The Marriage Cases: Legal Challenges to Prop 8 and DOMA
Articles,  Blog

The Marriage Cases: Legal Challenges to Prop 8 and DOMA


The 14th Amendment guarantees liberty and
the equal protection of the law to every American. When a state refuses to recognize a marriage
of two people of the same sex, is it violating those principles? Or when the federal government
decides not to recognize a marriage that is legal in a state, is that a federal overreach?
These are the questions that are before the Court in two cases in 2013. However the Court
decides the cases, they raise underlying and enduring questions about liberty that all
of us should care about. One case challenges a California State law
popularly known as Prop 8, which was passed by the voters of the state in a referendum
in 2008. Prop 8 amends the state constitution in California to ban same-sex marriages in
that state. The California case challenges Prop 8 on two different grounds under the
United States Constitution. First, it denies the principle of liberty in that past cases
have determined that every American has the fundamental right to marry. And second, the
challengers say that the equality principle is violated because same-sex couples are denied
the status that opposite-sex couples have. The second case is a challenge to the Federal
Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton
in 1996. DOMA limits federal recognition of marriages to opposite-sex couples. This means
that it denies to same-sex couples more than a thousand benefits that are otherwise available
under federal law. For example, the plaintiff in the case, Edith Windsor, was presented
by the IRS with a tax bill of more than $363,000 when her wife died. An opposite-sex surviving
spouse wouldn’t have had to pay anything at all for inheriting wealth from her deceased
spouse. Under DOMA, same-sex spouses can also be denied health insurance, immigration rights,
and social security rights, among many other benefits under federal law. So the first question in the DOMA case is
what is the justification for treating same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples differently
under the law? As in the Prop 8 case, this raises the question of equal treatment under
the law. But there is a second important question in the DOMA case, and that is one of federalism,
the proper allocation of authority between the federal government and state governments. Edith Windsor and her wife were legally married
under the laws of New York. Historically the states have had the power to define marriage.
In passing DOMA, Congress claimed a power that it had never before had under our Constitution.
The framers, on the other hand, thought that federalism – respecting state authority – was
an important structural guarantee for the protection of individual liberty. Decisions in both of the cases are expected
by the end of June 2013. There are many possible outcomes in these cases. For example, in the
DOMA case I think the Supreme Court should rule that there is no legitimate federal interest
in denying recognition to validly married same-sex couples. So I filed a brief in the
Court asking it to strike down DOMA on federalism grounds. But the justices may not agree, and
you may have your own opinions as well. So what do you think?

100 Comments

  • George McCain III

    Nobody wants a child's parents to be dead. But reality is reality and life comes with consequences both good and bad.

    Nobody has the right to not be discriminated against and anti-discrimination laws violate the rights of individuals and private business owners. Discrimination against persons is wrong. But an owner can refuse service to anyone.

    God given rights such as Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness (property) are the three rights all others stem from. Human sacrifice violates life.

  • George McCain III

    You're morality is based on your emotions and based on whatever makes you feel good. That is subjective.

    Biblical morality is independent of human emotion, opinion, is based entirely on reality and works with reality.

  • George McCain III

    B/c facts about same-sex marriage being completely void of value to society is harmful no one. If two men or women can find a church that will marry them, fine. That church has really bad theology though. I don't want the government becoming more involved with out lives.

    What falsehoods are you talking about?

    A same-sex couple has no value in society. Name a civilization built on same-sex relationships?

  • George McCain III

    That's the teenager's fault for not listening. You can educated and tell kids the truth about sex but it does no good if they don't follow through on what they learn.

    Universal healthcare that comes at the forced expense of others (making people slaves). It's not free healthcare by any means. Health is an individual issue anyway. If you want good health, then you'll eat right and exercise. If you don't want good healthy, then you'll eat wrong and not exercise. Simple as that.

  • George McCain III

    Marriage is bringing together the two halves of humanity into a relationship to raise families. That's what it is. You're idea of marriage keeps the two halves apart.

  • George McCain III

    In this country a cultural minority has the same rights as a cultural majority. They're outlined pretty well in the Bill of Rights.

    Murder is a minority behavior. So is theft and rape. The rights of murderers, thieves, and rapists are not being acknowledged either.

  • George McCain III

    Children in father-absent homes are almost four times more likely to be poor. In 2011, 12 percent of children in married-couple families were living in poverty, compared to 44 percent of children in mother-only families.

