Church Of Jesus Christ Files Amicus Brief In Marriage Redefinition Case

[jwhitlock]

What is it about the differences between men and women that justification this type of discrimination?

 

Like the discrimination that men aren't allowed to use a women's restroom?

 

It's not discrimination when there are valid reasons for the difference. Claims that it's "discrimination" because a man can't marry a man like a woman can are simply ridiculous.

[jwhitlock]

D&C 132 is mostly an expired revelation, and not within the scope of this discussion, since its focus is on a form of marriage the church now considers invalid. 

 

There is plenty of data to support my statement about gays and suicide and in what situations that is more likely to occur. 

 

 

Gay same-gendered people also complement each other very effectively in a healthy same-gender marriage.

 

 

That's your opinion only.

 

 

Even if that were true, the best solution would be to encourage monogomy by encouraging gay marriage.

 

 

Special pleading. 

 

Sounds like you have your mind made up, so it doesn't matter what the evidence presents. If you're rejecting the fact that male-female relationships are clearly different than male-male relationships, then you're basically going to simply dismiss without addressing anything presented to you that doesn't fit your worldview - as you have above.

 

That's why the issue of SSM is so polarizing. There is a distinct unwillingness by SSM supporters to consider anything that contradicts their claims, so there typically isn't any real discussion that can occur.

[california boy]

Your last statement is the only feeble attempt I've heard to rationalize SSM as a "right" that others have that gays don't have. Of course, the fact that many gay men commit to mixed gender marriages is something that you try to ignore, because it makes it very clear that gays have the same rights as everyone else and they exercise those rights within the same structure.

 

It's become very apparent that the only tactic you have in responding to me is to demonize me and dismiss me. You really don't give a cogent defense in your post. Over time it has become very clear that the main method of SSM supporters is to demonize and dismiss - or D&D, as I call it. Works far better in appealing to the National Enquirer reading masses who don't think particularly deeply about such things, doesn't it.

 

Such hatred on your part. Not a very pretty thing, is it.

I do have to say it is difficult to take some of your posts seriously when your arguments just haven't held up in the courts throughout this country.  And I have to admit that I find that particular argument to be very juvenile and easily dismissed as have the courts,  Your example of gay men in mixed marriages does not solve the discrimination problem I presented.  But you probably knew your answer was a red herron. And hey, I have absolutely no problems with gay men in mixed marriages.  I myself was in one.  I certainly do not encourage that kind of relationship for the exact same reasons the church has shifted it's position on encouraging gays to marry. 

 

I am sorry you feel I have any kind of hatred towards you.  I certainly did not mean to give you that impression.  I completely get that you view yourself as a stalward member defending what you clearly believe in.  What you lack in facts and logic, you certainly make up for in enthusiasm.  I probably have the same fault.  Like you, I am pretty passionate about this issue.  We are more alike than different, just coming from this issue from opposite sides of the equasion.  

[jwhitlock]

Love your chastisement of Grey for personal conjecture and then you go on for paragraphs with your own personal conjecture of what you think gay relationships are like and how they differ from heterosexual relationships. 

 

I actually am one of the few on this board that has been in a long term heterosexual relationship and a long term homosexual relationship.  I can tell you with authority that a gay relationship is much more fulfilling and brings me significantly more happiness.  And while me and my wife did come from different perspectives on many matters, the exact same thing is true with my current boyfriend.  No two people are alike.  Each brings something unique to any relationship.  Your personal conjecture could not be more completely wrong.

 

Unfortunately, it's not conjecture on my part. It's simple, clear fact. Male-female relationships are significantly different than male-male relationships. They're not the same.

 

To claim that individual men are different from each other in the same way that men and women are different than each other is to claim that men can be just like women in all aspects, and there are no real differences. That's pretty much false.

 

This is actually quite interesting. Every time I turn around, I find that SSM supporters are redefining something else in order to justify themselves. Ultimately it requires a significant departure not only from common sense but from reality to make the claim that there is no real difference between male-male relationships and male-female relationships. In reality, there are significant differences in how those relationships are structured and that ultimately means that marriage must be restructured to accommodate those differences. That includes the fact that "committed" is differently defined in gay relationships than it is in male-female relationships.

