see not legal problem there.

Calling homosexual unions “marriage” infringes on the rights of others. Think of it as a Trademark law. Pepsi or generic colas cannot call themselves “Coke”. That particular brand of cola known as “Coke” has a trademark. The name applies to something specific The “trademark” for the word “marriage” is already taken. The word “marriage” applies specifically to the union between one man and one woman.

So you’re saying your church has a trademark on the word ‘marriage’? In the words of Wikipedia editors everywhere, [citation needed]]. Couldn’t this argument have been made for the support of antimiscegenation laws with the addition of the appropriate four little words to fill out the truly traditional conception of marriage–insofar as there is such a thing (i.e. ‘The word “marriage” applies specifically to the union between one man and one woman of the same race.’)? How are your claims different from the faulty ones made almost fifty years ago seeking to prevent two persons who happened to be different colors from marrying?

 

[PaulinVA]

All heterosexual marriages are ordered toward procreation? What do you mean by “ordered?” I assume you mean heterosexual marriages are enacted for the purpose of creation. But again, this is not true of all or many heterosexual marriages, and there is no requirement in current law that marriage be so “ordered.”

If you are going to post on a Catholic forum, please become familiar with the concepts involved. Ordered towards procreation means that when a man and a woman get together, they have the parts required to procreate. It might not be true for every couple, and it might not be that every act of marital relations produces a baby, but the right things are being done to produce the baby. That never happens in a homosexual union. It can never happen.

Your argument relies on an obviously false premise: that marriage must be essential to survival in order for it to be legally valid. This is just not true, since not all – or many – heterosexual marriages are essential to survival. In fact, marriage in itself isn’t essential to survival because there can be procreation without marriage!

Heterosexual marriage is essential to the survival of the human race. Children produced are protected legally and studies have shown that children thrive with a mother and a father living under the same roof as them.

]2. Your claim that marriage is for society and NOT for the individuals involved is embarrassingly false. Regardless of whether marriage is for society, it is most certainly for the individuals involved.

Society has the overriding interest in marriage. It’s so important that society forced people to consider themselves married if they lived together for a set period of time, even if they didn’t exchange vows.

You may call my understanding embarrassingly false, but I am not embarrassed. I can get married because society* wants* me to get married to protect my children. Gay people can not get married in most states because society does not want them to get married, and there is no reason for them to be married. Society gains nothing with gay marriage.

1. You seem to be confusing the “raising of the next generation” with the “creation of the next generation.” The fact that same-sex couples can’t “create” the next generation doesn’t mean they can’t “raise the next generation.” So, if marriage is partly about “raising the next generation,” then it makes perfect sense to extend marriage to same-sex couples, since many desire and are perfectly capable of doing just that.

Nope. Society is not benefited when two people try to convince a child that the child has two mothers and no father. I meant creating the next generation, not pretending to be parents and using that as an excuse to push for gay marriage.

 

[secular_freedom]

No, I’m just saying that that in fact is the reason that the state has an interest in recognizing the institution of marriage, that that is what marriage as such is ordered towards.

You fail to recognize the claims you are making. It’s one thing to claim that the state has an interest in recognizing the institution of marriage, and that that interest is promoting procreation. However, it’s quite another thing to claim that the state’s sole interest in recognizing marriage is to promote procreation. By asserting the latter, you are falsely assuming that partnerships must, by their very nature, be oriented towards procreation before a state has an interest in recognizing such unions as marriages.

Obviously what you say is true, but my assumption is still correct. The fundamental purpose of marriage is procreation.

If what I say is true then your assumption cannot, as a matter of logic, be correct. I said that procreation is not necessarily the fundamental purpose of marriage, which means that for some marriages, the “fundamental purpose” may be something else. Hence if you agree with my statements, then you must disagree with yourself.

I certainly don’t mean to imply that that is all that marriage is about, simply that partnerships that are fundamentally alien to this fundamental purpose should not be recognized as marriage. To be more precise, then, a sine qua non condition for a marriage is some minimal level of formal compatibility with the purpose of procreation, namely, sexual complementarity.

So it appears you disagree with yourself. As I pointed out, many heterosexual partnerships “are fundamentally alien to this [alleged] fundamental purpose” and yet are recognized as marriages. Whether those partnerships “should be” recognized as marriages is a different issue from whether those partnerships “are” or “can be” recognized as marriages. You’re making an invalid inference from:

1. Partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should not be recognized as marriages.
2. Therefore, under current law, partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation (i.e. same-sex partnerships) cannot be recognized as marriages.

However, the following is valid.

1. Under current law, partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation can be recognized as marriages.
2. Therefore, it is not a requirement that partnerships be non-fundamentally alien to procreation before they can be recognized as marriages.

