Debate: Does the Constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriage? 

bossmanham Right? All of her arguments are emotion based.

Marc Lux Wait Harvard is overtly progessively biased and liberally biased how is that any better?

Jon you cannot say it is an abandonment issue without first saying Heather has a fundamental right to a father. Redefining marriage would say no one has a fundamental right to a mother or father. As of right now the current definition of marriage is the only definition that unites both the mother and father to the children.

ltehs Terrell That is the most puerile argument I've ever seen. Heather's parents were married, and that was at a time when gay marriage was banned. Did that stop her father from walking out? And how is one to enforce this "right" to a father? Her heterosexual father abandoned her, like millions of deatbeat heterosexuals do to their children. In fact, many of those children are taken in by gay families; gay families who deserve the equal protection of the law under the 14th amendment to the United States constitution You might have some credibility if you were proposing divorce. Given you're not even bringing it up, we can safely conclude you're just another poorly educated, angry bigot

LordHealey​ I never claimed that the father has a right. You should read my post again. I was making a point in that Jon above or yourself cannot make this an abandonment issue without **FIRST** accepting the premise that Heather has a fundamental right to something you know her father. If she has no such right then one cannot say she was abandoned. The father has an obligation to take care of his child but he has no right to her or any other person for that matter. Children are not property but a gift from what should come from a loving marital union. In which every child has the right to be cared for in this natural family that they come. We used to enforce this fundamental right of children before marriage became nothing more than adult centric romantic relationships. Heck we cannot even promote such families and discourage the breakdown thereof without being labeled by simple minded people such as yourself as being bigoted. Somehow you have cannonized yourself and your social agenda as the new standard in which all others are found wanting when measured by your new profound enlightenment. Yet we are the hypocrites told not to judge?? I believe you were the first to throw stones and call me a bigot when you hardly know me. Who's on the self-righteous high horse? Who else would you extend this equal protection to? Would you extend these rights to a thruple, quartet, or polygamous relationships? I would like to know what principles you are acting on?? Could it be if you say no this is not marriage that you are as much a bigot as you claim I am?

ltehs Terrell And I asked you a simple question; how are you going to enforce this "right to a father" legally? How does someone whose father died enforce their "right to a father"? The fact is there is no such right. It's made-up terminology from poorly-educated right-wingers who have trouble articulating a sensible or logical argument

+LordHealey nypost.com/2015/02/27/thai-throuple-believed-to-be-worlds-first-gay-married-trio/ nypost.com/2014/04/23/married-lesbian-threesome-expecting-first-child/ It isn't the right wingers coming up with these terms but uber liberals who come up with these terms. NYPost is hardly right-wing. So I'll ask again, would you extend those rights to the thruple, quartet, or polygamous relationship? What principles are you acting on?? Because it seems like you are imploring special rights for yourself and not all people's rights. Would you want rights for gay couples but not minority couples such as thruples and quartets? So does this principle whatever it is extend to other consenting adult relationships and if not why not? Could you provide a logical argument besides calling names? Second, you don't enforce as much as you promote this basic right. A child has a right to both a father and a mother. Last I checked every child needs a mother and father. A child's who's father has died would do well to have a male replace the father she lost. You know someone who can legitimately stand in as a father figure. Marriage is the *only* institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children that may come of it. I am not sure how anyone can be opposed to supporting it.

Clincy Mutanga Actually there are many reasons the state legislated in respect of marriag, and procreation had nothing to do with it ab initio. It was primarily about the transmission of property and protecting property rights. Given you literally have no clue about the marriage laws of early medieval England (where common law's marriage provisions come from), you are not really in a position to comment, are you? Same-sex marriages also produce children, through surrogates. You obviously don't care about children at all otherwise you would be standing up for their rights. As to polygamy, there is no argument against polygamy and defence of heterosexual marriage that doensn't apply equally to gay marriage. The fact you even raised the polygamy argument suggests you have a second-rate mind, given that logically they are not materially analogous. Gay marriage and heterosexual marriage involves two people. Polygamy involves more than two. Even a dunce can see that obvious point.

Thanks for your reply. No need for the ad hominem stance as am sure a civil discussion on this topic would be better than acting childishly. It baffles me that you stated marriage isn't about children and then proceeded to state homosexuals can have kids through surrogacy which severs the child from one biological parent to accommodate the adult relationship of the surrogate. A great example to society! Seriously, how can you equate homosexuals union( or same sex) with a heterosexual union. A "dunce can" also see that Men and Women are central to the foundation of society. I'm guessing your argument is on "equality" so if a man stood before you and wanted to marry his consenting daughter, why should they be denied and polygamy is permissible still if we allow same sex marriage.

what about incest? or plural marriages?