[Kenngo1969]

I noticed also that there is a thread on the general discssions forum started by Stone holm. I didn't click on it before, because the thread title gives no good clue of what it's about. The title is a testy, well-poisoning "What Are We Trying to Accomplish."

 

I'm not inclined to close this thread. The mods may do it if they like.

Well, the Mods closed that thread (about eighteen hours too late, but I guess "late" is better than "never" ... [Oh, by the way: don't mind that smell of burnt and burning flesh; that's what happens when one gets "flamed" ...])

[jwhitlock]

I do have to say it is difficult to take some of your posts seriously when your arguments just haven't held up in the courts throughout this country.  And I have to admit that I find that particular argument to be very juvenile and easily dismissed as have the courts,  Your example of gay men in mixed marriages does not solve the discrimination problem I presented.  But you probably knew your answer was a red herron. And hey, I have absolutely no problems with gay men in mixed marriages.  I myself was in one.  I certainly do not encourage that kind of relationship for the exact same reasons the church has shifted it's position on encouraging gays to marry. 

 

I am sorry you feel I have any kind of hatred towards you.  I certainly did not mean to give you that impression.  I completely get that you view yourself as a stalward member defending what you clearly believe in.  What you lack in facts and logic, you certainly make up for in enthusiasm.  I probably have the same fault.  Like you, I am pretty passionate about this issue.  We are more alike than different, just coming from this issue from opposite sides of the equasion.  

 

Courts rule on legal issues. Their rulings may or may not have any relevance to what is right, logical, or in the best interest of anyone. Those concepts are foreign to a legal system. We don't have a system of justice in this country; we have a legal system, which is a very, very different thing. Legal systems play by a set of rules that often are far distanced from the reality of what goes on in the world. That's why arguments justifying SSM as right because the courts have said so are basically irrelevant to me. Those who make their living in the legal system would disagree with me; however, if you ever want any evidence that alternate realities exist, spend some time getting involved in the legal system. It's why we have to get lawyers when we're forced to deal with legalities; the legal system doesn't make sense to the average intelligent person when considered in the context of the real world.

 

So I don't really care what the courts have upheld or not.

 

So this redefinition of what the "right" of marriage really is in order to justify SSM is where the real red herring (not herron) is. It's a legal definition, not a real world definition. And while it's very clear to most people that male-male relationships are significantly different than male-female relationships, and that those differences should be taken into account where the legalization of SSM is concerned, the courts in their alternative legal system reality tell us that there is no real difference, and that because there is no real difference, then some kind of "right" is being denied to gays if SSM is not legalized.

 

Basically, there's no real foundation for SSM arguments to rest on because they're legal arguments that dismiss real world evidence. I understand that's the way it is, and I also understand that it's significantly flawed.

 

Otherwise, you and I are not the same. You do not understand, or apparently do not want to understand, the significant concerns those of us have about SSM when we dig into the facts surrounding gay relationships and what they're really like. I get my facts by going to gay-oriented web sites, such as Queer Nation or Affirmation (and others) and seeing what they have to say. I look at liberal media sources that are typically supportive of SSM and look at the rationalizations they use in supporting it. I come to my conclusions because I look at a wide variety of evidence. For you to dismiss me as only presenting things that are "juvenile" and telling me that I "lack in facts and logic" tells me pretty clearly that we are not the same and that the only way you have of countering what I have to say is to demean it and dismiss it - not to address it.

 

In the end, I realize that I'm not going to convince you or any other SSM supporter. I present my evidence in hope that those willing to think more deeply about the situation and really understand it will find that evidence useful in determining what their attitude should be towards SSM. There are characteristics that come with SSM that a lot of people haven't considered, such as the concepts of  expectation of total sexual fidelity in marriage and the impact of removing it, rights vs. special privileges, differences in how men and women interact with each other vs. how men interact with other men, the long term potential impacts on religious freedom that come with SSM, and so on.

