Calif. Marriage Ruling Shows Need for Federal Amendment

[De Selby]

I'd love to see the abortion that is the "interstate commerce clause" totally excised.

That would be great until you end up trying to cross state lines, only to realize that they all tax everything up the wazoo to protect their local businesses.

[Nitrogen]

I'd love to see the abortion that is the "interstate commerce clause" totally excised.

That would be great until you end up trying to cross state lines, only to realize that they all tax everything up the wazoo to protect their local businesses.

I dont understand what you mean by this.

Do you mean the equivilant of tariffs between, say, Louisiana and Texas?
yes, that would indeed suck, but if it's something the government wants to discourage, it's better done via a directed law or ruling.   The Hydrogen bomb that is the "interstate commerce clause" is way too broad.

[Balog]

I'd love to see the abortion that is the "interstate commerce clause" totally excised.

That would be great until you end up trying to cross state lines, only to realize that they all tax everything up the wazoo to protect their local businesses.

A state that tried to impose harsh tarriffs on incoming goods would be quickly cut off. Since something like 97 percent off all food comes from outside sources, the .gov that tried that would be gone gone gone real quick. The same for "exporting" restrictions. Hell, that'd be a great way to see the incumbents get thrown out on their asses.

I seriously doubt you could find any business that is not largely dependant on goods and services provided from out of state. Any state level attempt to interfere with this would cause near total shutdown of pretty much all industry.

[MechAg94]

I think I would rather see the govt stop recognizing marriage as an institution before they pass an amendment.  A pastor I heard on the subject just pointed out the heterosexuals have been disrespecting the institution of marriage for years, why do we expect homosexuals to respect it?  His view was if the morality of the nation had declined to the point that this was acceptable, no amendment was going to fix that.  He was simply concerned about some sort of "rights" decision or legislation that might try to force him to marry homosexuals against his wishes. 


However, at least define the issue correctly.  Gay have the same rights as straight people, govt recognition of a marriage to someone of the opposite sex.  The push is to add recognition of same sex marriages.  I know everyone likes to blur that distinction to make their point. 

[BridgeRunner]

Gay have the same rights as straight people, govt recognition of a marriage to someone of the opposite sex. 

Yeah, but that's kind of like outlawing Judaism and then telling Jews that they have the same rights as everyone else to practice Christianity.  Kind of pointless.

[pinoyinus]

Hugh, you forgot 'the official religion shall be Christianity'. 

The 1st amendment already guarantees freedom of religion.  The above suggestion goes against that amendment.  Defining marriage between one man and one woman is not a religion so I wonder under what context is the suggestion being made. 

[RevDisk]

Hugh, you forgot 'the official religion shall be Christianity'. 

The 1st amendment already guarantees freedom of religion.  The above suggestion goes against that amendment.  Defining marriage between one man and one woman is not a religion so I wonder under what context is the suggestion being made. 

Yes, but one of the prime reasons for defining marriage as one man and one woman is religion.  All of the other non-religious arguments fall short.   

"Gays cannot breed".  So infertile couples should not be considered married? 
"Gays will destroy the institution of marriage."   Last stat I heard was that 55% of all marriages end in divorces.  The failure rate of straight marrages are higher than the success rate.  I'm racking my brain here to figure out how they could make the divorce rate significantly higher.
"Gay marriage will destroy modern civilization"   Not sure how, but taxes and overregulation seem to be doing the job anyways...
"Gay marriage is contrary to custom."  Fair enough.  So what?  Women voting is historically contrary to custom.  But it really hasn't destroyed our country.   Historical custom should not be a valid reason to restrict individual civil liberties.  Hey, ladies, what would be your responce if your right to vote (and own property, right to buy a gun, enter into contracts, right to initiate divorce, etc) were suspended because it was contrary to historical customs?

I personally believe it would be wiser to get the government out of the marriage business.  Let couples form civil partnership.  Let each religion dictate its own customs.  I have to side with BridgeWalker. 

[Firethorn]

I personally believe it would be wiser to get the government out of the marriage business.  Let couples form civil partnership.  Let each religion dictate its own customs.  I have to side with BridgeWalker. 