    In 2008, American poverty rates were 13.2% for the whole population and 19% for children, compared to 28.7% for female-headed households.

    High-quality interaction by any type of father predicts better infant health

  • George McCain III

    You're just stating that adults have a right to children and children have no rights to proper parenting. That's what same-sex marriage does.

  • George McCain III

    Same-sex couples that adopt children knowing they won't receive the federal benefits they think they deserve are just using the children as sword and shield to get what they want. That's harmful

  • The214thRabidFangirl

    I do not support same sex marriage for various reasons that I do not have the space to go into here, (and I doubt anyone who disagrees with me would listen anyway) but I agree that DOMA should not be supported under federalism and should be struck down. I find it interesting that he did not mention what he thinks about the Prop 8 case.

  • The214thRabidFangirl

    There have also been studies showing that studies on same sex parenting have been preformed with a bias in favor of the same sex couple. Studies almost never convince anyone to change their mind because people will interpret them differently or just plain ignore studies they don't agree with.

  • The214thRabidFangirl

    Your right DOMA is unacceptable, but that is because it violates the principal of federalism not because it violates individual’s rights.

  • The214thRabidFangirl

    .Um, the prefix hetero means “other” or “opposite”, so heterosexual and opposite sex means exactly the same thing. I agree with most of what you are saying, but I think you could phrase it better. Also no one is going to change their mind because of a YouTube comment.

  • Skinnymarks

    its a reductio ad absurdum argument. but I don't expect you to understand what that means.
    I'm not sure what America you live in but I've never herd of a busyness being allowed to refuse service because they don't like a particular culture/skin color/sexuality. Businesses are in the public form, they have a contract with the people to do busyness with them. and refusing to serve a person can get them sued if its not for a good reason. even if its not a discrimination issue.

  • Skinnymarks

    You're an idiot if you think thats how morality is determined. Shows that you are incapable of forming your own moral understandings.

    Biblical morality has been used to justify murder for a long time. There are a lot of things the bible says you can do that will get you sent to jail now days.

  • Skinnymarks

    In what world is it okay to discriminate a whole group of people because you consider them to have no value to society?
    That is how genocides have been justified over and over and over again.

  • Skinnymarks

    If they where taught how to use condoms properly they wouldn't have a problem. a lot of Abstinence only education actually teaches that condoms are bad for you so they end up not using condoms when they decide to have sex.

    Why are you agents people being saves? Isn't that something thats allowed in your bible?

    I don't think you even understand what being healthy means. There are a lot of sicknesses that are of no fault of the person who is ill.

  • Skinnymarks

    I don't think you understand what a human is… murders rapist and thieves rights are protected. But they violated another person's rights so they have to be contained. Guess what, prisoners get free healthcare because it violates their rights otherwise.

  • Skinnymarks

    Alright, I'm done here. You clearly don't understand what rights are. And "proper parenting" is very subjective. Depending on how you define it, half the population shouldn't have kids.
    We rate "proper parenting" on how little crime is going on inside the household. Where your defining "proper parenting" by the equal amount of genitalia in the adults of the household.
    We simply have no where for the millions of children that are in unfit households.

  • Skinnymarks

    Yet you would prefer them to rot in an orphanage. I'm starting to see a pattern here. It seems like death is a better option than gay. Oh wow, thats what your bible says.
    I highly doubt you have any sense of morality, all I've seen you is claim you have the authority of a moral source. Which by the way, was where hitler got the idea for the holocaust.

  • HaleyZoolius

    You're lying. In his memoirs, Hitler's chief architect Albert Speer wrote that Hitler viewed Christianity as the wrong religion for the "Germanic temperament" Hitler said,"You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion.Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good?The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity.Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

  • HaleyZoolius

    In his memoirs, Hitler's chief architect, Albert Speer, wrote "Amid his political associates in Berlin, Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church…", yet "he conceived of the church as an instrument that could be useful to him":

  • Thomas m

    I find this argument from LearnLiberty very weak. First of all who's to say that letting the states decide on marriage rights instead of the federal government will help the same sex case ? surely if the state of California wont allow it no other states would have any better chance of passing same sex marrage.

  • Thomas m

    My second point is the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The state shall therefor have no say on who a church allows marriage to, if they don't want to marry you, you can't force them as marriage is and was originally an act that was granted only by the church. If same sex couples want to get married im afraid trying to force the church into submission isn't any more ethical or legal.

