Marriage Supporter,
Moments ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit handed down a sweeping ruling striking down California’s Proposition 8 and—for the first time ever—finding a "right" to same-sex marriage in the United States Constitution!
This sets up an all-or-nothing showdown at the United States Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court victory would preserve the marriage laws of 44 states, denying same-sex marriage radicals in their campaign to force gay marriage on the entire nation in one fell swoop.
But if we lose at the Supreme Court, marriage will be jeopardized not just in California, but in all 50 states.
Marriage Supporter, we need you now more than ever.
I am confident we will win when this case finally receives a hearing at the Supreme Court. But the costs of litigating a Supreme Court case will run into the millions of dollars over the next year. The cert petition alone (asking the Supreme Court to hear the case) will likely cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare. Our opponents will throw everything they have at this case—all of the resources they can bring to bear from the Hollywood elites and the gay billionaires like Tim Gill and John Striker who fund their cause.
We MUST have the resources to put on the best possible defense. And that is why NOM is so committed to helping fund the legal defense of Prop 8 and defend marriage laws all across the country. We have already given over $300,000 to help defend Prop 8 in court.
In the next week, we need to raise at least $100,000 online to immediately assist with the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Your donation is tax-deductible and will be kept confidential. Whether you can give $10,000, $1,000, $100 or $10, we need your help today! Every penny you give will go directly toward the Prop 8 legal expenses.
This is it. This is the whole ball game. If we lose here, the laws in 44 states defending marriage will crumble and we CANNOT let that happen!
So please make an urgent, generous gift today to defend marriage in the Supreme Court.
Thank you in advance and God bless you!
Sincerely,
Brian S. Brown
Executive Director
NOM Education Fund
P.S. Please do not delay. We need the funds right away to get the appeal underway. We have 7 days to raise as much money as we can. WE CAN WIN THIS FIGHT! But only if you stand with us.
Please stand by us in this fight by making an urgent, online, tax-deductible gift to the NOM Legal Defense Fund today.
74 Comments
Oh, dear, Brian.
Marriage is not jeopardized anywhere by this decision. Straight people who wish to marry will still do so, and will get all the rights and protections they have always had.
And now, gay people who wish to do so will have the same rights in California, and soon the rest of the country.
This is a very good thing.
Brian, you'd better get to work on repealing the Constitution. Otherwise your movement's not going anywhere...
Thank you, NOM!
"Straight people who wish to marry will still do so, and will get all the rights and protections they have always had."
Actually, this is inaccurate. Presumption of paternity will be jeopardized, hurting women, and paternity rights can be questioned, hurting men. So much for protection in marriage.
Worst case scenario... what do we do if the Supreme Court upholds this decision? What is the next step?
Daughter of Eve, presumption of paternity can actually HARM praternity rights. Take this case ofr example:
http://singleparents.about.com/b/2007/03/08/the-presumption-of-paternity.htm
We would be much better off without presumption of paternity. I can't see how knowing the father of a child hurts women (or men).
@Daughter of Eve,
The argument over what the appropriate way to handle presumption of paternity et al is is not the same as the argument re whether or not the unions of same-sex couples can be treated differently under the law.
If you are concerned about PoP being handled in a particular way, then by all means fight that fight, but either the restrictions prop 8 and co are trying to set are constitutional or they're not, and arguments on either side need to stand or fall on their own merits. Your concerns about related issues do not affect the constitutionality of this one.
Mderator,
Thank you for posting our comment.
Daughter of Lies and Delusion,
Whatsoever are you seriously suggesting homosexuals marrying another homosexuals of the same sex has to do with anyone's paternity. And by that, I'm referring to paternity issues that have NEVER arrisen in heterosexual married couples.
Prop. 8 was constitutional; it's permissible for the citizens of a state to vote to make changes to their own Constitution.
Prop. 8 wasn't a ban on "gay marriage;" it was a reaffirmation that marriage is the public union of man and a woman, regardless of the individual sexual orientation of either.
"I can't see how knowing the father of a child hurts women (or men)."
It doesn't--it protects them.
By "everything hangs in the balance" do you mean your cushy job?