GordonWayneWatts Q: "Does the Constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriage?" A:Yes, the constitution as it stands requires equal protection under the law within the 14th amendment. Marriage is a legal institution that endows legal and societal protections for a different-sex couple that are still in some states not available to same-sex couples. I question your statement that 'liberals' are intellectually dishonest when saying that marriage must include 'same sex marriage'. Please elaborate. Most if not all opposition to the idea of same-sex marriage is religious or based on personal opinion that has no basis in law. As we are not a theocracy, and as our constitution implicitly states that the government cannot favor any particular religion, this should have never had any impact on public policy. It is something that needs to be reversed, and it's already taken enough time. Further, gay marriage does NOT harm children, every single legitimately verified and peer-reviewed study will show as much. Absentee parents harms children. Studies show that in general, a two-parent household, same-sex or opposite-sex is superior to a single-parent household. Also children get gender diversity from extended family, friends, peers, etc unless they are locked away with access only to their parents. This is wholly another issue. See the studies cited below. 1 - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00681.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false 2 - onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1983.tb00132.x/abstract Finally, you seem to be intelligent enough to know that Slipperly Slope is a logical fallacy, thus I will simply say: LGBT individuals are not beholden to anyone in the future that may want to get married.

KotoOnno If I put all liberals in the same boat, I apologise: But, more readers would know that I didn't mean *all* liberals, in that sense, but rather only those who supported Same Sex Marriage (SSM). Nonetheless, ANYONE (liberal of conservative) who claims that SSM is needed for equality is intellectually dishonest. For example, here, I defend gays: gordonwatts.com/redux-on-CS-HB-7013.html or: gordonWAYNEwatts.com/redux-on-CS-HB-7013.html SSM would be both overinclusive and underinclusive: It would be over-inclusive because it would "include" polygamy and incest (see my other post - or see e.g., @14 or: gordonwatts.com/GayMarriageSuit/AmicusBriefs/14-556_David_A_Robinson.pdf or: gordonWAYNEwatts.com/GayMarriageSuit/AmicusBriefs/14-556_David_A_Robinson.pdf These address incest, and the following verifies polygamy would be mandated: gordonwatts.com/GayMarriageSuit/14-571_bsac_GordonWayneWatts.pdf gordonWAYNEwatts.com/GayMarriageSuit/14-571_bsac_GordonWayneWatts.pdf If you support SSM but oppose plural marriage (polygamy) and incest, you are a hypocrite. If you support all of them, you are crazy! (Take your pick.) SSM would also be UNDER-inclusive, insofar as it would not cure the 'Marriage Penalty,' -- The “marriage penalty,” as used in this context, refers not only to higher taxes required from some married couples that wouldn't be required by two otherwise identical single people with exactly the same income, but also to a loss of certain financial benefits, such as, for example, a person's disability or retirement going DOWN simply because he or she is "married." -- Traditional (man-woman) marriages encounter this penalty, and gay couples would too, if SSM became law. Thus, SSM would actually make their financial matters *worse* -- as well as cause people to hate on them for no reason. Moreover, the "real" science (corrected so that a rich lesbian cople isn't matched against a poor man-woman marriage -- and with objective reports from teachers, etc.) shows gay couple do even worse than singles; Indeed, see “DECLARATION OF LOREN MARKS, PH.D.,” page 20, in Searcy, et al. v. Strange , No. 11:14-cv-208-CG-M (S.D.,Ala. 2015), where a small, but statistically-significant, group of children were compared, and all things being equal, married couples had the best development from objective teacher reports (and not biased parental reporting), and next, singles, and lastly, homosexual rearing. You think I'm lying here? You cite studies with methodological errors, OK? But worse, you liberals are always crying for "diversity" -- Blacks, Whites, Men, Women in the work-force, OK? So, why not diversity in the family? Men AND women! No, I'm not a hater - see the top, where I defend gays who can't adopt! But, while it's wrong to place a ban on gay adoptions (no less than it would be wrong to - say - place a ban on singles adopting), it is also intellectually dishonest to say gays are "equal" or "better" than married couples on overage. (I know there are exceptions, but I'm talking averages here.) Since you liberals are *CORRECT* to demand racial and GENDER diversity in the workplace, then you'd be a hypocrite to not demand gender diversity in the homes. You're not a hypocrite, now are you? So, I've given you MULTIPLE reasons above why SSM is bad - all that have NOTHING to do with a person's religion. (But, sometimes facts and truth are stubborn little obstacles for the hard-headed, so watch out!) ;)

GordonWayneWatts I respectfully and totally disagree with your points of over-inclusivity and under-inclusivity in terms of SSM. Married couples would in terms of your claims of under-inclusivity have equal benefits and penalties as DSM(differnt-sex marriage) couples. Just as unmarried same-sex couples would have the same lack-of marriage benefits as unmarried different-sex couples. SSM marriage is not looking to correct the flaws in marriage policy, it is looking to equalize the opportunity to take part in the institution. Would you halt DSM to correct these issues? In addition, SSM is not looking for special rights or privileges, but EQUAL ones, thus cannot be OVER-inclusive. Again SSM is not and will not legalize polygamy, incest or as many like to include: bestiality. SSM maintains a two-person, consent -driven model between two non-related adults. Neither polygamy or incest fit this model or would be as you say "mandated". At any rate incest is not even close to illegal in many states as of today and polygamy is a separate issue completely. Most if not all plural marriages are heterosexual, if this sort of marriage would have been mandated by any marriage it would be DSM. Further, please point out in particular the methodological error in the studies that I cited, I am not above being proven wrong, but I don't believe that you actually found these errors but that you imposed them upon my examples as a part of your argument. To be clear, these are two of countless studies that support my position. Your rebuttal does not reference an opposing study but a summary of an un-cited one that I have no means to verify. Finally your statement "[....]then you'd be a hypocrite to not demand gender diversity in the homes. You're not a hypocrite, now are you?" is ludicrous. Diversity is a benefit and discrimination is abhorrent, but diversity is NOT a requirement of a marriage. If so then all current marriages would be interracial to insure maximum diversity. The workplace and a marriage are not a valid comparison. Your many reasons may not be obviously religious but they are not defensible as they are not logically sound.

