Kalley Yanta at the Minnesota Marriage Minute explains that no judge except Judge Walker in California has ever reached the radical conclusion that marriage laws fail a rational basis test.
"In fact," she says, "The U.S. Supreme Court has specifically rejected the idea that there is a federal right to same-sex marriage, and that was in a case arising out of a lawsuit in Minnesota."
21 Comments
One of the best videos yet in this series. I'd only edit it to expressly distinguish same-sex couples from male-female couples in the formation of families.
Baker v Nelson is 40 years old. SCOTUS dismissed it for want of a substantial federal question, they did not "specifically reject" the idea. 40 years later, society has evolved and 7 U.S. jurisdictions have marriage equality. Eventually Baker v. Nelson will be to same-sex marriage what Pace v. Alabama is to interracial marriage.
Another excellent video. Children need their mother and father. Marriage is designed to bring them together.
The upcoming comments from the opposition are completely predictable
Nice video.
SSM is what lacks a rational basis, as well as the idea that marriage has been defined as the union of husband and wife for all of this time out of animosity towards gays and lesbians.
Marriage is color blind. But marriage is not "sex-blind." Marriage is the most child friendly institution we have, and children have a right to expect full-time nurturing care from both their biological parents. Only real marriage supports that right.
The Minnesota Marriage Minutes continue to effectively make the only case that has ever needed making in this debate:
What about the children?
Bravo.
We will win MN.
The upcoming comments might seem predictable because they will be harping on factual errors that have been used over, and over, and over again. 14th Amend made a great point that you all have simply ignored.
Preventing SSM does nothing to ensure children are raised with a monther and father. Today SSM is not permitted in MN but yet there are children being raised without their mother/father.
This amendment will not change this.
How about a amendment to forbid divorce, that will help children have a mother and father.
All for it, Carlos.
But first the marriage corruption movement must be defeated in its most virulent form- the same sex "marriage" insanity.
The coalition now being built to accomplish this noble end can then be employed to strengthen marriage in other areas, such as the "quick divorce" disaster you correctly identify.
Carlos -
So-called SS"M" would sever the all-important link between marriage and procreation: Same-sex couples are incapable of reproducing together.
Without the link with procreation; marriage is essentially destroyed, a mere label that means whatever any combination of people who want the label feel like it should be to suit their selfish, fleeting desires.
Children being raised without a mother and father is precisely the problem: 70% illegitimacy rate in the AA Community; 40% illegitimacy rate in the country. Many of these children and single moms end up in poverty on the taxpayer dole.
I'm with you on divorce: time to get rid of the no-fault divorce laws and make sure lifelong marriage commitments are honored to the greatest extent possible for the sake of children.
Just because a law is 40 years old does not mean that it will eventually be overturned.
"Just because a law is 40 years old does not mean that it will eventually be overturned."
It's not the age of the law, it's what's been
learned band transpired since. The courts in the past couple of years are ignoring Bakerforbits obvious irrelevance.
*and transpired
@DaughterOfEve "children have a right to expect full-time nurturing care from both their biological parents."
So, you think we should prohibit married soldiers from having sex with their wives before going off to war? Or, say a father robs a bank, you think that we have no right to put him in jail, because his child has a right to his full-time nurturing care?
And, the $64,000 question, do you think people have a right to try to reproduce biological offspring with someone of the same sex? Because when you frame the argument the way you do, it implies that we should develop same-sex procreation and it would solve all of these problems.
Children have a right to be conceived from "natural origins" as Margaret Somerville says, from a living man and woman's unmodified gametes. Marriage is intended to obligate the spouses to stick together and care for each other and any children they have, but that is not an absolute rule, we allow divorce and death and putting a child up for adoption when circumstances call for it. But that marriage should allow the couple to have sex and conceive offspring IS an absolute rule. We simply should allow people to conceive offspring with someone of the same sex.
I hope you are able to say you agree that same-sex conception should not be allowed.
John Howard
The use of artificial reproduction exists whether married or not. I'm not sure how defining marriage as "people society approves conceiving together" will stop unethical repro-tech from happening in the US.
AM, I am pushing for a resolution that would include a federal law that would prohibit making babies by any means other than joining a man and a woman's unmodified gametes. Even that law wouldn't stop the unethical repro-tech that is practiced now, but it would stop us from going further down the slope into same-sex/transgender conception and genetic engineering, and allow us to begin to roll back the unethical practices that are happening now, such as sperm donation and surrogacy.
The key thing to notice is that it would mean that same-sex couples would be prohibited from conceiving offspring together, and we would affirm in federal law that all marriages must have the effect of allowing and approving the couple to have sex and conceive offspring together using the couple's own genes. We need that law to stop people fro being eugenically pressured into using donated or engineered gametes, or being forced to adopt instead of having their own children, to assure every person that they have a right to marry and procreate with someone in an eligible relationship type. Note that the only forbidden types would be equally forbidden to everyone: siblings, mothers and fathers, people of the same sex, children, etc. No one would be prohibited because of their particular genes or perceived fitness. It's important to keep that right connected to marriage, and not allow couples to marry that are prohibited from procreating, like same-sex couples would be after the Egg and Sperm Law.
See how it all works together?
BREAKING NEW!
Friend of Marriage,
As the Campaign Manager of Minnesota for Marriage I have to tell you how thankful I am for supporters like you who have donated in response to Target’s shocking announcement to sell “Pride T-Shirts” during the month of June.
Since then we have learned two very important things that I need to share with you:
1) The Washington, D.C. based pro-homosexual marriage group they are donating to is a partner with the main supporter of gay marriage in Minnesota – this means Target’s donation of $120,000.00 will go to attempting to defeat the Marriage Protection Amendment this November.
2) They will sell the “Pride Shirts” starting tomorrow online for $12.99 with ALL of the proceeds going to support redefining marriage.
BREAKING NEWS!
Friend of Marriage,
"As the Campaign Manager of Minnesota for Marriage I have to tell you how thankful I am for supporters like you who have donated in response to Target’s shocking announcement to sell “Pride T-Shirts” during the month of June."
Andy Parrish
Deputy Campaign Manager
Minnesota for Marriage
Pete,you confuse the spread of misinformation with "learning".
The lack of a federal question has not changed in forty years.
The fabrication of new constitutional standards designed to create the facade of a federal question, well, sure, that has transpired, rather lamely, at the behest of gay identity politics.
And that is what the SSMers rely upon as they try to bulldoze society in federal courtrooms.
They rely on the abuse of judicial review rather than the reasonable application of judicial review. They cannot deny their gaycentric focus. It is all that they have. There is zilch in the Constution to support such a focus but that is all they have and that is what they will try to inflated into a federal question.
If the judiciary performs the way that the SSMers demand, then, the entrenchment of gay identity politics will have been written into the US Constitution without the constitutional amending process. If the SSMers would count that as a victory, then, today society can take that as a warning.
The Prop 8 ruling was activist judges at its highest. With no regard for the Constitution or the law a homosexual activist judge imposed on California.
It might be noted that in the MA ruling the chief judge was an ardent supporter of the gay rights movement.