@Daughter of Eve
"Prop 8 was constitutional"
Well, I suppose that remains to be seen. For now, at least, the courts disagree with you. Specifically, the amendment was found to violate the existing rights to due process and equal protection. Disagree if you will, but you don't get to just assert it to be constitutional because you think it should be.
@LGBTAMERICA
Can I request that we have these conversations without resorting to name-calling? It really doesn't do anyone any favors, IMO.
Daughther of Eve, presumption of paternity can result in not knowing who the real father is.
Also, it has nothing to do with this case.
How about a vote about a constitutional amendment about prohibiting churches, or women to vote or the legalize pedophilia.
As we go with NOM all of these would be legal and correct if a majority would vote for it!
Barb,
I suggest you read the ruling.
Before Prop 8, all CA state residents had a civil right to obtain a marriage license regardless of the sex of each of the applicants.
Prop 8 stripped away the rights of a minority (people who wished to marry someone of the same gender) without a compelling governmental reason to do so.
It followed the same reasoning of Romer (struck down as unconstitutional by the USSC.
Following on @CuriousGeorge's comment, here's a copy of the ruling: http://s3.amazonaws.com/nytdocs/docs/450/450.pdf
DoE: PoP is a ridiculous argument. Do you see the following happening across America?
Wife: Honey, I'm pregnant.
Husband: Well, since Bob and Jim from down the street got married, how do I KNOW I'm the father?
Wife: You're right. I just presumed it was you. But now I must ASSume it. Let's call Maury.
"presumption of paternity can result in not knowing who the real father is."
Well, that is true, but most of the time, the baby belongs to the husband of his wife, granting her automatic legal rights to expect his support. Less govt. interference and more paternal responsibility.
You are right, this case is not directly about this issue, but this issue is fundamentally affected by the redefinition of marriage.
LGBTAMERICA said, "Daughter of Lies and Delusion,..."
Ya know, I decided a long time ago, that it lies easier on my conscience and on my character to be the one called derogatory names, rather than to be the kind of person who does the intentionally hurtful name calling.
You have a good afternoon.
CuriousGeorge,there is no compelling governmental reason for marriage to exist,except as a means of enforcing critically necessary preferential treatment of opposite-sex over same-sex sexual relationships.The public interest is irreparably harmed by the treatment of the latter as if they were of no lesser worth to society than the former!!
This was a horrible decision but I was at least a bit encouraged that there was a dissenting judge, Randy Smith. This is a reminder that there are still common sense judges out there. Let's hope and pray that if and when it arrives at SCOTUS, we'll get a majority of the votes!!
Its good to know that democracy only matters if the left wills it. Fellow americans, we have no voice in this country as this court confirmed
I implore my fellow.americans here to voice their dissent and get the states to call for a convention to amend the federal marraige amendment.
Even if "stripping" a group "of a benefit" could somehow be decided independently of whether "the question of the constitutionality of a state's ban on same-sex marriage", the following ruling from the Supreme Court provides a rational basis.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890), quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)
The post is sensational in calling the ruling "sweeping." It is written narrowly, and would appear to apply only to California if affirmed by Scotus. The use of such verbiage may be good for fund raising, but it is dishonest.
@Michael Ejercito
...are you really sure you want to go back to 1885 standards of marriage? Does your wife?
Even if you do, a simple assertion of a connection between heterosexual-only marriage and the stability of the country, no matter who makes it, is not the same thing as a "rational basis".
So far I can't find anyone who thinks the ruling is well reasoned...so it looks like the 9th circuit is sticking with it's tradition of being the most overturned Federal Court in the US.
For a really excellent and easily readable analysis of the Court's decision, please enjoy the following:
"9th Circuit Court Summary on California Marriage Amendment"
Posted by The Playful Walrus
http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2012/02/9th-circuit-court-summary-on-california.html
Judge Reinhardt turns 81 next month.How many career reversals will he retire with?
"Judge Reinhardt turns 81 next month.How many career reversals will he retire with?"
At least one more
When reminded that he is the most reversed jurist in American history Reinhardt replied:
"They can't catch them all"
"The panel majority determined that in taking away the designation of “marriage,” while leaving in place all the substantive rights and responsibilities of same-sex partners, Proposition 8 could not have reasonably been enacted to promote childrearing by biological parents, to encourage responsible procreation, to proceed with caution in social change, to protect religious liberty, or to control the education of schoolchildren."
