2. The same goes for their ideal of male/female physical compatibility . There are couples of extremely disparate physical ability or who lose certain functions for whatever reason, or are physically kept apart (such as in the case of the incarcerated). I read somewhere there are millions of celibate marriages as well.
Physical incompatibility is a matter of personal and individual interest and capacity, the state can’t decide which is more or less or what’s satisfactory to the couple. THAT is up to the couple.

3. If the purpose of marriage is to support and give more secure and committed legal bindings to child rearing, then the next generation raised by gay parents have the same need and will benefit in the same way as children of op sex couples. The CHILDREN are all the same, even if their parental situation isn’t. There are children being raised by disabled parents, and there is no restriction on those with genetic diseases to have offspring. The decision to have them, regardless of that issue, is left up to the couple, not the state.

Each and every defense, so far, of marriage discrimination against gay people could also apply to straight couples.
Even the factor of sexual orientation. Since it’s legal for those who are heterosexual to marry another heterosexual, it’s only right that a gay person marry someone who shares THEIR orientation.
It’s not just about gender, but that factor too.

Whatever way the opposition tries to make their case, NONE of their defense is LEGAL now, or MUST be applied equally.
Just as there are no separate rules for blacks (anymore) than there are for whites, or for men as opposed to women (anymore), then there can’t be separate rules that only apply to one or the other of orientations.

It should be an easy one for SCOTUS to decide on. They might punt, because they don’t want to have to deal with it.
But thems the facts, and in no way does any discrimination against gay people do any good to justify it. Not even any good for marriage and it’s intents and purpose.

The whole argument is now boiling down to Penis and Vagina!!! Rah! Rah! (and in deference to the paternalistic implications) und Rah!

I know Dr. Nancy Cott testified in the Prop 8 Trial, but she has also testified in other trials, and I am pretty sure DOMA is one of them. Dr. Nancy Cott IS THE expert and she says that no State has ever required an intent or ability to produce children as a requirement for a Civil Marriage License.

The only way for Scalia to rule against is to completely ignore the EVIDENCE present in the trial record. I should go look up what trials Dr. Cott has testified in, that would be helpful as there are several DOMA trials going on.

Heterosexual couples have sex. And whether or not one intends to procreate, even if one uses birth control, unplanned pregnancies do occur. Sometimes, in rare instances, people who believe themselves to no longer be fertile will conceive.

Therefore, the state has an interest in the marriage of heterosexuals that don’t intend to have children. But as same-sex couples don’t have unplanned offspring, the state is in its rights to deny marriage to them.

It’s an attempt to say that marriage is only about procreation and to diffuse those who point at the 90 year old bride and say, “oh really?”

Clement argued that the impact of DOMA was not all bad.

“In some cases,” he said, “it’s a net financial benefit to the same-sex couple; in some, it’s not.”

Clement offered for many reasons for why DOMA should be upheld — among them was saying the opposite-sex marriages advance governmental interests because they can produce “unplanned offspring” unlike same-sex couples.

Huh? . . . Are we sure this isn’t from The Onion’s coverage of the courtroom drama? Or, perhaps Clement aspires to be a standup comic.

We are thinking alike far too much lately

:)

And I still want someone to explain to me how it is in the interests of the government (or the people to whom the government is supposed to belong, and who pay the bills) for people to have “unplanned offspring.” I’m not going to bother to try to look it up, but I suspect that some significant percentage of “unplanned offspring” result in additional expenditures by the government. It is my opinion that the interest of the government would be to reduce the number of “unplanned offspring” rather than doing things to encourage them.

But, if you honestly don’t have any real arguments of substance, just throw some “s*&t” on the wall, and hope Roberts and Scalia (when SCOTUS finally hears the case) will go lick it off the wall.