“I’ve explained this core meaning; I’ve shown the legal requirements that express this core meaning; and I’ve pointed out that the CA constitution and the DOMA and the federal precedents are not in conflict.”

This is it? This is what you have to offer to pass the rational basis test for due process and equal protection and application of civil law for gay and lesbian couples who want the right to marry? Two sentences to describe flawed persuasive constitutional justification in a state interest to deny same sex couples access to the special status of civil marriage?

I suggest the You Tube civics lesson on due process and equal protectional rational basis analysis to clear your muddied thinking starting Tuesday.. Then lets talk.

Chairm, your stongly held ‘core meaning marriage view’ is in direct conflict with other marriage views. Both secular and directly opposing views exist among the religions. It is NOT a state interest to select one view over another. If responsible procreation were a state interest, then the law must mostl likely accomplish this stated objective. Your man-woman only restriction will not stop inter-sex, homosexuals, gender variant, opposite sex child molesters felons, drug users, alcoholics, from obtaining a license to marry. Chairm, you must come up with a more inclusive law, that “might” actually accomplish your responsible procreation objective. The rational basis test in federal and state court have failed this argument time and again and will most likely do so as this progresses in the federal court system.

I’ve tried to explain the difference between California’s constitutional amendment and legislation like DOMA. In California, all man-woman only laws failed state due process and equal protection judicial reviews, as with the other states with marriage equality. DOMA is not an amendment. DOMA has yet to face an equal protection and due process challenge in federal court. The time may be coming very soon. The supreme court in California went out of their way to show that the plaintiffs federal due process and equal protection rights were available redress.
——
“The SSM issue is about the assertion of supremacy via gay identity politics, nothing more.”
-If this is your definition of marriage equality, this is fine, but will it stand judicial review on due process and equal protection grounds? I suggest that it will strongly fail at that.
————–
Civil marriage opposite sex couple only law cannot be solely a moral condemnation law, with little chance of achieving an objective and rational interest of the state. Civil marriage law then, as with most laws, are subject to judicial review for due process and equal protection issues. Democracy (the voting process alone) is not exempt from judicial review. Laws must rationally accomplish an interest off the state and must apply fairly to all similarly situated. Not exactly situated, but similar. For the sake of my argument, I’m assuming there is no federal constitutional (marriage shall be only be between opposite sex couples) amendment.

Lets say a purported state interest is that every child shall have a mom and a dad, through marriage law (as opposed to loving parents). This objective then, must stand a rational chance of being achieved. An OSM civil marriage only law is not a rational law to accomplish this purported objective. OSM civil marriage only law does not rationally cause Inter-sex couples, gender variant couples, single parents, infertile and gay and lesbians to enter into opposite sex marriage in order achieve the mom and dad objective. OSM civil marriage only law is a hate and moral condemnation law, which has pretty much no effect on gay and lesbians giving up their children to opposite sex couples.

A rational law to accomplish the ‘mom and dad’ objective, might be to remove all children from inter-sex, gender variant, single parents, gay and lesbian families and prohibit them from ever having children.

Another interest of the state might be to insure that children have equally healthy outcomes to maximize their contribution to society. Civil marriage law then, in order to be rational, must apply to fairly to all citizens in order to achieve this purported objective.

Lets say objective scientific data showed that children of inter-sex, gender variant, and gay and lesbian couples produced equally healthy child outcomes as mom and dad couples. OSM civil marriage only law would not be a rational means to accomplish this purported stated interest because child molesters, alcoholics, rapists, felons and others are not prohibited from procreation or marriage law. So a rational marriage law, must not be under inclusive, in achieving a stated objective. All identity groups must be targeted that are shown to have impact on children and their healthy development.

So, if we wanted to call an interest in “responsible procreation” OSM only civil marriage law must rationally achieve that objective. Inter-sex couples, gender variant, gay and lesbians must prohibited from any form of procreation in order reasonably achieve the “man woman only requirement for example. Current OSM only law does nothing to stop, adoption or artificial means by gay and lesbians. Nor will OSM civil marriage only law make opposite sex couples procreate more than they currently are. The rational test fails.

If a state interest is to protect tradition, marriage law must have a greater interest than tradition alone. For example traditional racism or sexism is not immune from constitutional review. Further, protecting tradition in marriage law, must be rational and address traditional and historical practices of adultery, infidelity, domestic violence, child molestation, alcoholism etc. to be a law that has the best chance of accomplishing a purported interest in the state.

You haven't shown how SSM is different from the other stuff that exists on the nonmarriage side of the boundary line.

If the law is to recognize an actual pre-law difference, rather than manufacture a difference, you will need to provide substantively more than your irrational plea for the arbitrary exercise of judicial authority to remake marriage policy.

What is the special reason for the special status of marriage?

Your long-played silent shrug means either that you are opposed to that special status or that you are dumbstruck by your lack of an extraordinary reason to abolish the special reason for the special status of marriage.

Okay, there may be another possiblity: gay identity politics is the special reason for a new special status for SSM, but you are fearful of appearing to be anything but indiscriminate in your anti-marriage rhetoric.

So be it. You've clearly run out of things to say in defense of your flawed thinking.

Chairm, this is a good question for same sex couples. in order to provide an answer, vs. an opinion that you can actually count on as a rule of law, requires a rational basis review, findings of fact and conclusion of law. Due process and equal protection, and application of law will govern this specific issue.

However, I could throw out a premise and opinion or two that have NOT yet passed the judicial rational basis test: Like two men or two women cannot a not a marriage make. Or that discrimination based on sexual orientation will not be part of the rational basis judicial review. I'll wait for the findings of fact and conclusion of law.

In the meantime I'm off to Walmart to buy some popcorn while I watch the you tube Prop 8 videos. Anxiously awaiting for the OSM only folks to show an OJ glove that doesn't fit, but I don't have my hopes up,.

Stick a fork in the lists.

Your list, Jonathan, depends, utterly, on the last item. And since that is demonstrably false, that list collapses into an incoherent mess.

Orange you the least embarrassed for not having a ready answer?

Heh.

My wife went to Wal-Mart to buy some boots for my daughter. The boots she bought were perfect -- the right size, the right price, and exactly equal in every way. Which is exactly the problem.

Two "left" boots does not equal a pair of boots.

I know, I've used that metaphor before but my wife actually did it! Honest! Sorry though, no child has 2 left feet, and no child has 2 moms and no dad, or 2 dads and no mom. Same sex "families" are as utterly ridiculous as wearing two left boots.

At least with religion, there is the First Amendment... which is first, for a reason I suspect. And as for gender, well, there is at least a test -- we don't just have to take your word on the matter.

Sorry Jonathan -- if you tell me you cannot love a woman BECAUSE she's a "girl" and girls are icky... you sound like a common bigot to me.

No, you wont get any sympathy at all.