So in other words *if* a state passes CU or DP then there is no rational to not redefine marriage.
Whoa! Are they actually saying the slippery slope argument is correct?
And this ruling does not want to address the question of a US Constitutional right to ssm, but limits it to California.
Brad
Why would the supreme court overule its own precedent on point in Bake v Nelsonr...plus every SCOTUS precedent on marriage?
You are misreading Supreme Court case law on the subject of marriage: and making the same mistake the New York Court points out in its recent decision. Discussing the Supreme Court precedents of Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)
Judge Graffeo noted….
“To ignore the meaning ascribed to the right to marry in these cases and substitute another meaning in its place is to redefine the right in question and to tear the resulting new right away from the very roots that caused the U.S. Supreme Court and this Court to recognize marriage as a fundamental right in the first place.”2
2 - Andersen v. King County (J. Graffeo concurring)
So would the 9th Circuit,by its own reasoning,be more inclined to uphold an initiative that took away the designation of "marriage" AND reduced the rights allowed to certain domestic partners?
it is not accurate to say a SCOTUS win would change all 50 states. This ruling is narrow and focuses on California. Being upheld by SCOTUS would not change that fact.
It is also not accurate to say a "right" to same sex marriage was found. This ruling deals with due process and equal protection.
I think this is an expected and good thing - what we would expect of Reinheart from his previous comments on the subject, and acting as head Judge, because he knows that it will get to the Supreme Court, and therefore affect all States of the Union. "Rights of a minority"? What about the "Rights of the Mayority"? -- I tell you, as long as the Democrats are in power, this type of thing will happen -- they buy votes by offering our tax money to minorities and the poor. As long as they can keep the number of poor and uneducated great, they can stay in power.
Not just California.
Hawaii (because its marriage amendment denied same-sex couples the protections of strict scrutiny in challenging denials of marriage), Washington, Illinois, Rhode Island, Nevada, Oregon (because they all have civil unions/domestic partnerships)
Yes.
Done.
This will stop.
Daughter of Whatever Fairytale,
My representation of you uses words that are not derogatory. The information you submit is not true, hence lies, and the perspective from which you draw and premise your wish of how you's like things to be does, in fact, delineate delusion, and further more, it as well smacks of a decent dose of good old denial. No use of derogatory terms. Nice try at claiming you've been wronged by those who called you on your decision they are less worthy and deserving of the same legal protections and benefits as you. Anything else?
@LGBTAMERICA
Seriously. Not helping. And I'm saying this as someone who is on "your side" on this issue.
Everyone here thinks they're right. People who call pro-marriage-equality folks liars, evil, degenerates, whatever, think that all of those things are true. Neither their nor your belief that a derogatory statement is true keeps it from being derogatory, so how about we all just try to maintain the level of respect we would like from the other side and make our cases without personal attacks?
@ Michael Ejercito
I'm not sure it would necessarily apply to all those states. Did all of them both 1) already have legalized gay marriage that was then nixed by voters and 2) already have a law that allows for gay partnerships?
I know Washington is in an analogous situation, but what about Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, Nevada, and Oregon? I'm actually not sure, but you seem to know a lot about this, so you'd probably be better to ask than me.
@Fitz
Well, for one thing SCOTUS has overturned its self before when hindsight showed previous rulings to have been unjust. The language of the 1885 ruling also explicitly includes "for life", so does your reasoning extend to a belief that SCOTUS should strike down legal divorce if challenged? Or was that redefinition of marriage ok?
Common law traditionally requires consummation of a marriage for it to be valid. 2 men or 2 women cannot do this, as consummation is sexual intercourse. The hardware simply isn't present for this prerequisite to be fulfilled.
Well, in this case Brad; SCOTUS will have to overturn over two hundred years of guiding precedence, the laws of nature, and natures God.
Not going to happen
@Randy King
Like they did with Loving vs Virginia?
Btw - indoor plumbing and air conditioning are also against "the laws of nature"
@ken
"consummation" of marriage is found no where in civil marriage law in the US. Please point to any reference that states so. And even if it did exist - no court in the nation would uphold it.