 

We do have very different perspectives, you and I, and I recognize that's the way it is. We're not the same because of that.

[jwhitlock]

Well, the Mods closed that thread (about eighteen hours too late, but I guess "late" is better than "never" ... [Oh, by the way: don't mind that smell of burnt and burning flesh; that's what happens when one gets "flamed" ...])

 

Did you get flamed again?? I'm glad I've never been on the receiving end of your retorts.              and  .

[Kenngo1969]

Again?  (As for being on the receiving end of my retorts, I'm not responsible for anything I wrote more than 5 minutes ago! )  You know I like you, JWhitlock!

[jwhitlock]

Again?  (As for being on the receiving end of my retorts, I'm not responsible for anything I wrote more than 5 minutes ago! )  You know I like you, JWhitlock! )

 

It's because  I   speak  your  language! 

[california boy]

Unfortunately, it's not conjecture on my part. It's simple, clear fact. Male-female relationships are significantly different than male-male relationships. They're not the same.

 

To claim that individual men are different from each other in the same way that men and women are different than each other is to claim that men can be just like women in all aspects, and there are no real differences. That's pretty much false.

 

This is actually quite interesting. Every time I turn around, I find that SSM supporters are redefining something else in order to justify themselves. Ultimately it requires a significant departure not only from common sense but from reality to make the claim that there is no real difference between male-male relationships and male-female relationships. In reality, there are significant differences in how those relationships are structured and that ultimately means that marriage must be restructured to accommodate those differences. That includes the fact that "committed" is differently defined in gay relationships than it is in male-female relationships.

Well then, I guess you would know better than me even though I have actually been in both kinds of relationships.  

[california boy]

Courts rule on legal issues. Their rulings may or may not have any relevance to what is right, logical, or in the best interest of anyone. Those concepts are foreign to a legal system. We don't have a system of justice in this country; we have a legal system, which is a very, very different thing. Legal systems play by a set of rules that often are far distanced from the reality of what goes on in the world. That's why arguments justifying SSM as right because the courts have said so are basically irrelevant to me. Those who make their living in the legal system would disagree with me; however, if you ever want any evidence that alternate realities exist, spend some time getting involved in the legal system. It's why we have to get lawyers when we're forced to deal with legalities; the legal system doesn't make sense to the average intelligent person when considered in the context of the real world.

 

So I don't really care what the courts have upheld or not.

 

So this redefinition of what the "right" of marriage really is in order to justify SSM is where the real red herring (not herron) is. It's a legal definition, not a real world definition. And while it's very clear to most people that male-male relationships are significantly different than male-female relationships, and that those differences should be taken into account where the legalization of SSM is concerned, the courts in their alternative legal system reality tell us that there is no real difference, and that because there is no real difference, then some kind of "right" is being denied to gays if SSM is not legalized.

 

Basically, there's no real foundation for SSM arguments to rest on because they're legal arguments that dismiss real world evidence. I understand that's the way it is, and I also understand that it's significantly flawed.

 

Otherwise, you and I are not the same. You do not understand, or apparently do not want to understand, the significant concerns those of us have about SSM when we dig into the facts surrounding gay relationships and what they're really like. I get my facts by going to gay-oriented web sites, such as Queer Nation or Affirmation (and others) and seeing what they have to say. I look at liberal media sources that are typically supportive of SSM and look at the rationalizations they use in supporting it. I come to my conclusions because I look at a wide variety of evidence. For you to dismiss me as only presenting things that are "juvenile" and telling me that I "lack in facts and logic" tells me pretty clearly that we are not the same and that the only way you have of countering what I have to say is to demean it and dismiss it - not to address it.

 

In the end, I realize that I'm not going to convince you or any other SSM supporter. I present my evidence in hope that those willing to think more deeply about the situation and really understand it will find that evidence useful in determining what their attitude should be towards SSM. There are characteristics that come with SSM that a lot of people haven't considered, such as the concepts of  expectation of total sexual fidelity in marriage and the impact of removing it, rights vs. special privileges, differences in how men and women interact with each other vs. how men interact with other men, the long term potential impacts on religious freedom that come with SSM, and so on.

