What's government's interest in outlawing homosexual marriage?

Most of the attempts to actually overturn the specific decision have been thwarted by the court. While there are justices who want to overturn it, when a case has been decided in favor of pro-life the court has generally refused to look at it reference to Roe v. Wade. I agree with Red that it is such a hot bed issue, someone, with legal standing to file the law suit, has to directly challenge the case for anyone to get a further ruling on it. Otherwise, they just are not going to touch the case. Not enough support on the bench. If you look up Roe v. Wade on Wikipedia, it speaks a lot to this. The original "Roe" now is pro-life but when she brought suit to overturn the decision it was essentially ruled she no longer had standing to sue and therefore the merits of the case where not even heard.

 

You completely miss my point. Your situation does not negate the underlying principle that only a male and female can have children by natural means, and that the purpose of marriage is to provide for an environment for the raising and nurturing of children. The fact that you decide not to have children does not alter the underlying principles. They remain valid.

 

i believe cornell law would like to give an overview of marriage to you:
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/marriageby providing this link, i am not interjecting any opinion into this thread, merely providing a legal definition from a reliable source.

some will say that by posting a "legal definition", i am inferring some sort of opinion about legal vs. cultural. i'm not. if i could think of a reliable source for a cultural definition of marriage, which i was sure was not biased to any culturual lifestyle, i would post that as well. however, there are very different cultures involved here with very different lifestyles; so i don't think any source which discusses marriage from a cultural viewpoint will be unbiased unless it discusses all cultural viewpoints of the topic.

 

The word, "culture," is a loose version of, "religious."

Historically, marriage first existed as a result of a religious ceremony sanctioned by religious leaders. (i.e. what God has joined together...)

There was no basis for anything other than a male/female union of body where propagation/consummation could occur.

Some want to call something marriage that really isn't marriage because you cannot conceive any direct biological offspring out of a relationship that is not a singular male/female union.

The term, "homosexual marriage," is an oxymoron in the minds of those who define marriage as a relationship that is to be physically consummated.

A civil union is a union performed outside of a religious venue using definitions suitable to establish legal rights pertaining to a legal relationship within the laws of a state.

 

The definition I am giving is a cultural/anthropological/theological definition that has been around several thousand years longer than any legal definition which is subject to legal/political agendas. I am sure a number of law schools would object to the time-honored definition I have used; lawyers love objecting. But language should be used to clarify an issue; lawyers use it to obfuscate issues.

 

thats total bs in my book. marriage is for a partnership. children are, or are not, an addition to that partnership.

 

Just because only a male and female can have a child by natural means doesn't mean that there aren't plenty to adopt. What if a homosexual couple wants to marry, adopt, and "raise and nurture children?" How does the fact that they are male/male female/female negate that?

That's how I feel. Marriage is a way of showing the one you love and the world that you are in it for the long haul. It's also a way to ensure yourself legal rights in your spouse's life. I don't think children have anything to do with marriage itself.

 

Adoption does not negate the fundamental principle underlying marriage: that only male and female can have children through natural means. Also, in my opinion gay couples should not be allowed to adopt because the well-being of the child should be the primary concern of adoption policies. I believe it is in the best interests of the child to grow up with a father and a mother. That is the most preferable family environment. Unfortunately, the child has ceased to become the primary focus of adoption policies which now seem more concerned about the rights and well-being of the adults. In my opinion, a child has a natural right to a father and a mother. But this country has become one for adults, by adults and children have virtually no rights at all. In certain cases they are not even considered human beings.

 

I am a hardcore, card-carrying conservative, but i support gay marriage... its really none of my business...

 

Laws by which we govern ourselves are everyone's business. In this case, for the most part, it is not so much a matter of law as it is how laws are interpreted. Because the marriage issue would have a significant impact on American society and the institution of marriage, it is everyone's business.