[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

You've just implied that the state gets a "happy and stable" citizenry only if it legalized gay marriage.

I've implied rather that the same benefits and recognition that the state grants the heterosexual couple to assist in both stability and happiness would logically be implied with the homosexual couple.

I, as well, believe in the Republic, which is why your "happy and stable citizenry" argument was a bit of a red herring. Or at least, there is more to it than that.

It isn't a red herring because it isn't argued as the reason for recognizing the marriage. The contractual right and lack of secular objection is the argument. The state has no business or right to interfere in the lives of its citizens absent that compelling justification. "Icky" isn't one. Tradition, where the tradition is little more than a mask to rename the bias, isn't one. The social benefit of a stable and happy union is inarguably of benefit to the compact, but that's icing and a means to explain why the state might feel a vested interest in going further than mere recognition.

And, it has been justified.

Rather, some state courts have held a thing not evidenced in the framed law or controlling on a federal level, where this will be decided eventually. You want me to list the state opinions upholding separate but equal education for blacks? The majority of our states once held them. The same for laws against interracial marriage.You want a few quotes from high court's on that lovely notion?

If you have case law decisions made to the contrary......

Sure, but the state courts won't decide this. Here's one example, so as not to turn this into a cut and paste competition, of a case that runs contrary.


Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)

MARSHALL, C.J. Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

Apples and oranges, my friend.

A breezy dismissal, my friend, but no answer. If you're going to talk about expense as though it should determine or influence then I'm going to point out that your concern is peculiarly focused. Which leads one to the reasonable conclusion that it's less concern and more excuse--an attempt to use in support of negation what you would not argue in good conscience else.

I would honestly be eager to hear you make your case.

I've made it. Your response is tradition and/or seeing if you can't find a point where application of it might lead to something more universally reviled. Neither are really answers.

Every justification you have offered in defense of gay marriage can can be thrown right back at you for denying brothers and sisters from marrying, for denying adults with venereal diseases from marrying, or from denying people the right to marry multiple spouses.

And this is the thing you and these lower courts, relatively speaking, mostly miss: the state exists to serve the individual and not the individual to serve the state. The state should be required to justify the continuing existence and application of what is, to any serious consideration, nothing more or less than the stamp of religious and cultural bias. The same stamp that served to separate races from equality before the law. The same stamp that then limited the pursuit of happiness and exercise of freedom to the freed black.

Medical/genetic reasons? Marriage isn't tied to reproduction, remember?

I know. But in cases where reproduction is statistically likely the state has an interest in promoting the health and welfare of its citizenry.

[WizardofOz]

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I've implied rather that the same benefits and recognition that the state grants the heterosexual couple to assist in both stability and happiness would logically be implied with the homosexual couple.

You have yet to prove that the state's interest in regard to marriage is a "happy and stable" citizenry. I offered court decisions that offered no such rationale.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

It isn't a red herring because it isn't argued as the reason for recognizing the marriage.

We were discussing marriage when you said "The state recognizes the benefit of a happy and stable citizenry."

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

The contractual right and lack of secular objection is the argument. The state has no business or right to interfere in the lives of its citizens absent that compelling justification. "Icky" isn't one. Tradition, where the tradition is little more than a mask to rename the bias, isn't one.

I offered no such argument. It's one icky and traditional strawman.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

The social benefit of a stable and happy union is inarguably of benefit to the compact, but that's icing and a means to explain why the state might feel a vested interest in going further than mere recognition.

A married couple of opposite sex is the ideal. The state has a vested interest in promoting the ideal. "The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children."

-AND-

Procreation and child rearing are central to the constitutional protection given to marriage. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. - MN Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Rather, some state courts have held a thing not evidenced in the framed law or controlling on a federal level, where this will be decided eventually.

The burden was on the (homosexual) plaintiffs and their arguments have thus far been found wanting.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

You want me to list the state opinions upholding separate but equal education for blacks? The majority of our states once held them. The same for laws against interracial marriage.You want a few quotes from high court's on that lovely notion?

Let's stick to the topic, that being marriage. If you read these decisions, your latter concern was addressed:

"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." - MN Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Sure, but the state courts won't decide this.

You ultimately will be proved correct, but they should. "The appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question." - US Supreme Court

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Here's one example, so as not to turn this into a cut and paste competition, of a case that runs contrary.

Goodridge v. Mass. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003)

MARSHALL, C.J. Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support; it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples.