  • Graidon Mabson

    Well, one thing you should understand is that gays are already getting married, all over the world. They go and have the ceremony performed, they say, "I do," they kiss, and the pastor pronounces them married. I don't really understand why that isn't marriage.

    But that doesn't matter much to me, because republicans opposed Civil Unions as well, when they were suggested as a compromise. They called it "counterfeit marriage," and blocked it.

  • Graidon Mabson

    Well, no one is forcing churches to do anything. There's plenty of ministers out there willing to perform a wedding ceremony for an LGBT couple, and gays around the country are already getting married. The question is whether those marriages are recognized by the state, which grants a number of rights and benefits.

  • Thomas m

    oh i see now, sorry i am putting things in terms of UK politics, that's where i'm from you see and there is that big debate going on here too. in your case you are completely right hands down. In saying that i don't agree that even the state should even be looking recognition for marriage of any kind in the first place and really should not be having a say in wither or not who can get married and who is entitled to benefits because i don't believe in benefits at all.

  • Nicholbags25

    This is a very misleading video. "Upholding the truth about marriage does not deprive anyone of the joys of companionship. The human good that marriage law should foster is rather a union of persons at every level (mind, heart, & body) & for the whole of life, inherently oriented to family life. Properly understood, such comprehensive union requires a man and a woman."

  • Graidon Mabson

    Well, here's the thing: if the state recognizes your marriage, the state views your spouse as a member of your family. And there's a number things, like visiting your spouse in the hospital should they fall critically ill, that you can only do if you are family. Hetero couples can file their taxes together, inherit each other's assets in the event one dies, and others.

    But same sex couples are treated like they are just dating, and aren't family, so they can't do any of those things.

  • Skinnymarks

    Um, That dosen't prove anything I said wrong. Clearly Hitler was saying he wish christians where able to be swayed to be MORE murderous.
    Those are cultural ideals not claims of religious falsehood/truthfulness.
    Please don't be delusional enough that one scrap of evidence disproves an idea you do not like that has mountains of proof without acknowledging the evidence agents the bible. As you idiots tend to do with evolution.

  • Skinnymarks

    Because he was establishing his own christian sect.
    I'm guessing you where never taught how to understand things by looking at the whole picture.

  • Aleksandr Khavarovskiy

    I feel that this is the same prejudice that the African American population suffered. People picket and deny people their civil liberties established by the founding fathers with their opinions. I suppose like all progress it takes time, and in the end the prejudice in individuals will be frown'd upon.

  • DrKirstie

    i think it's amazing how we learn about all of this in college and university now. I even see it in some elementary schools! all my profs and teachers are for marriage equality and i'm so happy about that!

  • YeahStu

    The United States is, always has been, and always should be epitomized by certain things (such as freedom of religion), certain principles, and certain characteristics that define the American people and America as a country. Marriage being defined as solely that of a man and woman is one such traditional American principle. Whether a minority find it unfair or biased does not mean that they can change this principle because to do so would be to be unamerican until a majority decides otherwise.

  • michael

    The question is whether being gay is a matter of nature or choice. Because only then does equality become an issue, when one defeats the argument: "It's not a matter of equality because gay people are free to marry to opposite sex, just like anyone else".
    Then surely one needs a definition of marriage. One not given by the law since it's the law we are trying to decide on. But should the majority decide on the criteria? If not, how about marrying more than one person? Or marrying a child?

  • michael

    And of course it's about numbers. It there were only one gay person in the world that wouldn't bring about any change. It takes quite a few to even be called a minority. So if it is about the numbers it inevitably becomes also about the way the numbers are perceived. So it does become a question of who has the means to shape this perception. Well, the means are the media n surely it's not any majority or minority of the common people who controls them. So where is the equality in that?

  • ryanblaes

    The issue has nothing to do with whether or not any person agrees with same-sex marriage. It's about denying someone the same rights as someone else solely based on their decision to marry someone of the same gender.

  • Lieutenant S

    The purpose of the Constitution was to separate religion from the state. What does it matter to you who someone else loves? How does that effect YOUR life? Yes to Equality!

  • rawheas

    Perhaps so, but I think if the court could find enough scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is fundamental to ones nature and cannot be changed then it would give credibility to the argument that ones right to marry cannot discriminate on who they are marrying.