Another vote for BridgeWalker and Revdisk.

One thing I'd work on is making sure priests* and religious institutions such as churches aren't counted as 'businesses' in the traditional sense, and are therefore exempt from some of the more extreme equal opportunity/anti discrimination requirements.  A Catholic Priest shouldn't be forced to perform gay marriages.  On the other hand, if the church of the immaculate king** wants to perform them, they can.

Honestly enough, I'd have prefered the gay community to wait until it got the laws passed through congress.  Then we wouldn't be seeing this constitutional ammendment crud.

*Yes, all the other names for them as well.
** Elvis Presley

[roo_ster]

Hugh, you forgot 'the official religion shall be Christianity'. 

The 1st amendment already guarantees freedom of religion.  The above suggestion goes against that amendment.  Defining marriage between one man and one woman is not a religion so I wonder under what context is the suggestion being made. 

Yes, but one of the prime reasons for defining marriage as one man and one woman is religion.  All of the other non-religious arguments fall short.   

"Gays cannot breed".  So infertile couples should not be considered married? 
"Gays will destroy the institution of marriage."   Last stat I heard was that 55% of all marriages end in divorces.  The failure rate of straight marrages are higher than the success rate.  I'm racking my brain here to figure out how they could make the divorce rate significantly higher.
"Gay marriage will destroy modern civilization"   Not sure how, but taxes and overregulation seem to be doing the job anyways...
"Gay marriage is contrary to custom."  Fair enough.  So what?  Women voting is historically contrary to custom.  But it really hasn't destroyed our country.   Historical custom should not be a valid reason to restrict individual civil liberties.  Hey, ladies, what would be your responce if your right to vote (and own property, right to buy a gun, enter into contracts, right to initiate divorce, etc) were suspended because it was contrary to historical customs?

I personally believe it would be wiser to get the government out of the marriage business.  Let couples form civil partnership.  Let each religion dictate its own customs.  I have to side with BridgeWalker. 

Hokay, there are a lot of straw men in this post as well as incorrect information.

50%+ Divorce Rate
This bit of crap stats lives on, just like the "fact" that more women get beaten up during the Super Bowl.

The data collected shows it was never as high as 55%.  It was never close to 50%, or "one in two."

The NYT addressed this in 2005:

Divorce Rate: It's Not as High as You Think
By DAN HURLEY
The New York Times
April 19, 2005

How many American marriages end in divorce? One in two, if you believe the
statistic endlessly repeated in news media reports, academic papers and
campaign speeches.

The figure is based on a simple - and flawed - calculation: the annual
marriage rate per 1,000 people compared with the annual divorce rate. In
2003, for example, the most recent year for which data is available, there
were 7.5 marriages per 1,000 people and 3.8 divorces, according to the
National Center for Health Statistics.

But researchers say that this is misleading because the people who are
divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying, and
that the statistic is virtually useless in understanding divorce rates. In
fact, they say, studies find that the divorce rate in the United States has
never reached one in every two marriages, and new research suggests that,
with rates now declining, it probably never will.

The method preferred by social scientists in determining the divorce rate is
to calculate how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced.
Counted that way, the rate has never exceeded about 41 percent, researchers
say. Although sharply rising rates in the 1970's led some to project that
the number would keep increasing, the rate has instead begun to inch
downward.

"At this point, unless there's some kind of turnaround, I wouldn't expect
any cohort to reach 50 percent, since none already has," said Dr. Rose M.
Kreider, a demographer in the Fertility and Family Statistics Branch of the
Census Bureau.

 

Thing is, demographers pretty much discount the percentile stat and prefer to use the rate per 1000 population.

Divorce in America peaked in 1981 and has fallen since then.

Rates by year since 1950:
http://www.divorcereform.org/03statab.html

Code:

Year
   

Divorces per 1,000 population

1950 ...........
   

2.6

1955 ...........
   

2.3

1957 ...........
   

2.2

1960 ...........
   

2.2

1965 ...........
   

2.5

1970 ...........
   

3.5

1971 ...........
   

3.7

1972 ...........
   

4.0

1973 ...........
   

4.3

1974 ...........
   

4.6

1975 ...........
   

4.8

1976 ...........
   