I am sure it will come down to the SCOTUS ruling on Perry v. Brown

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

A breezy dismissal, my friend, but no answer.

The government is charged with protecting life. The comparison fails there. Gay marriage is not a matter of protecting life. Your example is a fine display of how backwards we have become.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

If you're going to talk about expense as though it should determine or influence then I'm going to point out that your concern is peculiarly focused.

As is this focused critique in light of the overall argument.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Which leads one to the reasonable conclusion that it's less concern and more excuse--an attempt to use in support of negation what you would not argue in good conscience else.

In light of previously quoted court rulings, there is no compelling reason for the state to allow same-sex marriages. The financial burden is just another (unsaid by the state) argument in favor of defining marriage as one man and one woman, as the federal government did with DOMA.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I've made it. (There are strong medical/genetic reasons for objecting to those unions.)

And I rebutted it. You cannot in good faith claim that marriage rights are not tied to reproduction and then say that blood relatives or those with venereal disease should be barred from the right of marriage due to possible detrimental elements of hypothetical reproduction. Same-sex couples get the pass because they are incapable of reproduction?

You would bar a hetero with venereal disease from marriage but allow the homosexual to marry with the same disease? You would bar the brother from marrying the sister but not the brother from marrying the brother because they are incapable of reproduction?

Also, polygamous marriages were omitted from your argument.

What are the "strong medical/genetic reasons for objecting to" brother marrying brother or man marrying Jill and Jane?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

Your response is tradition

Other than citing previous court rulings, I have utilized no such argument.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

and/or seeing if you can't find a point where application of it might lead to something more universally reviled. Neither are really answers.

Like comparing gay marriage to equal education for blacks, interracial marriage or abortion?

It is absolutely reasonable to see if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage to redefine marriage would force us to reconsider other taboos like blood relatives marrying or like polygamous marriages or like allowing those with certain venereal diseases to marry. I am not comparing for shock value, I am comparing legitimately because your rationale should apply equally to other such cases.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

And this is the thing you and these lower courts, relatively speaking, mostly miss: the state exists to serve the individual and not the individual to serve the state.

Amen. How I missed this I am not sure.
The state does not serve the individual in an unlimited capacity, however, so to say they do is true but we're beyond such generalities.

The state, in this regard, does not serve the individual wanting to marry their sister or the individual with certain venereal disease in certain states, etc. Is this too an abrogation of some unsaid right?

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

I know. But in cases where reproduction is statistically likely the state has an interest in promoting the health and welfare of its citizenry.

"Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile."

These statistics would also obviously not apply to brother marrying brother. Either way, we're back to a discussion of a rule of conduct rife with exception.

[aCultureWarrior]

I love it when two homosexualists try to outdo each other.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

You have yet to prove that the state's interest in regard to marriage is a "happy and stable" citizenry.

No, it's a rationally implied interest, but it isn't my argument. Equality before the law would be the foundation of my argument.

I offered court decisions that offered no such rationale.

You offered decisions that however artfully comprised rest on the traditional notion of marriage. Like I said, many a state court once supported segregation and most a ban on interracial marriage. It happens.

I offered no such argument. It's one icky and traditional strawman.

Like the courts you note, a good part of your advance relies on the traditional notion of the marriage contract being one between two gender specific parties. But I agree that it isn't an argument.

A married couple of opposite sex is the ideal.

For a heterosexual, to be certain. But they can already be married in any jurisdiction.

The state has a vested interest in promoting the ideal.

The state does. It simply doesn't promote it sufficiently. It has left off a not inconsiderable portion of its population without any real, substantive explanation beyond the argument from religion or tradition. Neither of those are sufficient grounds to justify discrimination in the denial of the right of consenting adults to contract for a lawful purpose.

"The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children."

Rather, most people who marry have children. And most of those who marry are right handed, but no one would seriously advance the notiont that the marriage laws are built to ensure right handedness is promoted any more than they'd presume white people were the aim when most of those getting married were white.

Procreation and child rearing are central to the constitutional protection given to marriage. Childless heterosexual marriages presented no more than a theoretical imperfection, which doesn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment. - MN Supreme Court

That's irrational nonsense, whoever penned it. Theoretical? Not unless their aren't any.

The burden was on the (homosexual) plaintiffs and their arguments have thus far been found wanting.

Rather, the state courts, advancing religious and cultural bias under the banner of tradition and intent they infer reflectively have it wrong. The case I cited to has it right and that opinion will eventually prevail.