 

We do have very different perspectives, you and I, and I recognize that's the way it is. We're not the same because of that.

 

You do realize that it is not just the judicial system that believes in equal protection under the law, but after hearing all the arguments from both sides since the passage of Prop 8, the majority of Americans also believe in equal protection under the law.  From starting with a super majority of belief, those that oppose SSM have yet to find a persuasive argument to convince the people of this country that they are right.

 

If your best argument is that gays already have equal protection under the law, you are going to have to explain better than what you have been able to do so far, why that statement is true.  Certainly those that opposed inter racial marriage, using that same argument were unable to convince the citizens of this country that those who wanted inter racial marriage were already being treated equally under the law.  Whites had the same restriction on their marriage as blacks did.  Both were not allowed to marry who they loved.  A position the church also had at the same time.  We have been here before, and not that long ago.  History repeats itself.

[Gray]

Like the discrimination that men aren't allowed to use a women's restroom?

 

It's not discrimination when there are valid reasons for the difference. Claims that it's "discrimination" because a man can't marry a man like a woman can are simply ridiculous.

 

That's an apples to oranges comparison. Limiting what sorts of strangers can enter a room where people are partially disrobed is different from placing arbitrary limits on two adults who conciously choose to be together 

[thesometimesaint]

CB:

 

I believe that homosexual sexual relationships are sin. But can find no legally consistent way to outlaw them.

[Gray]

Sounds like you have your mind made up, so it doesn't matter what the evidence presents. If you're rejecting the fact that male-female relationships are clearly different than male-male relationships, then you're basically going to simply dismiss without addressing anything presented to you that doesn't fit your worldview - as you have above.

 

That's why the issue of SSM is so polarizing. There is a distinct unwillingness by SSM supporters to consider anything that contradicts their claims, so there typically isn't any real discussion that can occur.

 

 

What evidence did you present? The only evidence I'm aware of that's relevant to this discussion is that gay kids whose parents don't accept their orientation are many times more likely to try to kill themselves, and gay Mormons who try to live by the current policies are much more unhappy than those who seek out committed same-sex relationships.

 

Show me some evidence, and I'll reconsider my position. 

[CV75]

We have no revelation on marriage that addresses homosexuality.

Nor do we have a revelation on marriage that addresses heterosexuality. We don't need one: revealed marriage is about a particular covenant between a man and a woman and God, not about their sexual orientation. The covenant (among other things) legitimizes sexual relations between a man and a woman irrespective of their sexual orientation.

 

I'm not seeing anyone argue for same-sex "marriage" regardless of sexual orientation. And if sexual orientation becomes the focus, it is overly reductive to view the subject only in terms of two orientations.

[Gray]

Nor do we have a revelation on marriage that addresses heterosexuality. We don't need one: revealed marriage is about a particular covenant between a man and a woman and God, not about their sexual orientation. The covenant (among other things) legitimizes sexual relations between a man and a woman irrespective of their sexual orientation.

 

I'm not seeing anyone argue for same-sex "marriage" regardless of sexual orientation. And if sexual orientation becomes the focus, it is overly reductive to view the subject only in terms of two orientations.

 

Curious to see a member of a restorationist church claiming to not need revelation 

[CV75]

Curious to see a member of a restorationist church claiming to not need revelation 

Well, a restorationist can’t receive a revelation to restore a covenant that never was…!

Additionally, it seems that God doesn’t provide revelation regarding too-specific areas of human capacity to experience and respond to one another. They are all fairly general and geared for spiritual consideration, such as “sociality” as described in D&C 130:2 -- as far as I can tell its coupling with eternal glory depends on marriage (131:2). The others are just as general (these are all from the Book of Mormon): “depravity” and “iniquity” (and the resulting “captivity” and “inequality”); “purity,” “charity,” “chastity” and “sincerity” (and the resulting “posterity” and “prosperity”); and the like. All these capacities have to be considered in relation to the “divinity” the covenants lead us to.

