jeeprs wrote:...Adi wrote: In the United States, in short, it has been conclusively proven again and again that there is no rational basis for denying same-sex couples the right to marry.
I object to the use of the term 'rational' in this context.
I guess you didn't' read the lengthy post I put up. It's being used in a specific context, which is:
Rational basis review is a test used in some contexts to determine a law's constitutionality. To pass rational basis review, the challenged law must be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Rational basis is the most lenient form of judicial review, as both strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny are considered more stringent. Rational basis review is generally used when in cases where no fundamental rights or suspect classifications are at issue.
The basis of marriage has always been associated with procreation….
Not exclusively so and certainly not only so, as has been proved in the above post and by other postings in this thread.
Well, I'm afraid I do not concur. I admit, I might be quite mistaken, and I agree that others may hold completely different views to my own. But the issue is, as regards the recognition of 'gay marriage', that I am being compelled to agree. It means that the society of which I am part, no longer recognizes my right to dissent. It is not enough for me to live and let live anymore; I am required to live and applaud. And I'm not going to do that.
No should you, though your notion you are being compelled to do anything is specious at best. And your right of dissent is not only recognized it is (in the US) guaranteed. We have an adversarial legal system in which all dissent is recognized and in this case the dissenters arguments were found to be almost wholly without any merit at all. Nevertheless, they were and are free to present them.