Don Hunter->The decision to procreate belongs to the individual- not the state. Thus, the state has no authority to issue procreation licenses. See Eisenstadt v. Baird (Unmarried people have a constitutional right to contraceptives and the state may not
interfere with that right).

Eisenstadt presumed it could be a legitimate interest of the state to deter premarital sex (fornication), but it rejected the idea that the state could also deny unmarried sex partners the right to choose contraceptives.

As follows:

To say that contraceptives...are to be forbidden to unmarried persons who will nevertheless persist in having intercourse, means that such persons must risk for themselves an unwanted pregnancy, for the child, illegitimacy, and, for society, a possible obligation of support ... .we consider that it conflicts with fundamental human rights....

Would it be rational for the law to force unmarried sex partners to maximize the risk of an unwed pregnancy?

The court thought that idea absurd and so it protected the right of the unmarried sex partners to choose contraception, but without saying unlicensed sex was a right, as you inferred.

Indeed, when the sheriff argued that singles have no right to have sex, the court did not reply by saying singles had that right.

Rather, the court allowed the challenge to stand and replied, instead, that giving contraceptives to singles was already allowed to prevent the spread of disease.

[The Sheriff] insists that the unmarried have no right to engage in sexual intercourse, and hence no health interest in contraception that needs to be served. The short answer to this contention is that the same devices...are available without any controls whatsoever so long as their asserted purpose is to prevent the spread of disease.

Its fairly clear the court saw a distinction between the state preventing unmarried sex, which the court allowed, and the state preventing singles from using contraceptives.

Here is another excerpt along that line:

<blockquote)
Even conceding the legislature a full measure of discretion in fashioning means to prevent fornication....we, like the Court of Appeals, cannot believe that [was the intent], in this instance...

Once again, the court presumed the state had the power to deter unmarried sex, but it distinguished that power from the power to deny contraceptives

And so, the issue was never about the right to have unlicensed sex.

It was whether people who engaged in unmarried sex, despite the law against it, had a right to choose to prevent pregnancy with contraceptives.

Don Hunter->If Lawrence stands for anything, it is that consenting adults don't need the government's permission to have sex in private. Thus, the government has no constitutional authority to issue sex licenses.

The scope of Lawrence is a matter of dispute even among experts. See , for example,the following articles:

6th Circuit on Morality-Based Law: Sorry, but ‘Lawrence v. Texas’ Hasn’t Changed Things

Will the Purposes Underlying Illinois Criminal Prohibitions of
Fornication and Adultery Survive After Lawrence v Texas?

However, there is no dispute that marriage protects and formally recognizes the right of a couple to have sex and procreate with each other at law.

Laws exist in several states that forbid sex between unmarried couples. I previously cited the law from Massachusetts as an example.

We know for certain that marriage will protect a couple from prosecution by such laws. This alone proves that marriage confers legal sexual rights.

We are uncertain, however, if Lawrence will protect them.

The Lawrence ruling said, for example, it would not apply to cases that would harm individuals or to cases that would "...abuse...an institution the law protects."

Unwed childbirth harms the family, harms marriage, harms children by depriving them of a secure and stable environment, harms society by increasing single parent homes, increasing welfare costs, increasing poverty, increasing juvenile delinquency, school drop outs, and a whole list of social ills.

Theoretically, where harm exists, Lawrence would not apply.

Lawrence puts a tough burden on the state to prove that harm exists, but that is different from saying citizens have the same right to sex outside of marriage as within marriage.

Sex and procreation s definitely protected by law within marriage, and that remains the essential point.

Don Hunter->The right to have sex is conferred by the other person's CONSENT to have sex-not the marriage license...See the marital rape exception, which was the law right up to the seventies and eighties: a husband could not be prosecuted for raping his wife because, as said, the marriage license was a license to have sex. .

Consensual sex between a couple is still licensed by marriage as it was before, even though non-consensual sex is not protected.

Also, its not simply a matter of consent. A married partner is not free to have consensual sex outside the marriage without committing adultery, which is still a crime in various states.

Thus, marriage legally recognizes an obligation to sexual fidelity, which presumes a right to have sex with one's partner is also recognized as well.