Given that (2) is true, you cannot rest your argument on the claim that same-sex partnerships are fundamentally alien to procreation.

Right… I assume you meant to write: “…but that hasn’t led to the state restricting marriages in those circumstances”? But as I said: The state has good grounds for not enquiring too closely into the details of particular cases.

Such as? In many cases, “close inquiry” wouldn’t be necessary.

Where the basic formal condition of sexual complementarity is fulfilled the state has good reasons not to intervene so as to restrict individual’s freedom to marry where doing so will inevitably requiring delving into questions that regard the concrete difficulties/issues of particular individuals’ situations.

What are those good reasons, according to you?

No I am not. I am claiming that that in fact is the purpose of legally-sanctioning marriage.

Actually, it seems you are invoking a double standard. You would allow heterosexuals with no ability to procreate to marry, but would not allow homosexuals to marry. Why? You can’t claim it’s because homosexuals have no ability to marry, since many heterosexuals also have no ability to procreate. Hence, the only difference between the two groups is that they have different sexual orientations. So it seems the REAL reason why you don’t want homosexuals to marry isn’t because they can’t procreate (because MANY heterosexual couples can’t either), but because they have a particular sexual orientation.

As for your claim that procreation is “the” purpose for legally-sanctioning marriage, it is (again) refuted by the fact that many heterosexuals who can’t/don’t wish to procreate can marry.

No, your point is moot for the reason I already pointed out, which you chose to ignore here.

I haven’t ignored anything. On the other hand, you have ignored the fact that prop 8 intentionally discriminates against homosexuals. Not only does prop 8 prevent homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners, that is its intended purpose - the reason for which it was enacted.

 

[larkin31]

No, I have very obviously NOT claimed that that is correct. Please read more carefully…

you’re entire point has been procreation. You keep repeating it. I am not misreading anything. You even quoted Loving in order to emphasize the connection between marriage and procreation. You even keep repeating “ordered for procreation.” This is EXACTLY what we have been discussing, until you starting backing off the legal nature of the case. Which is my whole point in rejoinder to you: that you want to use religious terminology and definitions rather than legal ones, even though this thread is about a legal case and the Equal Protection clause, and even though the ruling opinions do not use the religious terminology that you use.

 

[secular_freedom]

If you are going to post on a Catholic forum, please become familiar with the concepts involved. Ordered towards procreation means that when a man and a woman get together, they have the parts required to procreate. It might not be true for every couple, and it might not be that every act of marital relations produces a baby, but the right things are being done to produce the baby. That never happens in a homosexual union. It can never happen.

On your understanding, I don’t see why homosexual unions aren’t also “ordered towards procreation” since they have the parts “required to procreate.” The fact that homosexuals can’t procreate doesn’t mean they don’t “have the parts required to procreate.”

Heterosexual marriage is essential to the survival of the human race. Children produced are protected legally and studies have shown that children thrive with a mother and a father living under the same roof as them.

Your comment fails to interact with what I wrote. You are operating under the false premise that marriage must be essential to survival in order for it to be legally valid, but this is simple false. Not all – or many – heterosexual marriages are essential to survival. In fact, marriage in itself isn’t essential to survival of the human race because there can be procreation without marriage!

Society has the overriding interest in marriage. It’s so important that society forced people to consider themselves married if they lived together for a set period of time, even if they didn’t exchange vows.

No one is claiming otherwise. But it’s false to claim that marriage is NOT for the individuals involved.

You may call my understanding embarrassingly false, but I am not embarrassed. I can get married because society* wants* me to get married to protect my children. Gay people can not get married in most states because society does not want them to get married, and there is no reason for them to be married. Society gains nothing with gay marriage.

Sure it does. Marriage enables many couples to find happiness in their lives, and when individuals are happy, they function better and society benefits as a direct result. Allowing gay couples to marry enables many members of society to find happiness and function better. When these individuals benefit, society also benefits because they are members of society.

Nope. Society is not benefited when two people try to convince a child that the child has two mothers and no father. I meant creating the next generation, not pretending to be parents and using that as an excuse to push for gay marriage.

Again, you seem to be confusing the “raising of the next generation” with the “creation of the next generation.” The fact that same-sex couples can’t “create” the next generation doesn’t mean they can’t “raise the next generation.” So, if marriage is partly about “raising the next generation,” then it makes perfect sense to extend marriage to same-sex couples, since many desire and are perfectly capable of doing just that.

Your claim that gay couples can’t properly raise children is simply a smear and easily refuted by the evidence. (see the recent Perry opinion).

 

[larkin31]

Society gains nothing with gay marriage.

