As an uncomfortable supporter of DOMA, I will comment on each of these points.


Procreation argument:
...

The response to this is perfectly valid. Procreation is not an issue.


Determining who is the legal parent:

I think that if they are married, Lord Mannie's rule should apply just the same. Any child born into a marriage is presumed to be the child of the person conceiving and the spouse. The only complication is, what are the rights of the father? I guess if the lesbian couple aren't careful enough to execute a termination of parental rights along with the conception, then it would be more difficult. I guess then, the biological father, if so inclined, could overcome the presumption and establish paternity. With adoption, there is NO confusion as the adoption of a person automatically terminates the parental rights of the replaced parent.

Argument from historical tradition:

See, this was my qualification. I agree with all of your points and analogies, but something about it sticks in my crawl.

The Defense of Marriage Act:

quote:

Many states have passed DOMA laws which they believe will excuse them from recognizing gay or lesbian marriages performed in other states. But some constitutional experts feel that the "full faith and credit" clause of the U.S. Constitution makes such laws unconstitutional. Also, if same-sex couples cannot have the same rights in one state as they do in another, then their ability to travel within the U.S. would be restricted. And the right to travel has been well established by the courts. Finally, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in a recent Colorado voter initiative case that a law which is designed to reduce the civil and human rights of a specific minority is unconstitutional. What is a more fundamental human right than the right to marry?
Fundamental human rights and fundamental CONSTITUTIONAL rights are two seperate issues. Plus, much of this passage is made moot by the passage of the FEDERAL DOMA which prohibits states from allowing gay marriage. Also, do you have a cite on that SCOTUS case from Colorado?

No compelling state interest:

quote:

Legislation must fulfill a compelling state interest in order to be constitutional. Some feel that there is no need to extend equal rights to gays and lesbians. But public opinion polls consistently indicate that the vast majority of homosexuals feel that the right to marry is very important - to them. Also, married people tend to be more monogamous than singles; monogamy lessens the frequency of transmission of AIDS and other STDs.
This information is innacurate. Only if the right is deemed to be a fundamental right, does it receive the strict scrutiny (compelling or overriding govt. interest) review. Same sex marriage has never been granted such status. In fact, a case, not dealing with same sex marriage of course, has ruled that there is no basic right to lead a certain lifestyle (Kelley v. Johnson, 425 US 238 (1976). Not exactly on point, but I promise you it would be cited by the side who opposed same sex.

Thus, until gay marriage is afforded such status, it falls into the rational basis standard. This means that if there is any rational reason why the govt. passed such a law, then is upheld.

The ones you cite could be used as rational basis for such a law (as well as the bold heading that follows).

Now, the gay community could (and probably HAS) try to say that though it is not a fundamental right, they are a suspect class. This requires that they are historically discriminated against but also that the characteristic that makes them suspect be also immutable (meaning incapable of change). I don't need to tell you where THAT factor leads this debate....

It would cost too much:

This ISN'T a good point. If the people should be afforded such rights, they should be given them regardless of cost. Cost should not be an issue if such rights are in fact owed. The question to me is whether such rights are owed. I also don't think the comparison to racial equality is such a given in many people's minds. Is this wrong? I don't know.

Gay marriages threatens the institution of marriage:

I think this is very similar to historical tradition and wouldn't count it as a seperate reason.

This is really a tough issue.