Let's stick to the topic, that being marriage.

Then rest on argument and not an appeal to authority by numbers, because that necessitates me noting the near uniform failure of state courts on other issues with civil rights questions at their core.

If you read these decisions, your latter concern was addressed:

"in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex." - MN Supreme Court

It's been noted. The court is in error.

The government is charged with protecting life. The comparison fails there. Gay marriage is not a matter of protecting life. Your example is a fine display of how backwards we have become.

Well that's stuff and nonsense. You want to talk about the expense of one thing where you wouldn't apply it else. The government is charged with any number of things, including the right of its citizens to exercise their rights in equal standing before the law, to not be the victims of arbitrary and particular religious bias even as it upholds the right to it.

Backwards...you stand with the thinking that gave us separate but equal and say that with a straight face? Horsefeathers.

And I rebutted it. You cannot in good faith claim that marriage rights are not tied to reproduction...

I absolutely can. I've even given you illustration via the elderly, the willfully childless and the barren and noted how the law could have been easily fashioned to recoup the benefits given those married were that the point. Both the silence on that point AND the particularity of the law actually relating to the consideration on benefits for those with children (tax benefits exclusively for them) speak to my point.

and then say that blood relatives or those with venereal disease should be barred from the right of marriage due to possible detrimental elements of hypothetical reproduction.

Sure I can. I can say the law obviously recognizes the benefits of children and the likelihood of their production and the certainty of relations and in that consideration protects the state interests for healthy and productive citizens and minimizes the potential for burden on the state or the knowing harm of another.

You would bar a hetero with venereal disease from marriage but allow the homosexual to marry with the same disease?

Actually I don't know of a single jurisdiction that prohibits you from marrying because you have venereal disease, so no. A number of jurisdictions (possibly every and all that I'm aware of) require you to inform your potential spouse of any sexually transmissible diseases. It's part of disclosure that goes to the informed nature of the contract.

You would bar the brother from marrying the sister but not the brother from marrying the brother because they are incapable of reproduction?

I'm pretty sure I haven't argued any point on that issue. And it's time to take your own advice and stay on the topic instead of seeing what margin you can attempt to color this with by association.

Also, polygamous marriages were omitted from your argument.

Likely because I'm not arguing over the issue. Supra.

What are the "strong medical/genetic reasons for objecting to" brother marrying brother or man marrying Jill and Jane?

Significant birth defects, but you're right. I'm straying (in the sense that someone being pulled by their leg outside of a circle) from the point of our contention.

Other than citing previous court rulings, I have utilized no such argument.

Yes, other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, the play was a rousing success.

Like comparing gay marriage to equal education for blacks, interracial marriage or abortion?

Only in noting the propensity of low courts to get important issues wrong or in illustration of a common principle of law.

It is absolutely reasonable to see if your rationale for allowing same-sex marriage to redefine marriage would force us to reconsider other taboos

No, it isn't. Either the argument is sound or it isn't. The linkage to fringe considerations, ones more universally repugnant serves one purpose. Else, what are the numbers of those brothers and sisters? Those oddly untreated sufferers of venereal disease? How utterly exceptional would the consideration be? I suspect both of us understand the answer just as we both understand the infinitesimal impact were the argument applied successfully on their behalf. No jeopardy attaches to the state and that's not the point of attempting to drag them into consideration again and again and you know it.

Amen. How I missed this I am not sure.
The state does not serve the individual in an unlimited capacity,

Right, but we aren't talking about the limits, but about preferential treatment and discriminatory practice without justification save the wrapping of bias in the robes of tradition given no harm to the compact has been set forth for our consideration given the extension of state recognition and no justification for abrogating the rights of these individuals meeting the requirements to enter into contract to do so.

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I love it when two homosexualists try to outdo each other.

And I'm always happy to see the loutish and unconsidered self-marginalize the value of their "opinions". So way to go you.

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally Posted by Real Sorceror

Actually, bro, a sodomite is anyone who has had any sexual interaction besides "missionary style". That covers a looot of things. By the classic definition, most heterosexual married couples are sodomites.

When you say "classic defintion", you're of course using a definition used by your fellow atheists.

On the otherhand, if you followed the Bible, you'd see the phrase:

"The marriage bed is undefiled".
Hebrews 13:4

http://www.christian-marriage-today....riage-bed.html

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
I love it when two homosexualists try to outdo each other.