KotoOnno KotoOnno To answer yr question: [[""Would you halt DSM to correct these issues?""]] -- no: I would *fix* both the DSM problem of the marriage penalty. You also said: [[""Neither polygamy or incest fit this model or would be as you say "mandated". ""]] -- You didn't read either Robinson's brief or mine! [["" Most if not all plural marriages are heterosexual,...""]] NOT ... Meet *these* 3 men in a plural 'marriage': nypost.com/2015/02/27/thai-throuple-believed-to-be-worlds-first-gay-married-trio www.gaystarnews.com/article/three-men-marry-each-other-thailand190215 www.christianpost.com/news/three-men-get-married-in-worlds-first-3-way-gay-wedding-in-thailand-135176 [[""Further, please point out in particular the methodological error in the studies that I cited, I am not above being proven wrong, but I don't believe that you actually found these errors but that you imposed them upon my examples as a part of your argument.""]] -- Fair enough: I admit that I didn't look at the methodology of *your* studies, but as they disagreed in conclusion with a study in which outside factors were controlled for (so that a rich lesbian couple was not pitted against a poor straight couple) and since said study had proper reporting (objective, from teachers, not from biased parents), and since we know that diversity is a plus (which is denied - by the definition - in gay partnerships), then, perforce, I must discredit your study. You owe *me* proof that *my* study is wrong, since I've offered proof it is not. Moreover, as you bring this up, the burden of proof is on *you* to prove *your* study is correct. That is only fair: *I* defended *my* study. Lastly, you may think this is unfair, but if, for example, I had a study that concluded that the laws of gravity were fake, or, say, that the speed of light were equal to the speed of sound, then, perforce, *my* study would have to have methodological flaws. However, since I can't see your studies at the links you provide (you provide preview links; the studies CO$T MONEY!), it is your fault that I can not offer proof of the methodological flaws that obviously must exist. With regard to diversity, I stand by my standard: It is good. However, in marriage, only the gender should be diverse: Actually, science shows that in ALL other aspects, the man and woman should be SIMILAR: GordonWatts.com/love.html GordonWayneWatts.com/love.html :-)

GordonWayneWatts If you would not halt DSM to fix the marriage penalty issue then it is not a reason to stop the legalization of SSM. I looked at you brief and your argument is flawed due to the fact that a person's rights stop where another person's rights begin and if something is harmful to society a right can be denied. This is why even though we have a equal protection amendment in the Constitution, we can say that people under a certain age can't drive, and they can't sue and say their rights are being violated. Incest harms society, and polygamy has been shown to harm society as well. SSM is no more harmful or beneficial than DSM. You said that because marriage was determined to be a right and that's why you think those things would be mandated but you are wrong for the reasons stated above. You have proven my point by linking to the "1st" 3-way SSM, as I stated previously "MOST if not all plural marriages are heterosexual" for your benefit I will drop the "if not all". The "most" still stands as does my point. As to owing you proof that your study is wrong, where is the link? I will gladly examine it, if only you would provide it. To your saying: "if, for example, I had a study that concluded that the laws of gravity were fake, or, say, that the speed of light were equal to the speed of sound, then, perforce, my study would have to have methodological flaws." That is false. That is not necessarily true, these things could be based of physics near the event horizon of a black hole where the rules of physics may be different. Each study must be taken on it's own merit as science does not operate on certainties. You can't determine legitimacy just by the conclusion, that is the opposite of scientific. In terms of the studies I linked, the fact that you claimed they had methodological errors without reading even the preview of them that is available under the abstract shows your true character. YOU sir, are intellectually dishonest. The fact that the study disagrees with ONE study you claim to have read does not make it 'obvious" that there are methodological errors, just that you want there to be. Finally --> GordonWatts.com/love.html , this is not a scientific, peer reviewed study and it is not sufficient evidence that "only the gender should be diverse", it's you promoting your website.

Mr. Shiny Pants Bigot? Please explain...

Try an online dictionary

Mr. Shiny Pants I didn't think you were long on intellect. Disagreeing with you ≠ bigotry. In fact, what you have done here = bigotry...

If you want to believe that nonsense then go on ahead.

Mr. Shiny Pants Did you watch any of the debate at all? Dr. Anderson is certainly not intolerant of those holding different opinions.