is it unconstitutional to ban gay marriage?

[De Selby]

Except that I'm not arguing against gay marriage based on "reproductive ability."  I'm not arguing against gay marriage at all.  As I said some time ago, I am asking the other side to produce a good argument for gay marriage.  Until that happens, I have no need to argue against it. 

Unfortunately for you, the legal authority on this subject requires you (or people who want to ban gay marriage, anyway) to come up with the argument, not them.  If there's no good argument for discrimination against a practice that involves intimate relationships, institutionalized discrimination against that practice will not survive judicial review.  Simply asserting "there is no good argument for preventing gay people from marrying" would be good enough to justify a ruling that banning gay marriage were unconstitutional, if no good argument materalized on the other side.

I was responding, btw, to a post about reproduction and societal continuity when you chimed in with "that has nothing to do with it", so I was explaining the legal relevance of the point.  This is still a thread about whether or not it is constitutional to ban gay marriage, so I was making a point about the arguments so far cited as legal arguments.

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, no.  We were talking about why govt. recognizes marriage, in general. 

Please do not assume that I don't know the difference between theory and practice.  I am well aware that homosexual marriage will be demanded without any rational argument for it.  That is all too obvious.  What I will no longer do is take the bait of arguing against it, as this grants the pro-HM view more legitimacy than it deserves. 

[De Selby]

Actually, no.  We were talking about why govt. recognizes marriage, in general. 

Please do not assume that I don't know the difference between theory and practice.  I am well aware that homosexual marriage will be demanded without any rational argument for it.  That is all too obvious.  What I will no longer do is take the bait of arguing against it, as this grants the pro-HM view more legitimacy than it deserves. 

This makes sense-if the debate had been handled in public this way from the beginning, we might be dealing with different realities now.

[RaspberrySurprise]

The thing I have against making gay couples create a partnership contract is that it likely costs a good bit more than getting a marriage license and a trip to the courthouse.

[MechAg94]

The thing I have against making gay couples create a partnership contract is that it likely costs a good bit more than getting a marriage license and a trip to the courthouse.

Well that can be remedied with little or no opposition/argument from anyone.  You can probably do it on the state or local level as well. 

[Hugh Damright]

We don't want homosexual marriage so you call it "union" ... so we say we don't want homosexual marriage or union and you call it a "partnership" ... cut it out ... we do not condone buggery in Virginia, no matter what you call it.

[The Annoyed Man]

Well, it depends on what your view is on the role of the Constitution.

The founders were very specific in laying out what the government is allowed to do, what its duties are, etc. What the government is allowed to do is [supposed to be] very limited. The document is very broad in matters concerning freedoms reserved to the states and the people.

The issue of marriage does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the federal government shouldn't have a position for or against it. It is left to the states.

You could try fighting for a federal amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide; then again, we don't amend it for anything else these days.

[richyoung]

Here are the simple facts - society, through its government, ALREADY regulates marriage.

You have to be a certain age, (with parental consent, even older without it).
You have to be married to someone legally of the opposite gender.
You have to be unmarried at the time you get married.
Can't have multiple wives or husbands, can't marry animals, can't marry close relatives, can;t marry dead people.

If you want to CHANGE this, CHANGE society.

But you haven't yet....