  • Zork Hun

    The arguments made are fundamentally flawed and fundamentally non-libertarian. Read my argument to show why on my blog:
    zorkthehun[dot]wordpress[dot]com/2013/06/11/how-many-wrongs-make-a-right/

  • YeahStu

    The way numbers are perceived? That makes no sense, facts are facts, percentages are percentages, you don't perceive numbers.

  • michael

    Everything is a matter of perception. For some one beer is a lot for some one beer is nothing. Especially statistics is a great way of lying, which I'm not going to go into in detail. But politicians use numbers all the time and they always lie. Something to think about, eh? I like the music you post. Love Portlandia.

  • Joseph Ivy

    He doesn't claim that the rights of couples are merely a conglomeration of the rights of individuals. He claims that the complimentary (opposite) sex couples have a right that same sex couples do not have. As individuals, everyone has the same right to marry under the law.

  • bchambersisawesome

    Couples, gay or straight, do not have collective rights. A marriage, as viewed by governmental authority, is a contract made between two individuals, and these two individuals have natural rights to create a contract regardless of gender. The government cannot grant rights to anyone, rights are inherent and "inalienable". Therefore, anyone who wants to marry can create a consensual contract, and the only business the government has in the contract is to ensure that the parties adhere to it.

  • PrevailVideos

    It is incorrect to say that gays are currently denied equal rights. Everyone right now can marry someone of the opposite sex. Straight and gay have equal rights. The fact that a gay person doesn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean they are without equal rights, but that those rights are not what they want. Heterosexual marriage is in harmony with the design found in nature. If we are not going to have nature as our guide, what prevents polygomist or incestual marriages?

  • Alex R

    1. You are denying people the right you have based upon their sexual orientation. If you can't understand what sexual orientation is, you should explore the world.
    2. Heterosexual marriage is in harmony with nature? Humans are meant to populate the world. Marriage is binding a couple to have a limited amount of children. It's not in "nature" but it is our human design of higher function.
    3. Marriage of two consenting adults is a marriage between two consenting adults. Understand that.

  • Alex R

    It's about time that the new generation will take over these dated non-sense. It is time to be fair and free. I don't care who you think you are. You will not oppress me.

  • PrevailVideos

    There is no right that I have that any homosexual in the US does not have. We have absolutely the exact same rights. What can I do that a homosexual can't do? I can marry someone of the opposite sex and so can they. There's no one that I can marry that a homosexual cannot marry. We have equal rights and I believe we should have equal rights. People can advocate for gay marriage without lying and making false accusations that conservatives don't believe in equal rights.

  • katvilani

    That's the same argument used by those who supported anti-miscegenation laws, who argued that laws banning interracial marriage weren't discriminatory because no race was forbidden from marrying within their own race, just outside their own race. Therefore those who chose to marry outside their race had the same rights as those who choose to marry within their race, but were unhappy because their rights weren't what they wanted.

  • PrevailVideos

    That's a different argument because the white guy cannot marry the black girl and the black guy cannot marry the white girl. It makes it so that white guys can marry girls that black guys cannot marry and vice versa. In this case, there is NO ONE that I can marry that any homosexual cannot marry. There are no rights that I have that any homosexual person does not have. It's a totally different argument.

  • Andrew Doris

    State laws against gay marriage are bullshit, but I don't think they're unconstitutional. As discriminatory and unfair as they are, they do apply to everyone evenly. A gay man and a straight man can marry the exact same people, with exactly the same legal protections. No privileges are granted to one but not the other. Withholding state recognition for a private living arrangement does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property. Nobody has a right to state recognition or benefits.

  • Andrew Doris

    I sympathize with the victims of codified discrimination, and support the end-goal of marriage equality. One day, we will get there – but it does matter how. The courts are not just a silver bullet to enforce what we can't yet accomplish legislatively. State-by-state legal battles are painstaking work, but they are necessary.

  • Andrew Doris

    That said, I find the federalism arguments against DOMA to be more convincing. I'm not sure whether DOMA is really the seizure of a new power, or merely clarifying the o exercise other powers. Still, I'd probably be happy if DOMA was struck down, because it's really not the federal government's business to get involved in that – sort of like withholding benefits to states with a drinking age under 21 was technically legal, but not respectful to the principle of federalism.

  • Zarrov

    As far as I know in order to love you do not have to marry, so…whole argument is nonsensical. If constitution says that everyone has equal rights and then you interpret that as carte blanche to change meaning of isntiution of law so it looses its purpose then yeah, congratulations. In order to be marry you have to bve of opposite sex. That is the whole purpose of that institution. To change that is to complately nullify its meaning. You have right to marry if you fell into right category.