5.0

1977 ...........
   

5.0

1978 ...........
   

5.1

1979 ...........
   

5.3

1980 ...........
   

5.2

1981 ...........
   

5.3

1982 ...........
   

5.1

1983 ...........
   

5.0

1984 ...........
   

5.0

1985 ...........
   

5.0

1986 ...........
   

4.9

1987 ...........
   

4.8

1988 ...........
   

4.8

1989 ...........
   

4.7

1990 ...........
   

4.7

1991 ...........
   

4.7

1992 ...........
   

4.8

1993 ...........
   

4.6

1994 ...........
   

4.6

1995 ...........
   

4.4

1996 ...........
   

4.3

1997 ...........
   

4.3

1998 ..........
   

4.2

1999 ..........
   

4.1

2000 ..........
   

4.2

2001 ..........
   

4.0

Here is a 2008 article addressing marriage rates:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P1MG601&show_article=1


I'm running outta time, but I might get back to the rest of them and add some others useful and accurate data.

[RevDisk]

Hokay, there are a lot of straw men in this post as well as incorrect information.

50%+ Divorce Rate
This bit of crap stats lives on, just like the "fact" that more women get beaten up during the Super Bowl.

The data collected shows it was never as high as 55%.  It was never close to 50%, or "one in two." 

Thing is, demographers pretty much discount the percentile stat and prefer to use the rate per 1000 population.

Divorce in America peaked in 1981 and has fallen since then.

I'm running outta time, but I might get back to the rest of them and add some others useful and accurate data.

Ok, I can buy the inflated number.  That's why I said "I heard", not "I know this to be exact".  Thing is, those rates look to be per year, not cumulative.  I'd like to see total number of marriages from Year XYZ to current (or current - X years) compared to total number of divorces from Year XYZ to current (or current 0 X years).  I'll admit, I'm not a demographer, but I think a straight forward percentile stat would be interesting. 

But I gotta ask, can you outline a couple non religious based arguments that support banning gay marriage, let alone a Constitutional amendment to limit civil liberties?

[BridgeRunner]

But I gotta ask, can you outline a couple non religious based arguments that support banning gay marriage, let alone a Constitutional amendment to limit civil liberties?

Yes.  Marriage is traditionally a function of civil law and government traditionally may regulate it as it wishes.  "Tradition" doesn't work when explaining the rationale behind limiting marriage, but it does work when explaining the scope of Federal and state authority.  A major aspect of constitutional interpretation, both state and federal, is legislative intent and that is generally determined by examining the state of common law at the time of the passage of the constitution in question. 

There are excellent arguments to be made that because of the grave danger posed to state autonomy by laws expanding the scope of marriage in combination with the full faith and credit clause.  California, by the way, is positively notorious for finding clever ways to expand its jurisdiction to other states.  They've even claimed personal jurisdiction over children based on the possibility that said child may have potentially been conceived in California.  There have been other jurisdictional abuses, but that is the most egregious. 

Thus, it is not too great a stretch to say that to protect states' autonomy and based on the 1789 understanding of marriage and the (pick your favorite) tax implications/commercial implications/full faith and credit implications, a federal regulation of marriage is legal.  Further, a constitutional amendment is necessary because of the very complex and far-reaching nature of the issue, especially since the above rationale indicates that it is actually not counter to the spirit or intent of the constitution.

Still, that don't make it right. 

Legally, it's a close call, and there are good arguments either way.  Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores.  Deliberately marginalizing large groups of people is never a good idea.

[MechAg94]

Gay have the same rights as straight people, govt recognition of a marriage to someone of the opposite sex. 

Yeah, but that's kind of like outlawing Judaism and then telling Jews that they have the same rights as everyone else to practice Christianity.  Kind of pointless.

Look, all I am doing is pointing out the difference.  We are not talking about one group wanting the same rights as another group, we are talking about changing the current legal definition of marriage to allow one group to do something they have not previously been able to do. 

As far as religion itself goes, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from going to a church and getting married.  It is the govt and legal recognition part that is at issue. 

As far as the OP, I am not really in favor or an amendment.  I think I would rather see the govt get out of the issue all together.  My main concerns are related to side issues such as "equal rights" discrimination issues and things such as adoption and such. 

