Replies

False analogy.

Wrong.

So you say. The VT legislature and the Iowa Supreme Court disagree. What makes you right and them wrong?

Fallacious Appeal to authority. If you want to go that route, the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT has summarily affirmed that traditional marriage laws DO NOT violate the Constitution. (See: Baker v. Nelson 409 U.S. 810 (1972)).

But we really shouldn't go that route.

We should go the route of recognizing the facts. The fact is men and women are different. The fact is, male parts are made to fit into female parts. The fact is, only the Union of a man and a woman can form biological offspring.

Marriage exists to ensure the continuation of the human race. Government encourages behavior that ensures that Children will have a mother and father. Despite your best attempts to twist reality, kids who are raised without both a mother and father are far worse off.

Society has an interest in ensuring that stable male-female relationships are maintained for the betterment of our future generations.

Homosexuality is aberrant, perverted and an affront to all that is healthy.

To make this argument, one must believe that "marriage" is a finite quantity. That when two gays have some marriage, there is somehow less marriage for the hetero couples. I confess that this argument puzzles me. Perhaps you can expand on your thesis?

Absolutely not. When something has a certain essence in order to exist, then a counterfeit copy of that devalues the real thing. In order for a marriage to exist, there must be a male and a female, as I pointed out above.

Equal protection demands that laws treat alike all people who are “similarly situated with respect to the legitimate purposes of the law.” “ ‘[S]imilarly situated’ cannot mean simply ‘similar in the possession of the classifying trait.’ All members of any class are similarly situated in this respect, and consequently, any classification whatsoever would be reasonable by this test.” Likewise, “similarly situated” cannot be interpreted to require plaintiffs be identical in every way to people treated more favorably by the law. “No two people or groups of people are the same in every way, and nearly every equal protection claim could be run aground [under] a threshold analysis” that requires the two groups “be a mirror image of one another.” Rather, equal protection demands that the law itself must be equal. It requires that laws treat all those who are similarly situated with respect to the purposes of the law alike. Thus, the purposes of the law must be referenced for a meaningful evaluation.

Utter nonsense. Equal protection has never demanded radical egalitarianism. In fact, equal protection has never demanded that things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same.

The tyrants on the Iowa Supreme Court tried to flip the script. They ignored the fact that the State makes the same benefit, that being mixed-gender marriage, equally available to all individuals on the exact same basis. It does not matter that the sodomites do not wish to enter an opposite sex relationship. It is the availability of the right on equal terms, not the equal use of the right that is central to a constitutional analysis.

Moreover, with no other group has equal protection been twisted in this manner. Homosexuality IS NOT an inborn trait that can never be altered. It is a behavior. We don't invoke equal protection analysis to protect behavior choices.

Marriage is a natural institution, as It's union of a man and a woman is rooted in the order of nature itself. It is an institution that the state protects because it's members form the bedrock of society. The members of that institution must necessarily be of the opposite sex. No matter how seared one's conscience may be, reality dictates that Men and Women's bodies are different and that those differences compliment each other. Only a Man and a Woman can properly join together as one flesh.

The fact is, only the Union of a man and a woman can form biological offspring.

At age 83, my grandmother an 82-year-old man. Under your standard, her marriage should have been prevented.

Marriage exists to ensure the continuation of the human race.

Bull. Since when does pregnancy require marriage? If you want to get REALLY traditional about it, marriage was an early property management system. I prefer an approach that recognizes marriage as a partnership between two committed, loving adults. I hear that also contributes to social stability and the general well-being of the partners.

kids who are raised without both a mother and father are far worse off. Society has an interest in ensuring that stable male-female relationships are maintained for the betterment of our future generations.

I hope that the thousands of childless couples are properly grateful to you for overlooking their audacious failure to procreate. Do you keep track of those who aren't?

When something has a certain essence in order to exist, then a counterfeit copy of that devalues the real thing. In order for a marriage to exist, there must be a male and a female, as I pointed out above.

So a same sex marriage devalues an opposite sex marriage. When two men get married in Vermont, then the value of any given heterosexual marriage is suddenly diminished? How exactly does one measure this quantity? Does the hetero pair love each other less? Are they more likely to get divorced? Less likely to have kids?

By what objective measure do you make this claim?