[Gray]

Well, a restorationist can’t receive a revelation to restore a covenant that never was…!

Additionally, it seems that God doesn’t provide revelation regarding too-specific areas of human capacity to experience and respond to one another. They are all fairly general and geared for spiritual consideration, such as “sociality” as described in D&C 130:2 -- as far as I can tell its coupling with eternal glory depends on marriage (131:2). The others are just as general (these are all from the Book of Mormon): “depravity” and “iniquity” (and the resulting “captivity” and “inequality”); “purity,” “charity,” “chastity” and “sincerity” (and the resulting “posterity” and “prosperity”); and the like. All these capacities have to be considered in relation to the “divinity” the covenants lead us to.

 

Well, I'd agree that God doesn't get too specific, but I suspect I take that further than you do.

 

Regarding the idea that there is sex in heaven and that's how spirit children are made isn't strictly defined. That's one idea. Another is that God took pre-existing "intelligences", formed them into spirits, and that's that. 

 

Anything regarding premortal or post-mortal existence is always already highly speculative, I think. 

[jwhitlock]

Well then, I guess you would know better than me even though I have actually been in both kinds of relationships.  

 

Believe it or not, men who are not gay also interact with other males and have relationships with them. They also have relationships with women that are not their wives. Those relationships, of course, are non-sexual, and they provide a great deal of real-world evidence that male-male and male-female relationships, even at that level, differ significantly.

 

The depth or quality of a relationship is not solely defined by sex in that relationship. Hence your experience simply provides one perspective; it does not provide an "authoritative" perspective to support a claim that there are no differences between male-male and male-female relationships. In fact, from what you described with your own experience, you found the differences significant enough to reject one of them.

[jwhitlock]

That's an apples to oranges comparison. Limiting what sorts of strangers can enter a room where people are partially disrobed is different from placing arbitrary limits on two adults who conciously choose to be together 

 

Yet the courts are using the same rationalization of discrimination you are in opening up rest rooms to children who decide that they have a different gender preference than their physical characteristics.

 

In the end, "discrimination" can be claimed for just about anything. Your application of it to SSM is rather tenuous, at best.

[jwhitlock]

What evidence did you present? The only evidence I'm aware of that's relevant to this discussion is that gay kids whose parents don't accept their orientation are many times more likely to try to kill themselves, and gay Mormons who try to live by the current policies are much more unhappy than those who seek out committed same-sex relationships.

 

Show me some evidence, and I'll reconsider my position. 

 

Try directly addressing what I said, rather than dismissing it out of hand. You made the claims above without providing any evidence. You provided an unsupportable interpretation of John 7:17 as justification for SSM. The fact that male-male relationships are very different than male-female relationships is so clear from real world experience that the claim that there is no real difference between the two must be supported by evidence provided by you - which you have not done.

 

Since male-male relationships are different than male-female relationships, then it follows that the way a SSM functions is going to differ from the way a male-female marriage functions. They're not the same, and claims saying there is no difference between the two types of marriage are simply false.

[california boy]

Believe it or not, men who are not gay also interact with other males and have relationships with them. They also have relationships with women that are not their wives. Those relationships, of course, are non-sexual, and they provide a great deal of real-world evidence that male-male and male-female relationships, even at that level, differ significantly.

 

The depth or quality of a relationship is not solely defined by sex in that relationship. Hence your experience simply provides one perspective; it does not provide an "authoritative" perspective to support a claim that there are no differences between male-male and male-female relationships. In fact, from what you described with your own experience, you found the differences significant enough to reject one of them.

Except, I never claimed that there are no differences between male-male and male-female relationships.  What I said is that any two people bring strengths and weaknesses into a relationship.  Can you name ONE attribute that is exclusively male or exclusively female?  If you can, then you might have a point.  If you can't then you have no point.  Name away and see if your "theory" stands up to any knd of logic.