Brad
"Marriage is one of the basic rights of man; fundemental to our very existance and survival"
Skinner v Oklohoma & Loving v Virginia.
The court cannot overule a right on its core understanding. It would be like callin the right to bear arms & redfining arms to mean "down pillows"
Or the "right to religion" to mean folllowing the dictates of Mormonism
Or the rights to Abortion is secure except it abortion is now defined as the duty to carry your child to term.
FYI Yoshi:
Loving v Virginia was decided on the unequal application of the law; whereas anglo's were the only one's not allowed to marry outside their race.
Indoor plumbing and air conditioning do not violate the laws of nature; they are dependent upon them.
That was the Supreme Court talking.
In case you have not noticed, lower courts must abide by Supreme Court precedents, including Davis . And that holding in Davis was never overruled.
Randy, you.re simply wrong about Loving being decided on the basis of unequal application of the law. I know that lots of people claim this, but read the decision and pay special attention to footnote 11, which explicitly disavows what you're arguing.
Congratulations to California and America!
What a huge leap forward for us all! Great day for the history books.
Tam,
A lot of people claim this because a lot of people know it to be true. You must take the ruling in its entirety and not just the one word you think gives your argument merit when taken out of context.
If you are interested in context you have come to the right place; if you came in here believing your mis-information campaign would grow legs you are sadly mistaken.
It's almost amusing - but actually really sad - to see so many people in here trying to justify this unconstitutional decision. Even the most diehard liberal, in their heart of hearts knows that this was a wrong decision, according to the US Constitution.
But one of the strongest messages we can send to the US Supreme Court and the whole 9th Circuit, for that matter, is strong voter turnouts in opposition to SSM at the ballot box. Let's pass the gay marriage ban in NC and MN and reject it in ME, WA and anywhere else the liberals decide to try to reject the will of the people.
“Marriage licenses are issued by the state, not the church. No religion is necessary for a marriage to be legal or recognized. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia states that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Well said Mr. Mcgoo; and no rational human-being would ever contend that our very existence and survival will ever be dependent upon perverts rubbing their reproductive organs against each other.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 at 344, 345 (1890), quoting Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 at 45 (1885)
Skooter McGoo,
the right to marriage must be understood in the context of "marriage" involving the union of male to female.There is no right to call anything that fails to do this a marriage.
@Fitz
You didn't answer my question. Given that the "core understanding" of marriage has included, as explicitly stated in the 1885 decision people keep quoting, that it is a union for life, do you extend this line of reasoning to say that SCOTUS should not uphold the legality of divorce? If not, what makes that deviation from a core understanding of the past ok? If so, well... when the founding fathers said "all men are created equal", they didn't actually mean all men, let alone all people. That's changed, and it was a good thing. Sometimes the understandings of the past are best left there.
Reading about this ruling, I can not help but notice its similarity to another ruling, Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning, 368 F.Supp.2d 980 (D. Neb. 2005) It was the first court ruling to strike down a state marriage amendment on U.S. Constitutional grounds. Like this ruling, Citizens for Equal Protection did not decide whether “definition of marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman” violated the Constitution. id. at 997 It relied heavily on Romer. e.g., id. at 1001-1002 It found that “that Section 29 is indistinguishable from the Colorado constitutional amendment at issue in Romer” It found that “that Section 29 was designed against the class it affects, making it status-based”id. at 1002 “Section 29 goes so far beyond defining marriage that the court can only conclude that the intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus against this class” id. It held that “[p]laintiffs were denied access to the legislative process that is afforded to all citizens of the State of Nebraska.” id. at 1003
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit overturned this ruling on the basis that “[i]f the many state laws limiting the persons who may marry are rationally related to a legitimate government interest, so is the reinforcing effect of § 29.” 455 F.3d 859 at 868 (8th Cir. 2006)
One portion of the district court ruling that was not overruled was the opinion that “[i]n other words, preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a relationship involving a man and a woman, and an eventual recognition of expanded rights in the nature of those extended in other states to domestic partners or civil unions are not mutually exclusive.” 368 F.Supp.2d at 1004 By contrast, the Ninth Circuit ruling implied that “preserving the traditional definition of marriage as a relationship involving a man and a woman” and “expanded rights in the nature of those extended in other states to domestic partners or civil unions” are mutually exclusive.