[BridgeRunner]

As far as religion itself goes, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from going to a church and getting married.  It is the govt and legal recognition part that is at issue. 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for a member of the clergy to perform a marriage without the couple obtaining a marriage license.

[Balog]

As far as religion itself goes, there is nothing stopping homosexuals from going to a church and getting married.  It is the govt and legal recognition part that is at issue. 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that it is illegal for a member of the clergy to perform a marriage without the couple obtaining a marriage license.

Nope. It's not legally binding, but anyone can get "married" to anything they want.

[Hugh Damright]

Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores.

I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ... that sounds like my kind of culture and society. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.

[BridgeRunner]

I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ...

You're mixing 'em up a bit.  The first two are out of a pretty basic list.  Incidentally, it also forbids sabbath-breaking and disobeying parents.  Personally, I like that I was able to use my own judgement to decide to disobey my parents and become a Christian.  I'm sure glad I get to choose for myself how to keep the sabbath, instead of being required to follow the government's idea of what it should be.  They could simply close down the interstates should they decide that driving on Sunday (or Saturday) is sabbath breaking.  Well within Federal jurisdiction if you accept the premise that "culture" as derived from the words you know as the Bible is an acceptable basis for regulation and legislation.

The third is one of the long, long, long list prohibitions against sexual impurity and other types of illicit blendings.  It's not just guy-on-guy, it's also wool-on-linen.  Maybe the FedGov should update it to poly-on-cotton? 

Should you be prohibited from entering any government building until you can prove that you've been properly purified after experiencing a nocturnal emission? 

that sounds like my kind of culture and society.

Nifty.  Mine too.  And I keep it in my home and where I go.  I don't shove it down the throats of other people.  Mostly, because I'm grateful that once I became an adult, others couldn't shove theirs down mine, and I could be baptized and confirmed.

And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.

Where someone can be raised a Jew and become a Christian?
Where someone can write openly arguing for or against virtually anything?
Where people can choose how to live, and what to exclude from or include in their lives?

Don't like women serving? Strongly discourage your daughters from enlisting, and until they are eighteen, withhold your permission.  Don't want men marrying men?  Don't marry a man.  Simple. 

But if you don't want an Establishment Clause, you're gonna have to find some other place to live, because most of us like to be able to choose our faith, or lack thereof. 

I'm not, actually, pro-gay.  Abomination.  I'm right there with ya.  I wasn't, if you notice, arguing for the irrelevancy of the Bible.  I'm arguing that it's a terrible idea to use it as a basis of civil law. 

Hm, actually, I've done some pretty well-thought our writing about the nature of legal interpretation and why Biblical precepts don't make good law in another context, although that essay is about Catholic and Halacha (Jewish law) a lot of it translates pretty well.  If anyone is interested, pm me for a URL.

[Dntsycnt]

Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores.

I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ... that sounds like my kind of culture and society. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.

Those values predate Christianity and Judaism.  In fact, it'd be pretty hard to find anyone who really DOES base his/her morals off of the Bible.  And if you did, you'd want them hanged.

Pity you hate the world we live in.  I love it.

[pinoyinus]

Instead of a federal amendment, I would rather that the state goverments determine for themselves how they define marriage.  My preference however, is that for all states to define marriage as between one man and one woman.

One of the questions raised here is whether govt. should be involved in marriage.  Govt. sanctions certain activity and discourages others.  Both are usually reflected in the penal code and in the tax codes.  For example, govt. encourages renewable energy and gives tax breaks for buyers of hybrid vehicles.  Govt. subsidizes public transportation (encouragement) and taxes gas consumption (discouragement).  Obsiously, marriage has earned govt's blessings and has bestowed upon it benefits.  Why?  Because all societies, as a means of survival, must produce a next generation.  Well one may argue that marriage is not a prerequisite for procreation.  This is true.  But it is an undeniable fact that generally, the best environment for raising children is a home where there is a father and a mother.  Some people will come up with the stupid argument that "hey there are heterosexual parents that are just lousy parents".  Well it is true.  But it s a general statment and we all know that there will be exceptions.  On the other hand, I doubt it if there are any studies out there that can show that children raised in a polygamous or gay/lesbian environment is best.