[Daniel2]

Except, I never claimed that there are no differences between male-male and male-female relationships. What I said is that any two people bring strengths and weaknesses into a relationship. Can you name ONE attribute that is exclusively male or exclusively female? If you can, then you might have a point. If you can't then you have no point. Name away and see if your "theory" stands up to any knd of logic.

I think perhaps a better-phrased question for jwhitlock may be, "Can you name ONE attribute that is UNIVERSALLY "male," or UNIVERSALLY "female"?

Of COURSE there will be differences when comparing ANY two relationships, speaking generally AND specifically. That's a strawman arguement, though.

The question really is, "Are any differences between male-male/female-female relationships and female-male relationships significant enough to justify the government reserving the civil designation of 'marriage' for one type of relationship, while refusing to grant it to the other two types of relationships?"

Over the last year, the answer by 32 judges over 18 legal challenges has been a resounding, "NO--such civil discrimination is NOT justifiable.":

It’s Over: Gay Marriage Can’t Lose in the Courts

A perfect record for equality post-Windsor

By David S. Cohen and Dahlia Lithwick

“We made a commitment to each other in our love and lives, and now had the legal commitment, called marriage, to match. Isn't that what marriage is? ... I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry. Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the ‘wrong kind of person’ for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. ... I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.” — Mildred Loving

Last night, only days after hearing oral arguments in the case, a Virginia federal judge struck down the state ban on same-sex marriage, writing unequivocally that “[t]radition is revered in the Commonwealth, and often rightly so. However, tradition alone cannot justify denying same-sex couples the right to marry any more than it could justify Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage.” The judge opened her opinion with the quote, above, from Mildred Loving, the plaintiff in the 1967 challenge to Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage. She thus joined a unanimous and ever-expanding collection of federal judges who have chosen to answer the question left up in the air by the Supreme Court last Spring: Did the Windsor decision—striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act—pretty much strike down gay-marriage bans as well?

It didn’t have to play out this way. Once the elation of victory died down following the court’s Windsor decision in June, everyone found themselves asking the same question—what does this case mean for all of the other cases raising questions about gay and lesbian equality? The answer wasn’t 100 percent clear at the time. As he’s done in the past, Justice Anthony Kennedy authored a decision producing sweeping results, but rooted it in less than crystal clear reasoning. This was because Windsor has two independent parts that barely speak to one another.

The first part is all about federalism, not equality. Kennedy painstakingly explained that the federal Defense of Marriage Act offended basic principles of states’ rights because, historically, the states have always defined marriage and the federal government just goes along for the ride. By defining marriage for the federal government as only between a man and a woman, DOMA had infringed on the sovereignty of the states that define marriage otherwise, like New York did in Windsor, by including two women in its definition of marriage.

Justice Kennedy could have stopped there, but he didn’t. Instead, he wrote a second section all about equality. This part of the opinion found that the federal law was unconstitutional because it offended basic principles of equality. With a purpose to harm same-sex married couples and a wide-ranging detrimental effect on their lives, Kennedy wrote, DOMA violated the constitutional principle that a law cannot be based on hatred toward any one particular group.

Were these two parts independent bases for the decision? Or did one rely on the other? The answers to these questions have significant ramifications for gay and lesbian equality. If the equality principle from the second half of the opinion can be seen as the basis for the decision, state bans on same-sex marriage are certain to be unconstitutional. But, if the equality principle is only powerful when combined with concerns about the federal government overstepping its bounds, then maybe statescan continue to define marriage as they see fit, and the federal government then has to go along. Under this interpretation, Windsormight even have been a decision that somewhat supported state bans on same-sex marriage: States have the right to choose.

It was clear when Windsor came down that the court itself was perplexed as to what the case implied for future gay-marriage litigation. The two interpretations were battled out in the dissenting opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a short dissenting opinion arguing that the federalism aspect ofWindsor was essential to the case and that the case cannot possibly mean that state bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional as well. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing a separate dissenting opinion,used the power of his formidable sarcasm to show that Justice Kennedy’s equality opinion would throw open the floodgates for lower courts to find bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional. To Scalia, this was conclusive evidence that the majority opinion was wrong. To the rest of us, it was conclusive evidence that Windsor might mean what Scalia thought it meant.