You do realize that if this goes to the US Supreme Court and the SC end up agreeing with Walker and the 9th Circuit that this ruling would then become precedent for every court case and law in America.
Right now it has only become precedent for a handful of states like Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, and a few others.
I am pretty certain that if taken to the US Supreme Court that they will agree with Walker and the 9th circuit, because its just true. Do you think someone who has been charged with upholding indiscriminate, free, just, and equal laws for all is going to rule in favor of a law that excludes and harms an entire minority?
You are losing support, morale, and dignity by continuing to push this case. In Christianity, marriage is between a man and a woman but christianity is not the law.
You will have a better chance arguing to the Supreme Court that since Marriage is a religious function, it does not belong in our legal system. If the idea of homosexuals marrying is that harmful to you, then fight to remove marriage from the constitution
Gay Marriage in California, ironically, was legalized 6 months after my boyfriend, someone I very deeply admired and loved, was forced to move back to his country because his visa expired. That was a devastating loss for me. The timing was even more tragic. Marriage came just moments too late, and before I could do anything about it, they already stopped it to introduce Prop 8.
This was the first time in my life I ever thought about myself getting married, the first time I wanted and needed it's protections. I didn't want it for the recognition, I didn't want it just to rub it in straight people's faces. I wanted it, and needed it, to protect my relationship with a person that meant a great deal to me, a person who helped me survive and live and love.
Take the gender out of your relationship for a moment. If you truly love someone, then marriage becomes very real and imortant for them. If you understood this, there is no way you can sit there and say 2 people who love each other cannot get married.
What most likely hangs in the balance is this presidential election, if we ever have any hope to save marriage. Democratic appointed activist judges must go.
few things I noticed in the 9th cir. opinion:
1 - they ignore the fact that DOMA is a valid federal law.
2 - they ignore the fact that the "right to marry" stems from natural law in the SCOTUS precedents. Not un-natural law.
3 - they ignore the fact that Griswold v. Connecticut is about conception, not about two people who will never ever conceive with each other.
4 - they ignore the fact that their re-definition of marriage by judicial legislation may itself violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause in that it forces not merely a limitation on recognition, but an affirmative definition of marriage to be mandated by case law.
SC Guy: the only message you would be sending the courts if we successfully repeal gay marriage in those states and vote NO, would be that gays and lesbians are a class unable to protect itself and thus need judicial protections. The courts and the Supreme Court are far more likely to extend suspect classification to them and it's then game over for opponents of same-sex marriage.
Leviticus Judge Walker from the original ruling was appointed by Ronald Reagan and is still considered conservative.
Actually Nick, what it would prove is that the arguments for SSM just aren't convincing.
Michael M,
desire (of whatever cause) to engage in a behavior can not constitute someone as part of a proctected class entitled to defy public policy disadvantaging that behavior.Homosexuals are no more "harmed" by their indulgence of their same-sex attraction incurring deserved penalties than alcoholics are harmed by pressure to remain sober and repercussions if they fall off the wagon.Their needs happen not to coincide with their desires...their desires are not "rights" entitled to "equality" with the wiser desires of others.
Friends don't let friends start or stay in same-sex sexual relationships,or treat homosexuals as too stupid to learn that their desires make no difference to the fact that in a species with two sexes,all failures to adhere to the norm of sexual relationships only ever being opposite-sex are deplorable and unfortunate.
The exclusion does not arise from a purpose to discriminate, but from other reasons.
Dean v. District of Columbia, 653 A.2d 307 at 361 (D.C. Ct. of App. 1995) (J. Terry, concurring)
Dean, 653 A.2d at 363 (J. Steadman, concurring)
Great post Michael E. as the opponents have no argument against you. DOE you are of course right and that is why you are getting the personal attacks.
CL in post #62 the Ninth Circuit ignored the most important ruling of all and I posted it in the previous blog.
Michael Erjecito,
"The exclusion does not arise from a purpose to discriminate, but from other reasons"
What are these other reasons? Give me a good reason why 2 people who love each other should not receive the protections of marriage?
Randy, et. al.