So why is there all this discussion about gay marriage?  Some gay rights advocates say that all they want is to be recognized so that in certain situations, they are in a position to take care of their partners (as in the case of one partner in a coma and the other partner needs to be recognized as the closest kin).  They also want to have equal benefits in terms of health insurance (so that partners will be recognized as dependents).  But then again, these benefits were the promises of civil unions.  The gay rights advocates said no to civil unions.  For them only full pledged marriage is the answer.  That's why we have this question of gay marriages before us. 

The real motivation from the left is to destroy the existing foundations of our society.  The family, being the very basic unit of society, is now their focus of attack.  A couple of years back, it was the boy scouts (remember when the gay rights advocates were petitioning the govt to revoke the boy scout charter/privileges?).  They tried to destroy the boy scouts - an institution that has served this society countless times - because it espouses the belief in developing boys into responsible men, love of God and country, preparedness, charity, etc.  Instead of putting up a Gay Scouts of America, the left chooses to destroy an existing institution.  They tried with the boy scouts and failed.  Now they trying ther hand at marriage.  Look down in history and you 'll see this behavior repeated.  Our military service branches are great institutions.  Have you noticed how the left hates the military (they refuse the military recruiters entry into high schools during career day)?  Have you noticed how religion has been totally shut out from the public educational system?  Countries like Canada, Australia & New Zealand can hardly be characterized as "right-wing" or "fascist" societies and yet they have a voucher system where parents have the choice to enrol their children in an accredited church-run private school.    But here in America, the left has succeeded in totally shutting out religion from the public school system.  Another attack on the family was the women's lib movement.  Didn't women' lib promote the belief that women don't need men in any way, shape or form?  That men are the "enemy"?  The left is out to destroy our society.  We should recognize this and do our best to stop them.

[RevDisk]

Morally, there is no question that we do ourselves, gay people, our culture, and our churches a grave disservice when we turn the state into an instrument of enforcing religious mores.

I don't see how we do our culture a disservice by basing it upon Christian values. It kind of seems like that is what Christian values are for, to base a culture and society upon. Thou shalt not murder, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not bugger ... that sounds like my kind of culture and society. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, that lead to having women in combat and men marrying men ... that sounds like some foreign and horrid place to me.

I've been deployed with females.  Including one young lady that was hell on wheels with a M82A1.  I trusted her to have my back and I was never let down, not once.   Some women I served with were basically worthless.  Some were worth their weight in gold.   While you sneer ar liberty and equality, that is the basis of this country.  Perfect, it ain't.  We took a long time to get some things right. 

The 'false religions' of individual liberty and equal rights are religions a lot of folks have died for and killed for.  It isn't going away.  A theocracy of the likes you describe sounds like a rather foreign and horrid place to me.  Tho, I would pay serious money to hear you preach at some of the young ladies I know.  I know I'm going to be laughing if Lady Smith swings by this thread.

[MicroBalrog]

. And in contrast, these false religions of libertarianism and egalitarianism that some people believe a society can be based upon, t

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

[Hugh Damright]

Don't want men marrying men? Don't marry a man. Simple.

That's beyond simple. Obviously I'm not going to marry a man, but how does that stop the practice? Virginians have amended our Constitution to say that there will be no homosexual marriage or union in Virginia. Simple. Now we need a US amendment. Simple.

Pity you hate the world we live in. I love it.

What?? I don't think that we should have women in combat and men marrying men, and you conclude that I hate the world we live in? It seems to me that the people who hate the world are the ones who are trying to tear it down and give us women in combat and men marrying men.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Maybe I need to explain to you what that means. It was a denouncement of monarchy and the idea that a King is born to rule over the people. The meaning is that a King is not born to rule, and that sovereignty resides in the body of people and not in an individual or small body of men. It was not a declaration of gender equality, race equality, or a declaration that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Not even close. And it does not say that we are endowed by our Creator with a right to bugger other men. You are way, way off.

The Declaration that you struggle with is a frame of free government: all men being equal, sovereignty resides in the body of people; but there are limits to this sovereignty because a free government is not absolute.