Significantly, in the past the marriage license was exactly as described- the husband had a right to have sex-regardless of whether the wife wanted to have sex. See the marital rape exception, which was the law right up to the seventies and eighties: a husband could not be prosecuted for raping his wife because, as said, the marriage license was a license to have sex. The marriage license conferred on him the right to have sex-be the wife willing or unwilling. The marital rape exception is no longer the law.

Individuals do not need a license to have sex. Nor do they need a license to procreate.

Adults do not need a marriage license in order to have sex. Adults do not need the government's permission-by obtaining a license- to have sex. Two adults have a right to have private, consensual sex-irrespective of a marriage license. See Lawrence v. Texas. The Court ruled that gay people- thus, certainly straight people- have a right to make their intimate decision between themselves. If Lawrence stands for anything, it is that consenting adults don't need the government's permission to have sex in private. Thus, the government has no constitutional authority to issue sex licenses.

The marriage license is not a license to procreate.
The decision to procreate belongs to the individual- not the state. Thus, the state has no authority to issue procreation licenses. See Eisenstadt v. Baird (Unmarried people have a constitutional right to contraceptives and the state may not interfere with that right). The majority opinion stated, "If the right of privacy means anything, it means the right of the INDIVIDUAL(emphasis added), married or single, to be free from unwarranted government intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision to bear or beget a child."

Do you really require a court to tell you what is as plain as the nose on your face? Hundreds, if not thousands of years of precedence make that fact obvious.

kieran->bman-I must have missed the court ruling that said procreation is tied directly to marriage. Must be in all of those laws that say you need to be married to have kids. Or that court ruling in MA that said that marriage was NOT tied to procreation

The history of marriage from common law times shows marriage has alway conferred a right to have sex with one's partner at law.

Sex outside of marriage (fornication) is still illegal in some states, as well, to include Massachusetts, as this excerpt shows:

MGL c.272, s. 18. Fornication.
Whoever commits fornication shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months or by a fine of not more than thirty dollars.

While many think such a law is no longer constitutional, at the very least such laws confirm that marriage would legally recognize a couple's right to have sex with each other.

Nor does this mean marriage "requires" procreation. Rather, marriage "formally recognizes" a couple's legal right to procreate with each other.

By analogy, its similar to a fishing license. It does not require you to catch fish but it formally recognizes your right to catch fish, or to try.

Just as a fishing license can be about "fishing" without requiring one to catch fish, a marriage license can be about procreation without requiring one procreate.

As for the Massachusetts Supreme Court Goodridge case, the majority of that court was on your side of the issue. However, the majority of high courts to consider the issue since 2003 have rejected a right to same-sex marriage based on the link between marriage and procreation contra that case.

I must have missed the court ruling that said procreation is tied directly to marriage. Must be in all of those laws that say you need to be married to have kids. Or that court ruling in MA that said that marriage was NOT tied to procreation

M. Jones->Bill, it is beyond reason to think a majority wants to see children deprived of a mother and father....

Bill->So M. Jones, how does that exactly work? When two people of the same sex get married a child is ripped away from its parents? Or is this just pure nonsense and the usual "can't be explained" gibberish from the anti crowd? Yep, it's the latter.

SSM can only beget children by a third party outside the marriage.

Once a child was born the child would be deprived of having a relationship with that parent because the parent is not part of the "marriage."

Thus, SSM can never provide a child with the security of having a married father and mother.

Yep, it's the latter.

kieran->So...the voters elected the senate to vote on legislation in their stead (the basic political theory behind America)...and Christie vows to veto it...and you are applauding him while condemning Iowa for more-or-less doing the same thing. It seems just a bit hypocritical to me.

That's just you being hyper-critical.

When representatives reflect the will of the people, the people approve.

Otherwise, the people disapprove.

When you call that hypocrisy it shows your expectations are inconsistent with reason.

As George Gilder has said: "...this whole idea of gay marriage is just a parody. It's an absurd concept."

Indeed.

And Randy E, the support for gay rights has been steadily climbing over the last 60+ years...I'd hardly call that having a "Shelf life"

Our system of government is supposed to be long and tedious in order to protect future generations from the whims of popular culture. Marriage corruption supporters know their popularity has a shelf life and they are desperate to codify their depravity into law before their time passes them by.

Marriage corruption supporters value their depravity over life itself.