That is of course a fatuous claim. I could as easily, and as fatuously, state that society gains nothing from yours or my existence, and therefore we should deny it.

Through gay marriage society gains everything that a hetero marriage contributes, except children–and this is no requirement for hetero marriage contribution to society, either. It is only a religious one, which has nothing to do with modern law nor the issuing of marriage licenses. When a gay couple moved in next to me I gained concerned, thoughtful neighbors, interested in settling down, committing to each other, joining in civic actions, watching over the neighborhood, saving for retirement, pursuing life, liberty, and happiness, and perhaps even raising a child or two through adoption.

Sound familiar? Shall I name some heteros with EXACTLY the same goals? Will you call their contributions “nothing” as well if THEY were to marry and only adopt?

What is it about that, that is not to be further legitimized with full legal marriage? Where is the “nothing” that is to be gained by encouraging this kind of commitment and stability in a neighborhood or community?

Shall we start denying marriage certificates to ALL those groups that we consider lesser contributors to society? Or shall we restrict this logic ONLY to gays? Don’t we know plenty of heteros of whom we might more accurately state give very little to society–if not become a positive drain on it? Why, we even let felons in prison marry! We even let them have sex and make more fatherless sons and daughters with their wives!

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Okay, what is the “vested interest?” In other words, what harm or damage would result from allowing same-sex marriage?

You’re assuming that there’s been a change to the “basic meaning” of marriage. How do you justify this assumption without resorting to mere assertions?

Your point, I take it, is that if same-sex marriage can be considered marriage, then certain bad consequences would follow. What are those bad consequences and what’s your evidence that they will occur?

I’m not sure how this addresses the premises of the argument.

My point:
More harm than good will come from same-sex unions being legally recognized as “marriage”.

**What is the basic meaning of the word “marriage”?

Is marriage only a legal relationship between people who love each other?

Lots of people love each other. I love lots of people, but I am only married to one person. Why only two people? Why only one spouse?

As pointed out earlier, there is historical and biblical history of bigamous and polygamous relationships being called marriage. Yet our society and proposition eight has somehow decided to “restrict” me to one husband. If prop eight does not stand, the previously settled matter of how many people make up a marriage will need to be re-debated too. I won’t debate polygamy in full here, but suffice it to say that polygamous society’s have not traditionally been kind to women or children, and it seems to encourage strange rivalries within families. Oppression of women and politcal unrest is strongly demonstrated by history and in parts of the world where polygamy still takes place.

Lots of people love each other, but not all love is sexual love. We seem to intuititively link sexual activity with marriage, but why? Does sex have anything to do with marriage?

If we allow same-sex marriage, there is nothing to stop heterosexual “friends” from getting “married” to each other even if they have no intent to be sexually involved with each other. Stresses may be put on the friendships of single people to marry their “friends”. People know that there is some financial and other benefit to marriage and some people will take advantage of that. That doesn’t simply mean they will take advantage of marriage–it means that some heterosexuals will use same-sex “marriage” to take advantage of their friends. Same-sex “marriage” will affect same-sex relationships beyond homosexual relationships.

Please define for us what you believe marriage basically is?

What restrictions, if any, would you place on marriage if you could decide this matter for society?

**What laws would you put in place to help society try to generally follow your definition of marriage? **

 

[larkin31]

My point:
More harm than good will come from same-sex unions being legally recognized as “marriage”.

**What *is ***the basic meaning of the word “marriage”?

Is marriage only a legal relationship between people who love each other?

Lots of people love each other. I love lots of people, but I am only married to one person. Why only two people? Why only one spouse?

As pointed out earlier, there is historical and biblical history of bigamous and polygamous relationships being called marriage. Yet our society and proposition eight has somehow decided to “restrict” me to one husband. If prop eight does not stand, the previously settled matter of how many people make up a marriage will need to be re-debated too. I won’t debate polygamy in full here, but suffice it to say that polygamous society’s have not traditionally been kind to women or children, and it seems to encourage strange rivalries within families. Oppression of women and politcal unrest is strongly demonstrated by history and in parts of the world where polygamy still takes place.

Lots of people love each other, but not all love is sexual love. We seem to intuititively link sexual activity with marriage, but why? Does sex have anything to do with marriage?

If we allow same-sex marriage, there is nothing to stop heterosexual “friends” from getting “married” to each other even if they have no intent to be sexually involved with each other. Stresses may be put on the friendships of single people to marry their “friends”. People know that there is some financial and other benefit to marriage and some people will take advantage of that. That doesn’t simply mean they will take advantage of marriage–it means that some heterosexuals will use same-sex “marriage” to take advantage of their friends. Same-sex “marriage” will affect same-sex relationships beyond homosexual relationships.