Homosexuality IS natural, it is seen throughout nature and is very likely intentional and relevant to the survival of a species, the details of which I won't get into here.
Furthermore marriage being fundamental to our very existence and survival, stems from the idea of people coming together for the good of each other and our families. Procreation will always happen regardless of marriage. But the human species has thrived and survived by coming together for the common good, the basic unit of this idea being one's immediate loved ones and family. This has nothing to do with procreation, but mutual care and support for each other, and where aplicable ones family, which many gay couples do in fact have.
Therefore your contention that marriage is based on are very existence and survival
Hit button too early.
Therefore your contention that marriage is related to our very existence and survival, is actually based on mutual support not procreation.
By the way, folks, when you ask someone a question, they answer, and you don't FEEL like they answered your question, or every part of it, or if you FEEL confused by something they said it is quite the stretch to say "you didn't answer my question", as opposed to, say, "I don't feel like you answered my question" or "I don't feel like your answered the part of my question about...". They DID answer your question- be more specific. (You DO have a brain, right?) That might as well be dismissive or a deflection just because YOU don't see it as being pertinent (or want to admit to it being pertinent).
Also, it is not conducive to having a constructive discussion to tell someone, when you don't THINK that person used a quote in context, "you took that out of context", and not make your own argument about the situation or what the person meant by what they said; if you're not going to make an argument of your own, you might as well be wrong, yourself. (Just like going to a gun fight with no gun- or knife, for that matter; you lose by default!) That, too, might as well be dismissive or a deflection just because YOU don't see it as being accurate (or want to admit to it being accurate).
Try to demonstrate some wisdom, thoughtfulness, and honesty, the lot of you. I'm really sick of it.
P.S. - To be honest, having read through all of the comments up to this point it seems like many--if not perhaps even the entirety--of the kind of comments I mentioned above (including name-calling) are coming from the people supporting SSM. Y'all had best start addressing that little problem, stat, if any of you want an actual discussion and not stupid, wasteful, online bickering.
@Mikey - if you love someone, what is keeping you from going to his country and living with him? I would move anywhere in an instant with my husband, because I love him and would not live without him. No one is keeping you from your friend, except your choice not to go with him.
I've listed extensively the rights that are taken away from others when marriage rights and protection are granted to homosexuals. Homosexuals continue to deny that heterosexuals are effected, but it's simply not true.
The fact that people actually get on here and have a debate is quite funny. The thing with gay marriage is a multitude of things. Its the breakdown of traditional view of family, its a portal to other "controversial" relationships, its simple attack on religion especially Christianity (or other orthodox religions). For the LGBT, since most are not of the religious type, most of these things do not matter to them. For a true Christian household, it will lead to somewhat hostile environment. Even if, like NY, put some religious protections in it, it will never be completely covered. Religious adoption agencies will be scrunitize by legal action or protests from LGBT for their views on homosexuality. For churches and individuals, like me, who preach and believe that homosexuality is a sin and it can be over come will be attacked verbally and try to be silenced. My personal biggest concern with the acceptance of gay marriage (since its been happening in the liberal states) that grade schools especially the younger more impressionable grades will be targeted for "sex education and gender understanding." Thus leading the conservative faith based families to either to put children in private schools, homeschool (harder to get into college), or try to preach their beliefs while the kid is being told their parents are wrong. LGBT people (and supporters) can dismiss this as "end of days" talk or simply "whats wrong with that?" As I saw someone say "its just giving them the same "right." Oh how naive you are to believe that, nothing ever stays in steady-state. We thought such a founding principle of marriage (for 2000+ years) would remain firm, but as you can see its being washed away at the power of moral relativism. The other issue, but nothing in the short-term (15-20+ years) we will start seeing pedophilia relationships, beastiality, etc. Again you can dismiss it but when things like that start happening, can you really say well, "Marriage is defined to be between...uh non-gender?...wait" You wont have a basis for your argument and therefore all relationships will be permissible. Alot of this is disorganize, so try to read my thoughts and arguments on the matter with some care rather than blowing it off. For most people, emotions get to their head and they start spewing irrational statements like I deserve this "right," so screw you, but how do you determine what a "right" is and whether it was even meant to be an option for you.