[MicroBalrog]

Now we need a US amendment. Simple.

Elaborate on this. What  possible interest of yours does it serve to prohibit John and Sammy in California from marrying each other when you live in Virginia?

It seems to me that the people who hate the world are the ones who are trying to tear it down and give us women in combat and men marrying men.

Women had fought in virtually every conflict since the beginning of the world to some extent or another. It's very clear the Old Testament, at the very least, has no problem with it  I give you Deborah and Ya'el.

And it does not say that we are endowed by our Creator with a right to bugger other men

No. However it does list that the purpose of the government is to keep me free. Not to make me a better person. Not to equalize my income with that of Joe Idiot. Not to make me comply with your religion. But to keep me free.

[Hugh Damright]

What possible interest of yours does it serve to prohibit John and Sammy in California from marrying each other when you live in Virginia?

Because, as you and I both know, that will not be the end of it. John and Sammy will come to Virginia and try to get the SCOTUS to make Virginia recognize their marriage. It will never end until all the States have similar institutions of marriage. In the end, either every State will have to allow/recognize homosexual marriage, or every State will have to disallow and not recognize homoexual marriage.

Women had fought in virtually every conflict since the beginning of the world to some extent or another. It's very clear the Old Testament, at the very least, has no problem with it  I give you Deborah and Ya'el.

So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.

it does list that the purpose of the government is to keep me free. Not to make me a better person. Not to equalize my income with that of Joe Idiot. Not to make me comply with your religion. But to keep me free.

And now you're asserting that the purpose of government is to protect your right to buggery? This is starting to sound like Lawrence v Texas ... about how the 14th, when it says that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, really means that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty in any manner. 

[MicroBalrog]

Because, as you and I both know, that will not be the end of it. John and Sammy will come to Virginia and try to get the SCOTUS to make Virginia recognize their marriage. It will never end until all the States have similar institutions of marriage. In the end, either every State will have to allow/recognize homosexual marriage, or every State will have to disallow and not recognize homoexual marriage.

This applies to all laws. Why not abolish the Federal structure then?

So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.

Put them into combat? I didn't say anything about putting women into combat. It's not like the U.S. Army rips young Melissa from the hands of her loving family and forcibly sends her to an unknown warzone.

Would you say that all men qualify to be in combat? Or is it an individual quality?

What we should have is individual health, IQ, and sanity tests, uniform for all applicants.  If a woman is physically fit to do the 60-kilometer forced marches that are required to graduate into Israel's Golani Brigade, and has the good reflexes to defeat a terrorist in close combat, or to pilot an F-16, I see no good reason why she should be denied.

And now you're asserting that the purpose of government is to protect your right to buggery? This is starting to sound like Lawrence v Texas ... about how the 14th, when it says that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, really means that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty in any manner.

So you think that the State has the legitimate power to imprison people for anal sex? What about oral sex?

[Hugh Damright]

This applies to all laws. Why not abolish the Federal structure then?

I don't follow ... yes it isn't just the institution of marriage but rather there is a general tendency to do away with distinctions between the States, to consolidate them into one sovereignty ...but that is not a reason to do away with the federal structure but rather a reason to return to the federal structure ... in the meanwhile, since it is given that the feds are out of control, perhaps an amendment to define marriage in the US to be between a man and a woman would be enough to stop the SCOTUS from ruling otherwise.

If a woman is physically fit ...I see no good reason why she should be denied.

My point was that the Declaration's "all men are created equal" was not intended to say that we should have women in combat and men marrying men. Nor was the Bible intended to say such a thing. You can believe that children should be in combat if you fancy, but don't tell me that the Declaration and the Bible support such a thing.

So you think that the State has the legitimate power to imprison people for anal sex? What about oral sex?

I don't see why not ... or is it your assertion that sodomy laws violate some clause of the US Constitution, as if the federal government has jurisdiction over sexual acts? I reckon Virginia has the same right to pass sodomy laws as Iraq or France or any other sovereignty. I think it is beyond absurd for the SCOTUS to say that the 14th's "due process" clause makes State sodomy laws unconstitutional. It is crap like that which makes me think we need a marriage amendment.