Please define for us what you believe marriage basically is?

What restrictions, if any, would you place on marriage if you could decide this matter for society?

What laws would you put in place to help society try to generally follow your definition of marriage?

Having fear of other requests for legal change is not sufficient cause to deny access to another group on other grounds.

 

[Barbkw]

“I would argue that the defense of Western ideals is the only protection that we and our neighbors have against a descent into new forms of repression – whether it might be at the hands of extremist Islam or secularist technocrats.”

Archbishop Chaput, Catholic Archibishop of Denver - 12 page article and address August 24, 2010 titled: “Living within the truth: Religious liberty and Catholic mission in the new order of the world”.

Secularist technocrats - an appropriate definition.

 

[PaulinVA]

On your understanding, I don’t see why homosexual unions aren’t also “ordered towards procreation” since they have the parts “required to procreate.” The fact that homosexuals can’t procreate doesn’t mean they don’t “have the parts required to procreate.”

A homosexual couple does not have the parts required to procreate with each other. Not at all. Not ever.

Your comment fails to interact with what I wrote. You are operating under the false premise that marriage must be essential to survival in order for it to be legally valid, but this is simple false. Not all – or many – heterosexual marriages are essential to survival. In fact, marriage in itself isn’t essential to survival of the human race because there can be procreation without marriage!

Wait, are you arguing that the Supreme Court of the US was wrong when they said marriage is essential to our very existence and survival? No, that can’t be it. Because if you were, then you’ve just jettisoned the most serious legal argument in favor of gay marriage. But, then again, Mr Chief Justice Warren was talking about heterosexual marriage, wasn’t he?

Sure it does. Marriage enables many couples to find happiness in their lives, and when individuals are happy, they function better and society benefits as a direct result. Allowing gay couples to marry enables many members of society to find happiness and function better. When these individuals benefit, society also benefits because they are members of society.

Society does things for society’s sake, for the sake of the many. Society doesn’t really care if people are happy. That is an interesting take - that the “pursuit of happiness” for some people involves engaging in activity condemned for centuries.

Again, you seem to be confusing the “raising of the next generation” with the “creation of the next generation.” The fact that same-sex couples can’t “create” the next generation doesn’t mean they can’t “raise the next generation.” So, if marriage is partly about “raising the next generation,” then it makes perfect sense to extend marriage to same-sex couples, since many desire and are perfectly capable of doing just that.

Again, you can say it as many times as you want, but I am not the one who is confused. Society has no interest in expanding the definition of marriage to include people who are not related to the children raising them in a situation from which no children can ever come from.

Your arguments are all about what the gay people want. You are confusing that with what society wants. They are not the same.

 

[larkin31]

I am going to answer these as well. Others can, too.

A homosexual couple does not have the parts required to procreate with each other. Not at all. Not ever.

So what? When has this ever been relevant in US law?

Wait, are you arguing that the Supreme Court of the US was wrong when they said marriage is essential to our very existence and survival? No, that can’t be it. Because if you were, then you’ve just jettisoned the most serious legal argument in favor of gay marriage. But, then again, Mr Chief Justice Warren was talking about heterosexual marriage, wasn’t he?

No. You misunderstand. Saying that marriage is fundamental to survival is not the same as saying, therefore, we can only allow marriage if it is ordered to procreation. That eating is fundamental to survival does not mean that we outlaw forms of eating NOT fundamental to survival.

Society does things for society’s sake, for the sake of the many. Society doesn’t really care if people are happy.

That is plainly wrong. I think you need to reread the Declaration of Independence. YOU might not care about happiness or life or liberty, but our country broke away from England in part on the grounds to pursue these things.

Again, you can say it as many times as you want, but I am not the one who is confused. Society has no interest in expanding the definition of marriage to include people who are not related to the children raising them in a situation from which no children can ever come from.

Our state freely issues marriage licenses to infertile couples and allows them to adopt and raise children not of their genetic makeup. Moreover, our state issues marriages to persons who have been widowed, divorced, etc. We have no civil impediments to marriage that prevents these unions between couples who may never want to reproduce, may never be able to reproduce, and may raise children totally unrelated to them. Indeed, American society PRAISES those who adopt and those who take on the role of step-parent or legal guardian with sincerity and love and generosity.

Your generalizations are twisted from Church dogma and are bizarre illogical claims based simply on the Church teaching that same genders should never marry. When you try to change dogma into legal arguments, you do a lousy job (thus far). I find it more defensible and more appealing simply to state the honest truth: “I oppose gay marriage because my church calls homosexuality immoral.” That, at least, does not contain obvious errors in historical or legal analysis.