Originally Posted by Town Heretic

And I'm always happy to see the loutish and unconsidered self-marginalize the value of their "opinions". So way to go you.

God's word on human sexuality and marriage is hardly an "opinion".

While I can barely stomach looking at your and Ralphie's posts, I have to admit, Ralphie is doing a fairly decent job of pretending that he's against sexual deviants 'marrying'.

Anytime you're ready, the post is still here waiting for your (or Ralphie's) response.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums...5&postcount=88

(Pssssst, Ralphie. When you copy my posts use my terms correctly. The state has a compelling interest in traditional marriage, not vested).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compelling?s=t
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vested?s=t

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

God's word on human sexuality and marriage is hardly an "opinion".

A good thing I didn't say it was then.

But I know God. I walk with God. I've read His book. And you sir--you are not God.

While I can barely stomach looking at your and Ralphie's posts,

You remind me of the little old woman complaining about the filth on the television she remains glued to.

Anytime you're ready, the post is still here waiting for your (or Ralphie's) response.

I didn't see much substance in it and what was there was being covered in other posts. So I didn't see the point.

(Pssssst, Ralphie. When you copy my posts use my terms correctly. The state has a compelling interest in traditional marriage, not vested).

It does. It has a vested interest in any stable union. It has an obligation to preserve right against arbitrary discrimination. But the compelling interest is usually associated with the reason for abrogating and not the reason for failing to.

[Angel4Truth]

Originally Posted by Real Sorceror

Actually, bro, a sodomite is anyone who has had any sexual interaction besides "missionary style". That covers a looot of things. By the classic definition, most heterosexual married couples are sodomites.

You are wholly incorrect. The actual and 'classic' definition is simply one who engages in sodomy.

The actual and classic definition and meaning of sodomy can be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Modern definitions are those that include sexual activity between a male and female, early ones and original did no such thing.

[Granite]

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

You are wholly incorrect. The actual and 'classic' definition is simply one who engages in sodomy.

The actual and classic definition and meaning of sodomy can be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Modern definitions are those that include sexual activity between a male and female, early ones and original did no such thing.

Yet another Christian with Gay on the Brain. Why don't you find a hobby other than homophobia? It's boring, and, frankly, a little disconcerting to see ostensibly straight Christians so obsessed with the sex lives of others.

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
God's word on human sexuality and marriage is hardly an "opinion".

A good thing I didn't say it was then.

But I know God. I walk with God. I've read His book. And you sir--you are not God.

Yet I have a clear understanding of Scripture when it comes to God's word on human sexuality and marriage. Perhaps you can show me where I'm wrong counselor?

Quote:
While I can barely stomach looking at your and Ralphie's posts,

You remind me of the little old woman complaining about the filth on the television she remains glued to.

Yeah, kinda like those men and women that picket outside of baby butcher mills, right? Why don't we all just ignore evil and and let those that promote it have their way.


Quote:
Anytime you're ready, the post is still here waiting for your (or Ralphie's) response.

I didn't see much substance in it and what was there was being covered in other posts. So I didn't see the point.

(That's shyster talk for "Even this lawyer knows when he can't win an argument, so it's best that I not try.")


Quote:
(Pssssst, Ralphie. When you copy my posts use my terms correctly. The state has a compelling interest in traditional marriage, not vested).

It does. It has a vested interest in any stable union. It has an obligation to preserve right against arbitrary discrimination. But the compelling interest is usually associated with the reason for abrogating and not the reason for failing to.

Any stable union, or just the one's that the left deem worthy?

"Any" covers quite a wide variety of (perverted) relationships counselor.

Perhaps you'd like to retrack that statement before we continue?

[dave3712]

Originally Posted by The Horn

I recently found this on Facebook, and it's a blast !

!0 Reasons To Ban Gay Marriage.

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning .

2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way
that hanging around tall people will make you tall .

3. Legalizing gay marriage will open up the door to all kinds of
crazy behavior . People may even wish to marry their own pets
because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage
docuiment.

4. Straight marriage has been around a long time an dhasn't changed
at all ; women arre still property and blacks can't marry whites
and divorce is still illegal .

5. Straight marriage will be less meaninfgul if gay marriage were allowed ; the sanctity of Britney Spears 55-hour just-for-fun
'marriage would be destroyed .

6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
Gay couples, infertile couples and old people shouldn't be allowed
to marry because our orphanages aren't full and the world
needs more children .

