Darth J wrote:Nope. Child support and visitation not only are not legally required elements of marriage (because having children is not a legal element necessary to validate a marriage), they exist independent of marriage. The Uniform Civil Liability for Support Act does not distinguish between divorced parents and never-married parents regarding a duty to support one's children. That is why you see never-married fathers being ordered to pay child support. Also, never-married parents can petition to establish paternity and visitation rights.
the question was specific to Oaks' current marriage...his first, now deceased, wife had his children...support and visitation with regards to any minor children or any grandchildren is quite different for this new marriage than would be for any run of the mill LGBT couple trying to book an appearance on Ellen.
Darth J wrote:There is nothing about biological differences between the sexes that is relevant to paying alimony.And the Supreme Court of Kansas recently held that a co-parenting agreement between a lesbian couple was enforceable after the couple broke up. http://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supr ... 03487.html
Keep trying.
(By the way, Dallin H. Oaks and his current spouse will never have to address the issues of child support and visitation, because they have no children and are not going to have any. And yet they have a valid marriage under the laws of the State of Utah. Go figure!)
your question was not about biological differences per se...nice goal post moving...i was simply answering the question based on current laws.
If you wanted to discuss marriage from a biological perspective then ask or state your position on that matter.
note also response above about Oaks' first wife and resulting children/grandchildren.
try again
Darth J wrote:Oh, yes. So if a local government were to designate some neighborhoods as "white only" or "non-Mormon only," then that would prove that non-whites or Mormons are not entitled to equal protection of law, because all you have to do to subvert the 14th Amendment is pass a discriminatory law.
i didn't say it was right or wrong, you merely asked for examples...if you wanted to argue some other point why didn't you just say so?
Besides, "white only" or "non-mormon" has nothing to do with this LGBT issue - as much as pro LGBT would love to piggy back onto other actual civil rights movements they simply can't seem to grab hold....likely because they are not the same...it is insulting to people like MLK or X when LGBT try to equate as such.
Nevertheless, your examples here are already established protected classes are they not?...whereas being a sexual deviant is not a protected class...which is why they can't really pass that constitutional test. LGBT is using its political power to confuse people into believing they actual have a "cause", when in fact they have nothing more than a psychological disorder and a demented desire for public attention.
Darth J wrote:currently DOMA defines that all of them cannot be performed by same sex couple.
As soon as you find the place in Article I that gives Congress the authority to define marriage for the states, you'll be sure to copy and paste it, right?[/quote]
I like how you load the question...specific to Article I only...commerce clause and full faith and credit clause you would like to avoid.
So, obviously you have no legal objection towards a father being able to marry his son...or a mother marrying her brother, her son, and her aunt.
If your position is that marriage cannot be legal restricted due to any individual basis, thus violating equal protection or due process, then you must allow marriage to be for anyone and everyone....and without DOMA, what goes i none state must go in another....got it!
oh, and one question....where in the constitution does it state that LGBT is a protected class?