Supreme Court going to look at DOMA, prop 8

[Dylan]

Who knows. Almost everything passes rational basis. That's basically no review.

Probably should fail under intermediate scrutiny too IMO.

just those three.

[John Galt]

[Dylan]

That was an application of rational basis review. Hence all of the "could belive" and "may believe" discussion. That's why it's such an important issue whether it's analyzed under intermediate/strict scrutiny or "rational basis" review (which is usually the whole fight in these types of cases--once it's pigeonholed into rational basis review it's hard for somebody challenging a law to prevail).

Note that your NY COA case never stated that the government's ONLY interest is in locking in accidentally preggers couples. It just said the legislature "may have" felt that was an interest that was not equally applicable to homosexual couples.

And it's just a poor decision honestly since the logic behind locking in accidentally preggers couples applies equally forecefully to couples who adopt and whose relationship later sours. More infrequently? Perhaps. But it's equally applicable.

So even if the state's only interest is in ensuring the welfare of children, this argument obviously does applies just as forcefully to couples who adopt.

And, in any event, there's numerous other reasons for government to be involved in marriage. Preventing illegal marriages (to gain immigration status, marriage of an adult to a child, etc.). Also marriage is a fundamental part of society -- you gain legal rights via marriage, such as inheritance preferences, the ability to make decisions for your spouse if something unfortunate happens, etc.

Marriage is an institution with far-reaching consequences well beyond whether or not you accidentally get preggers.

[John Galt]

all of those things happen incidentally and could be conferred in different ways (and are)

[Hyperion]

Lol, these are similar justifications used by states for disfavoring interracial marriages: it was the interest of the state to not promote racial tension.

It's really funny seeing you try to defend exclusive heterosexual marriage by championing the interest of the state after you complain about the state's interference in other affairs where the government has other interests, like economic welfare. No one is clean when it comes to hypocrisy, but this is just day and night.

[John Galt]

[Dylan]

[John Galt]

[Dylan]

None of what you state precludes the possibility that a couple later breaks up. That same chain of marriage can apply to save adopted children as it saves unwanted children from accidental preggernancies.

And, once again, you fail to address some of my points. This time you missed my point htat all these benefits of marriage still exist. Once they don't, you can state that the only reason for the government to be involved is accidental preggernancies. You'll still be wrong, as I've already proven, but you'll be less wrong.

[John Galt]