7. Obvioulsy, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight
parents only raise straight children .

8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are
imposed on the entire country . That's why we have
only one religion in America .

9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female
role model at home. That's why we as a society
expressly forbid single parents to raise children .

10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society ;
we could never adapt to new social norms .
Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector
economy , or longer lofe spans .




LOL ! LOL ! LOL ! LOL !

Christian unions need avoid the term marriage today because these are all civil unions and not conguent with what was previously referred to as marriage.
Christians need to raise their children to understand a wedding, the ceremony and all the things parents will do for such a uniuon between their children and the children of other chriatian families is based up virginity before the wedding and divorce only for adultery.


What the Gays want is what now is called marriage, and it includes up to 14 years of promiscuous sexual behaviors until age 26 and a option for No Fault Divorce.
The Gay are properly identifying a ceremony and ritual which is more atuned and derived from their sub culture that it is the christians social property.

[Real Sorceror]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

When you say "classic defintion", you're of course using a definition used by your fellow atheists.

On the otherhand, if you followed the Bible, you'd see the phrase:

"The marriage bed is undefiled".
Hebrews 13:4

http://www.christian-marriage-today....riage-bed.html

Dictionary.com is an atheist website? I somehow doubt that.

Originally Posted by Angel4Truth

You are wholly incorrect. The actual and 'classic' definition is simply one who engages in sodomy.

The actual and classic definition and meaning of sodomy can be read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodomy

Modern definitions are those that include sexual activity between a male and female, early ones and original did no such thing.

Why are you so willing to trust Wikipedia here and not when I referenced it in the Obama thread?

Still, you two might be correct and I'm willing to admit when I'm mistaken.

[Real Sorceror]

Originally Posted by dave3712

Christian unions need avoid the term marriage today because these are all civil unions and not conguent with what was previously referred to as marriage.
Christians need to raise their children to understand a wedding, the ceremony and all the things parents will do for such a uniuon between their children and the children of other chriatian families is based up virginity before the wedding and divorce only for adultery.


What the Gays want is what now is called marriage, and it includes up to 14 years of promiscuous sexual behaviors until age 26 and a option for No Fault Divorce.
The Gay are properly identifying a ceremony and ritual which is more atuned and derived from their sub culture that it is the christians social property.

Marriage and wedding ceremonies do not belong to Christians. They predate Christianity and exist in just about every culture. Even atheists like myself have weddings and get married.

And what the heck are you talking about with "14 years of promiscuous behavior"? Are you suggesting married people aren't faithful nowadays?

[mighty_duck]

Originally Posted by WizardofOz

A married couple of opposite sex is the ideal. The state has a vested interest in promoting the ideal.

For a homosexual, the ideal situation is a homosexual marriage. This allows them all the benefits and support of a single loving spouse that they are mentally and physically in sync with.

If the state is not promoting this ideal, it is implicitly promoting promiscuity, celibacy/solitude or marriages without physical attraction - all of which are problematic for the individual, and as a result are bad for society as a whole.

[Town Heretic]

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

...God's word on human sexuality and marriage is hardly an "opinion".

But your opinion is.

Yet I have a clear understanding of Scripture when it comes to God's word on human sexuality and marriage. Perhaps you can show me where I'm wrong counselor?

Were we arguing old testament law that would be a point. We aren't.

Yeah, kinda like those men and women that picket outside of baby butcher mills, right?

No. Nothing like. They're trying to save lives and there are arguments against that practice irrespective of religious views on the subject.

Why don't we all just ignore evil and and let those that promote it have their way.

Find an argument and take a swing. Else, the only difference between you and the fellow calling for Sharia law is a disagreement over dogma.

(That's shyster talk for "Even this lawyer knows when he can't win an argument, so it's best that I not try.")

Well, that's one way to get a compliment, I suppose. Otherwise, I said what I said and I meant exactly that.

[The state] has a vested interest in any stable union. It has an obligation to preserve right against arbitrary discrimination. But the compelling interest is usually associated with the reason for abrogating and not the reason for failing to.

Any stable union, or just the one's that the left deem worthy?

Go ask them. I'm not arguing for them. And the notion that absent a compelling interest the state has no business abrogating right is a fairy prized one among conservative philosophy.

"Any" covers quite a wide variety of (perverted) relationships counselor.

Any isn't every. It's a case by case examination.

Perhaps you'd like to retrack that statement before we continue?

Perhaps you'd like to advance a coherent argument that justifies the state abrogating contract in this consideration.