More about the autor

Campus Question – February 26, 2014

February 26, 2014

Today's Buzz

Campus Question – February 26, 2014

Tonight’s question, greetings, and banter here. (More)

Today federal judge Orlando Garcia overturned Texas’ 2005 constitutional amendment banning marriage equality, holding that “any state law involving marriage or any other protected interest must comply with the United States Constitution.” Talking Points Memo has the complete ruling. The Advocate has a statement from Freedom to Marry founder and president Evan Wolfson, while the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson offers the predictable conservative rebuttal. Is the “conjugal” view legitimate if states allow senior citizens to marry?

  • addisnana

    Today on Campus

    Morning Feature – addisnana with Fracking Update
    Midday Matinee – addisnana with Buttons

  • http://cendax.wordpress.com Norbrook

    Hmm, they’re still harping on the “reproduction” aspect, and the “need” for a mother and a father. I guess all those senior citizens, people who can’t have children, or people who don’t want children have lost the right to marry in that case. Let’s also not forget all those single parents. Tsk. :roll:

  • addisnana

    Maybe the pro-baby factory view of marriage would then approve of a practice common in South Africa. A couple may not chose to marry until she is pregnant and has proved her fertility. Just a thought for them to consider. :) BTW this is not just a tribal practice or a phenomenon of the less educated.

    What about heterosexual couples who choose not to have children? Or post-menopausal women. Can any of them get married under the baby factory ideal?

    This is a colander theory (i.e. full of holes) worthy of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

  • Jim W

    I doubt that Pastafarians would agree with the position.

    • addisnana

      :lol: :lol: :lol:

  • NCrissieB

    The Squirrel beat me to the punch in a reply at the Heritage Foundation link above:

    Even if you presume the legitimacy of the so-called “conjugal” definition of marriage, bans on LGBT marriage fail the Equal Protection Clause test … because every state allows senior citizens and infertile couples to marry. You can’t claim procreation as the legal basis of marriage, yet allow marriages in which procreation is not possible, but only if those couples include one man and one woman. Yes, seniors and infertile couples can adopt, but so can LGBTs. Simply, state governments have proven no legitimate interest in treating LGBTs differently from seniors and infertile couples.

    I should note that Ryan Anderson claims that Justice Samuel Alito’s dissenting opinion in the California Prop 8 case “conclusively” establishes states’ legal basis for denying marriage equality. As a matter of law, a dissenting opinion cannot “conclusively” establish anything … except that at least one Justice disagreed with the majority opinion of the Court. Just sayin’. ;-)