  • Zarrov

    A good case. It seems that indeed the role of federal government would be here unjustly broadened. Each state should decide this issue individually.

  • HermannTheGreat

    Where does it stop? What if as an unmarried individual someone wants the same right as the couples? What if dating teen couples want the same rights as married couples? Where does it all end? Same sex couples can't procreate nor offer the same nurturing of a child due to completely removing one vital half of the human species not to mention being unable to sustain any form of continuing society. This is just the beginning and our Country is on its way to being the next History channel series.

  • bchambersisawesome

    "Anyone? Man you are creeping me out."
    I said "consensual" so if you are worrying about pedophilia and bestiality then those options are already off the table. By "anyone," I'm referring to anyone who could consent, which would limit marriage to adults who chose to participate in the marriage out of their own free will. And just for clarification, when I say marriage here, I'm not referring to what I believe is God's definition of marriage, I'm referring to the government's view of it.

  • bchambersisawesome

    "Marriage is an…"
    Really? Since the only agreed upon "contract" in civil marriage is the license, I'll assume that's what you meant by "implicit contract". Even then most of the benefits and obligations of the contract only deal with the two partners (hospital visitation, commitment, etc.). The only way that society is involved is because the marriage is subsidized through tax deductions, and since I highly doubt that everyone agreed to subsidize marriage, I view it as theft through taxation.

  • David Stewart

    Equal protection never comes into the matter as far as these cases. The DOMA case is simply a Full Faith and Credit matter, and the Prop 8 is a Freedom of Contract matter.

  • mrArchduke

    Gay couples have EVERY right to get married. You have no excuse to say otherwise other than you finding it "ewwie". Grow up. There is overwhelming evidence that gay marriage is not harmful.

  • Anthm2011

    And who are you to say what relationship is and is not on the table? Homosexuals want to push and redefine the boundaries only to suit themselves. Hypocritical narcissists!

  • bchambersisawesome

    I don't determine what relationship is okay or not (in terms of law), the ability of an individual to consent to a contract is what determines whether it's okay or not. If they can legally consent, then they can legally marry. Or another way to put it, if they can have sex legally, then they should be able to get married legally. And stop calling people hypocritical narcissists. I'm sure there are quite a few homosexuals who support polygamy too, it just isn't readily apparent.

  • bchambersisawesome

    Just a forenote- I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage at all. It redistributes money from unmarried to married people through taxes. The government has no authority to do so. However, if the government is a part of marriage, then

    Polygamy- yes, should be legal.

    Incest- for the most part yes. I don't think they should be allowed to have children, because then they are knowingly destroying the life of a child through deformity. But if no one was coerced, then yes.

  • Anthm2011

    How noble of you thinking of yet to be born children. But how dare you lay down any moral limits.Bigot! Hypocrite! Hater! If a mother and a son want to have a baby together they can just abort the ones with foetal abnormalities. Seeing we're being so pragmatic and all….

  • Jason Manning

    now i don't want this to seem like" oh see, that guy thinks its ok!" i am man, i am straight, i am christian, and i believe that people are people they have every right to everything as long as it is morally right and they have earned it. you don't get money for free (most of the time). you should love your partner,and they should love you. if you want to be married then do so.

  • Jason Manning

    i do not mind gays and i have a few gay friends, but this is not an argument it is common sense. gays have a natural right to be together and have the choices that others do. their sexual life has nothing to do with anything else they are still your family, friends, co-workers, bosses, government officials, and representatives. i don't care if they get married it is their choice to do so as humans and living beings.

  • Just Me

    The deeper question is not who gets the rights to marry. Certainly, every person should have the natural right to marry who they like so long as that other person is of consenting age and also wants to marry. The real debate is what authority does the government have over people? Do you own yourself and the money/resources you earn from your labor? Should you not have the right to either give your money away, donate it it or have it burned at your death? Who owns you?

  • Anthm2011

    The word marriage across time and culture describes a particular type of relationship, a committed relationship between a man and a woman which provides the bed rock for a stable society in the form of the family unit. Marriage is a contract but conditions must be met for it to be legal. Your “regardless of gender” addition carries no weight where a man marrying another man is illegal. No individual has an inherent and inalienable right to break the law.

