@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
Quote:Please identify the alleged compelling state interest at stake and state why excluding gay couples from the right to marry is necessary to serve that alleged interest.
a) the strength of the social fabric is a state interest
You have not identified a compelling state interest. You have stated a vague euphemism. The "fabric" of modern day American society is extremely colorful and complex. It consists of many diverse threads that are woven together into a unified whole. Gay people, like black people and other minorities, are inextricably woven into every part of our society. They are educators, college professors, police officers, lawyers, doctors, bankers, plumbers, artists, entertainers, public servants, voters, council members, legislators, parents, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, etc. The list is endless. They exist in every community and their contributions to society add to our strength.
hawkeye wrote:thus
b) it is in the states interest to have standards and a definition of marriage.
Our states do have standards and a definition of marriage. Marriage licensing laws serve as a gatekeeping function by setting minimum qualifications for obtaining a marriage license. Gatekeeping provisions prohibit marriage of individuals within certain degrees of consanguinity, prohibit polygamous marriages, and restrict the circumstances in which a person under eighteen years of age may marry.
Marriage is defined not only as a civil contract, but also as a legal status that embodies many legal benefits and responsibilities. The Massachusetts Supreme Court stated:
"Marriage is a vital social institution. The exclusive commitment of two individuals to each other nurtures love and mutual support;
it brings stability to our society. For those who choose to marry, and for their children, marriage provides an abundance of legal, financial, and social benefits. In return it imposes weighty legal, financial, and social obligations. . . .
"Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law. . . .
"[T]he marriage restriction impermissibly 'identifies persons by a single trait and then denies them protection across the board.' In so doing, the State's action confers an official stamp of approval on the destructive stereotype that same-sex relationships are inherently unstable and inferior to opposite-sex relationships and are not worthy of respect."
Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798 N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).
hawkeye wrote:It is not in the states interest to allow any two people to claim that they are married because to do so would devalue marriage and thus destroy an institution that is vital to the health of the society.
Your statement is a conclusion unsupported by any facts. How is marriage "devalued" by two people who choose to make the commitment? Marriage licenses aren't commodities that depreciate in value as more and more of them are issued. "Civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over transient ones."
Goodridge. The state has a legitimate interest in encouraging gay couples to marry because stable relationships are better for our society than transient relationships. More marriages by committed individuals who will emotionally and financially support each other means more societal stability.
hawkeye wrote:It is not in the states interest to hand out a marriage license to any two people who say that they want to go together on one. If marriage is to have any meaning then their must be some people who do not qualify, the question is not if there is a line but rather where is the line. If there are no standards then we must allow polygamy as well, are you ready for that? How about fathers marrying their daughters...is that fine with you?
Most people, at least the rational ones, do not evaluate the meaning of their own marriages on the basis of who is excluded. It's not like a membership at an exclusive country club that excludes the "riff-raff." In this country, even the rednecks may marry. See:
My Big Redneck Wedding.
Again, our states do have standards that serve as a gatekeeping function. Despite your "Chicken Little" impersonation, you can relax because the sky isn't falling. Simultaneous plural marriages (polygamy) is still illegal and fathers cannot marry their daughters.
You have not shown that excluding gays from exercising the right to marry is somehow necessary to serve some identifiable compelling state interest.