Insofar as there was confusion about whatWindsor meant at the time it was decided, the lower courts across the country have now effectively settled it. A survey of publicly available opinions shows that in the eight months since Windsor, 18 court decisions have addressed an issue of equality based on sexual orientation. And in those 18 cases, equality has won every single time. In other words, not a single court has agreed with Chief Justice Roberts that Windsor is merely about state versus federal power. Instead, each has used Windsor exactly as Justice Scalia “warned”—as a powerful precedent for equality.

This hasn’t all been about marriage. Twelve decisions have addressed a substantive aspect of marriage equality since Windsor, and equality has won in all 12—with the Virginia decision now joining decisions from Kentucky, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and West Virginia, and two decisions each in Illinois, New Jersey, and Ohio. But six other cases since Windsor have addressed different aspects of discrimination based on sexual orientation, such as discrimination on juries and employment benefits, and the side of equality has won in all six of those cases as well.

The tally is even starker when you look at the number of judges who have considered the issue. Since Windsor, in these 18 decisions, 32 different judges have considered whetherWindsor is merely about the relationship between the state and federal governments or whether it is about equality. And all 32 of them have found for equality. In other words, 32 accomplished, intelligent lawyers, appointed by Democrats and Republicans, whose job it is to read precedent, have ruled for equality. Not a single one has disagreed.

(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/02/virginia_s_gay_marriage_ban_ruled_unconstitutional_a_perfect_record_for.single.html)

[jwhitlock]

Except, I never claimed that there are no differences between male-male and male-female relationships.  What I said is that any two people bring strengths and weaknesses into a relationship.  Can you name ONE attribute that is exclusively male or exclusively female?  If you can, then you might have a point.  If you can't then you have no point.  Name away and see if your "theory" stands up to any knd of logic.

 

Physical differences, to name the obvious.

 

Otherwise, there's quite a bit that's been written concerning how the genders are very different, such as Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus. It's really so clearly evident that males and females think differently, perceive things differently, are hormonally different, physically different, look at relationships differently that this really shouldn't be a question. Two men and not going to have the same kind of complementary relationship that a man and woman are going to have.

 

You contradict yourself in your post in that you infer that you accept that there are differences between male-male and male-female relationships, and then you proceed to attack the concept that men and women are different. This is interesting in that it indicates a need for SSM to try to redefine fundamental, real world facts (such as men and women are different) in order to justify their claim that SSM is equivalent to normal marriage.

 

Ultimately, the complementary relationship between a man and a woman in a healthy, committed (in the real sense of the word) marital relationship is something that cannot be matched by any other relationship. Hundreds of years of experience has shown that to be the case. If you don't think that's so, then you - not I - need to provide clear evidence that SSM provides that same complementary relationship.

 

I don't think that evidence exists. 

[jwhitlock]

I think perhaps a better-phrased question for jwhitlock may be, "Can you name ONE attribute that is UNIVERSALLY "male," or UNIVERSALLY "female"?

Of COURSE there will be differences when comparing ANY two relationships, speaking generally AND specifically. That's a strawman arguement, though.

The question really is, "Are any differences between male-male/female-female relationships and female-male relationships significant enough to justify the government reserving the civil designation of 'marriage' for one type of relationship, while refusing to grant it to the other two types of relationships?"

Over the last year, the answer by 32 judges over 18 legal challenges has been a resounding, "NO--such civil discrimination is NOT justifiable.":

 

 

No, I don't think that you can phrase the question any better.  Dismissing the clear differences between men and women as a "strawman argument" - without telling us why - begs the question of why the legal establishment cares so little about the real world to think those differences aren't significant. I would suggest that the legal establishment really doesn't have a clue anymore as to what discrimination really entails.  Otherwise they - and you and CB - wouldn't take stances concerning gender differences that are so unrealistic.