  • Anthm2011

    So what is your premise? Your principle?
    It does come down to the fact that although you appeal to matters of principle it’s clear you desire the utter redefinition of marriage. You endorse any form of sexual perversion and set arbitrary guidelines to give an air of respectability. You're quite ok with the sexualisation of any human relationship barring those including animals and children. The impact this would have on the family unit would be catastrophic as the social structure disintegrates.

  • Anthm2011

    Your blasé attitude toward the morphing of marriage positions you on the fringe of society. You are not a person of principle so stop with all the misguided references to Biblical morality. The Biblical design for sexuality and marriage is clearly stated in Gen 1:26-27, and again by Jesus in Mark 10:7-8. It’s clear – one man, one woman. I know where I get my principles from, where do you get yours? Sitcoms like Modern Family?

  • Anthm2011

    I don’t know where Prof Carpenter gets his social science data from but he’s totally ignoring the mountain of scientific evidence that confirms that children fair best on all levels when raised by both their biological parents. The solution is to strengthen marriage not destroy it. So with all your inclusive improvements what would you have left? Beneficial equality? More so a demented orgy.

  • nuagor

    In the first part of this video, the deck is so stacked that it's sickening. Of course, for almost any complex question, ignoring (or misrepresenting) all the negatives and emphasizing the positives, it sounds like an obvious choice.

    But notice how he is silent on the things that advocates of preserving marriage care about: child rights, indoctrination, protection from persecution for believing in and defending traditional marriage, etc. It's not about their lust to deny benefits to folks.

  • arm6768

    Claiming that a gay person has an equal right to marry, so long as they marry someone of the opposite sex, is not legitimate. It is equivalent to saying that banning Christianity would allow Christians an equal right to worship, because they can go to mosques or synagogues. If a man is free to marry a woman but a woman is not, then there is unequal protection of the laws on the basis of sex and everyone does NOT have the same legally recognised rights.

  • Joseph Ivy

    You are using an negative example of the government regulating a personal choice that they don't currently regulate ( religious choice ) to support the government beginning to regulate an interpersonal choice that it does not currently regulate ( same-sex relationships ). Your example is not legitimate and neither is your understanding 14th amendment. Equal protection simply means applying the law without regard to who it is being applied to. Rich or poor. Gay or straight. The law is the same.

  • arm6768

    Ideally government would get out of the marriage business entirely, allowing individuals to contract with each other freely and allowing religious groups to officiate or acknowledge whatever unions they choose to. But the fact is, under current law in areas where same-sex marriage is not recognised, a man can marry a woman while a woman cannot do the same. Likewise, a woman can marry a man while a man cannot do the same. That is inconsistent with equal protection of the laws.

  • TheJudoJoker

    Nobody (gay, straight, bi, transsexual, asexual, single, etc.) should have ANY state guaranteed privileges over anybody.

    Of course, the Income Tax shouldn't exist, Property Taxes shouldn't exist, the IRS and Fed shouldn't exist, but they do.

    The tax book SHOULD be 1 page long and there SHOULD only be about 25 laws to prevent people from murdering, raping, robbing, defrauding, harassing, and slandering others.

    If only.

  • Aaron Chaffin

    Yes biological parents… in some cases, work out better. But at the end of the day you can't overlook that some people put their kids up for adoption. Allowing same sex marriages will allow those kids the same benefits of opposite sex marriages. You can't argue a point about same sex marriage base on biological parents are better, you ignore all the kids with no parents. Kind of ignorant of you.

  • Rick Baker

    I think it has to start with whether a "right" is being violated or denied. That is a partial basis for certain laws that withhold or change a persons benefits in certain situations. Fundamental to this is the definition of marriage. If it is defined as a man and a woman, then no rights are being denied at all. Any man can marry any woman. Desire to do so is irrelevant, people are treated equally under that law. Also, a straight cannot marry a gay man. Same treatment. It is only a violation of rights if the definition is changed

  • Rick Baker

    And Aaron c, your point is interesting, but by having children raised in an environment with gay parents actually denies them a right they ought to have, namely the right of a father or a mother. This right is not guaranteed, I understand. But by having two dads, you are forcing a child to grow up without a mom, and vice versa

  • Lisa MB

    What about the marriage on other terms such as animals, children, or inanimate objects? I m just asking would we define marriage at some point? 

  • Michael Jones

    The 14th amendment does not even come into play on this issue and the attempt to use it is a legal fallacy. Hope fully such a fallacy will not long endue or be suffered by the masses. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *