This follow-up remains somewhat unconvincing.

Marriage sets forth a certain view of sexual roles in which a male and a woman join together, each bringing a particular part to the equation. Sex specific domestic law arises from this traditional view, thus the sexual discrimination argument is honest. The dishonesty comes from defenders of the traditional view, who make question begging definitional arguments.

Prof. Balkin apparently doesn't like the right to marriage argument, though it is loyal to federal precedent. Precedent that does point to various reasons why the right exists. Cases involving the right to marry a member of a different race, in prison, or with child support debts all dealt with the right to marry itself.

So why is applying it in this case so strange? Is it really hard to distinguish incest? [disease, coercion concerns, and the principle of marrying outside the tribe] What a trite issue! Yes, perhaps, more than rational basis is involved. So be it -- gender equality, right to marriage, etc. can handle a rational basis plus test.

Finally, I don't understand the stability issues. This proves too much. It would also disallow any gay individual to have custody of children, if s/he lives or perhaps even sees a partner. Many other unstable marriages are allowed -- there is no need to undergo a "stability" test when you marry someone. Also, allowing sodomy (protected in part to protect homosexual associational rights) promotes distability too.

I'd add that the courts haven't always supplied as loose of a standard of "rationality" as the professor suggests.
 

While I appreciate the political difficulties with (5), I don't see why those are legal difficulties. Either the state has a compelling interest in banning polygamy and incest, or it does not. If it does, it shouldn't be difficult for someone in this country of ours to spell it out. If no one can do so, it's probably because no compelling reason exists and the bans, in fact, "violate a fundamental due process right to marry."

On the political side, I'd worry about the reaction of the morality brigade to such a ruling, and I'd prefer a ruling that either wasn't so far-reaching or elucidated an actual compelling interest, but that strikes me as a political hope, not the basis for an unbiased legal judgement.
 

There are those who teach in Ivy League law schools who would agree with the ruling of the judge here. Authority goes both ways. No matter. Supreme Court precedent, even alleged question begging SC precedent (and NY Appellate precedent for that matter) trumps the professor in the court of law.

The Lawrence Court explained how fundamental rights (due process) and equality ran into each other in many ways. A basic way is when you start making classifications of persons who enjoy fundamental rights, you run into problems, unless you supply compelling reasons for said classifications.

Also, I'm making several arguments: EP and DP. My beef is that the professor's rejection of each are problematic. If he doesn't like precedents, so be it, but the supposed inability to separate incest from same sex marriage is beneath him.

I'd add after reading the NY opinion, his account ignored various things special to NY. (1) The state did not challenge the stability of the couples (2) the state allows various special rights to same sex couples, including adoption (3) NY state precedent clearly protects a fundamental right to choose who you marry.

Also, Prof. Balkin supports Lawrence. Justice Scalia is pretty smart too -- the NY opinion uses his own words to back up her opinion. Again, it doesn't matter if you don't like the precedents. As a lower court judge, it is her role to follow them.
 

Neither 1 or 2 (the arguments for equal treatment) can succeed because they assume that the object of the legislation is to confer benefits on adults, when in fact the object is to confer benefits on children. Of course state sanction for marriage is an imperfect way to confer benefits on children, but policies don't have to be perfect, and in any case is not for courts to judge. FDIC was also designed to support children. The fact that it inadvertently supported the crack addictions of irresponsible parents did not imply an obligation on equal protection grounds to support everyone's crack addiction. It is a reasonable judgment that children can be supported by supporting heterosexual marriage. This judgment is not vitiated by the fact that some heterosexual couples do not have children, and that some homosexual couples do.

As for 4 and 5, about a right to marry, no way. People have a right to be tolerated, if they are not harming others. No one has a right to approval, which is exactly what marriage is about (except for the third party benefits, designed to support childbearing). This has always been the problem with the homosexual activists. They are not content with tolerance. They want approval, pushing an agenda of approval even in public elementary schools. This is why homosexual marriage is likely to be a losing issue forever. Tolerance has been granted. Approval is a whole other story. There is no fundamental reason it should ever be granted, and with homosexual activists being constantly obnoxious, demanding what is not a right, approval is unlikely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.
 

I'm no legal scholar, and prefer to think in simple principled terms. So at the risk of sounding foolish in front of such an intelligent group:

The problem with #1 is that it validates a "separate but equal" status among the sexes. Whereas marriage is and has always been an integration of the sexes. Procreation is not the beginning and the end of marriage, but is more than enough to establish that separate cannot be equal.

The problem with #2 is that sexual orientation is irrelevant: gays can and do marry members of the opposite sex, under the same terms as heterosexuals, asexuals, and omnisexuals. Even in Massachusetts, no one bothers to ask same-sex couples whether or not they are indeed homosexual. I personally would be much more inclined to grant some level of accomodation to homosexuals, so long as they were reserved soley for gay people. SSM is NOT the same thing as "gay marriage".

It is an unfortunate fact for advocates of SSM that all persons are treated equally with respect to marriage. This is so regardless of race, religion, gender, handicap, or even sexual orientation.
 

The religious freedom arguement is interesting. I don't see how you could possibly seperate a right to gay marriage from a right to polygamy under this agruement though.

That may be all well and good, but certainly many religions support Polygamy and of course our government cracked down hard on that at one point against the Mormons.
 

All five SSM arguments on Balkinization become embarassingly beside the point when marriage is seen as a right to procreate, and that right is denied to same-sex couples because their procreation would be "completely unethical":

"1. It violates sex equality to tell a man he cannot marry another man when a woman could do so." Not when it is "completely unethical" for a man to attempt to proceate with a man but completely ethical for him to attempt to procreate with a woman.
"2. Sexual orientation discrimination." Eggs and sperm don't care what the orientation of their maker is, nor does the ban on non egg and sperm procreation.
"3. Irrational discrimination." No, it's completely rational, because the scientists themselves say it would be completely unethical to attempt this in humans. Just think of the other 9 mal-formed mice that couldn't make it to adulthood, not to mention the 371 that couldn't make it to birth. It's irrational to allow people to try it on people.
"4. animus at a specific social group" You can't claim animus if the ban is completely rational, to protect the people being created.
"5. violates a fundamental due process right to marry" That fundamental right is the right to attempt procreate found in Skinner, but naturally, not using a completely unethical technology (or else, the court could have said that Skinner could still conceive with technology someday). People have a fundamental right to be straight and marry someone of the other sex, and gay marriage actually encroaches on that right.
 

>why aren't all citizens with equal need being allowed equal license to a civil contract issued by the state?

Because attempting to combine the gamates of two people of the same sex is way too risky for the person being created. But all marriages have a right to procreate, you can't have a marriage without that right. After the ban on non-egg and sperm procreation, only male-female couples will have the right to marry and procreate.
 

>doesn't fly - the civil contract of marriage doesn't have anything to do with procreation.

Of course it does. Virginia was attempting to keep the Lovings from procreating. SCOTUS cited Skinner's right to procreate to say that the Lovings had a basic civil right to marry. Marriage and procreation rights were synonymous to the court in 1967 - has anything changed?

>Men with vasectomies and women with hysterectomies are allowed to license the contract.

Right, because they have a right to attempt to procreate.

>In most states that allow first cousin marriage the signees can only get license if they prove they CANNOT procreate.

Exactly - because their procreation would be unethical, same as same-sex procreation would be. They can't get married because they don't have a right to procreate. Those "sterile cousin" exceptions were made before IVF and are anachronistic. Do the cousins have a right to attempt IVF? How do you prove that IVF would fail?

>Men in prison who will never engage in procreative act with their cosignees have the right to license the contract as per the SCOTUS.

I think it does give them the right to procreate, though, right? Just not until they get out?

>If the signee's ability to procreate between themselves is a deal breaker than many married signees should never have been given license to do so. You can't give a pass to some without giving a pass to all.

Did you click on the link to Kaguya? So it isn't a question of ability, in this age of technology, it is a question of RIGHTS. Just like the Lovings supposedly didn't have a right to procreate, so the state didn't recognize their marriage and arrested them for sleeping together. But it isn't just discrimination to ban SSP, there are real problems with it. Here's the proposed ban.
 

>...extraordinary circumstances under which the state may prevent married people from procreating, such as one of the partners being in prison.

That's silly, being in prison prevents lots of things, I think prisoner's free speech rights are curtailed a little, aren't they? Their right to peacably assemble? To own guns? And, the court specifcally referred to artificial insemination being an option if conjugal visits are not allowed.

>Marriage does not create a right to procreate. Unmarried people also have that right.

No, not really. My state (MA) still has fornication and adultery laws, and the only reason we repealed illegatimacy laws was because they punished the children, not because unmarried procreation became legal. It is simply not prosecuted today, but that didn't change the rights that marriage grants. Like, if we stopped prosecuting driving without a license, it wouldn't mean that a drivers license didn't give you a license to drive.

>That is one of the rights "reserved to the people." As you can see from the rates of illegitimate births, many unmarried people exercise that right and they do so with legal impunity.

Only because we didn't want to punish unwed mothers or their children. And regardless, once we ban non egg and sperm procreation, it will mean that same-sex couples don't have the right to procreate. And a marriage without the right to procreate is not a marriage at all.
 

From Zablocki v. Redhail, 1978:
"And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place." This was true in Loving too: if procreaion didn't require marriage, then marriage wouldn't be the basic human right that SCOTUS says it is.
 

"no rational basis"..."no relevant distinction"

Am i the only one here who finds if fascinating how quickly we seem to have found a constitutional right to fornication???

Am i the only one here who fears the long-term consequences to a nation that is shackled by such a constitution?
 

Accepting that we are back to the fact that opposite gender first cousins are specifically allowed license to the civil contract as long as one or the other is sterile. No procreation is possible between the 2 of them just as it isn't between two same gender married citizens. Allow them or any sterile citizen to marry and your position become untenable , if you allow one you have to allow the other. Ok, lets go one step further with this one, because i've never seen it done in 2 years of following this debate closely:

If two sterile cousins ARE allowed to marry, then under any same-sex marriage regime (naturally sterile), two same-sex cousins will also be able to marry. However, two normal opposite-sex cousins will not -- because they are not "naturally" sterile. Instantly, you've created a situation where couples are truly being descriminated against -- not because they cannot procreate -- but because they can! The only solution is to declare incest a constitutional right!

You said it yourself, BVB: "if you allow one, you have to allow the other."

(PS: Prof. Balkin, congrats on a great thread! I'd install a paypal link soon if i were you! :)
 

>"The Virginia Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional today the state law that makes it illegal for nonmarried people to have sex.

I think they did that just for a laugh, in order for the Supreme Court to overrule it once and for all.

>The court said there is 'no relevant distinction' between the Virginia statute outlawing fornication and the Texas sodomy law the U.S. Supreme Court struck down in 2003." From this I conclude that any remaining state laws against fornication will not survive much longer, not even in Massachusetts.

Ha. Of course there's a difference between sodomy and sexual intercourse. Do I need to explain it? hint: you and I didn't get here because of sodomy.

> Johnny: ". . .once we ban non egg and sperm procreation, it will mean that same-sex couples don't have the right to procreate."

>Sometimes a pair of lesbians will ask the brother of one of them to be a sperm donor.

Sometimes one single woman, or even three or four lesbians, will ask the brother of one to be a sperm donor. What's yr point? The legality of sperm donation is not what we are talking about. I think it should be banned eventually, but the egg and sperm law won't ban it.

>The resulting child will be the son or daughter of one of the women and the nephew or niece of the other one. Sometimes a pair of male homosexuals will find a woman willing to bear a child for one of them to be raised by both men. Procreation can take place within a homosexual union in this way or some other, granted of course that it takes the participation of a third party.

And it's an egg combined with a sperm. That would all be as dubiously acceptable as it is now.

>Your hypothetical ban on procreation that uses two ova or two sperms will not destroy this right to procreation.

It's a little more than just hypothetical, it's been recommended to Congress by the President's COuncil on Biothics. Yes, Congress has to wake up and pass it, but they probably will someday, and it will mean that only opposite sex couples have a right to combine their gamates, which is exactly what marriage licenses.
 

>..?..That many people marry and procreate, or that the state expects people who procreate to marry in no way says that all those that marry must procreate.

All those that marry have a license to ATTEMPT to procreate (ie, have sex, or do whatever it takes - IVF is just a new position as far as the public is concerned).

>>>Men with vasectomies and women with hysterectomies are allowed to license the contract.

>>Right, because they have a right to attempt to procreate.

>As do the same gender couples with the same degree of potential success.

No, same-gender couples would be doing somthing compltely unethical if they attempted to procreate. THe success rate is less than 1%, and even that one mouse is probably not normal in ways they just did not detect yet. (and what do you mean "the license to contract"? They have to contract to get the license to have sex. THat's like saying that a driver's license is a license to take the driver's test and the eye test - no, those are just the obligations and responsibilities that accompany the license to drive.)

>No its not due to ethics it is due to genetics.

Mainly, it's unethical because of genetic problems, but it's unethical for other reasons too.

>What you seem to be missing is they have the right to marry for whatever reason they aren't allowed to procreate.

I said I think those laws are anachronistic and misguided. Today, couples can use advanced medicine to restore their health to be able to procreate.

>>Do the cousins have a right to attempt IVF?

>Of course they can since by the stipulations of their license they are the only ones proscribed from procreating.

No, I mean with each other. Do those cousins, in those states that allow it (which ones) have a right to attempt IVF, to procreate together? I bet those states don't grant "sterile cousin" marriages any more, because there's no way to prove they cannot procreate.

>Someone else's genetic material wouldn't be even relevant. Any limitation on the closeness of relations for the genetic material donors is regulated by the ethics of the IVF provider.

hahaha, that's funny. I want my government to regulate profit and fame driven IVF providers.

>Shoot a regular couple could try IVF with a close relative of the opposite partner and have the same situation.

Same situation as what? I'm talking about banning non egg and sperm procreation.

>Just further examples of how any attempt to tie license of the civil contract with procreation is silly and a transparent attempt to just exclude some citizens from access with animus.

It has nothing to do with hating people. It would be unsafe to combine two eggs or two sperm.

> How do you prove that IVF would fail?

Well considering that either one or the other or both are incapable of producing genetic materials by the licensing restrictions of their civil contract, it would be irrelevant - they would not be procreating.

Medicine could cure them. I don't know how you know that they aren't capable of procreating. Even same-sex mice are capable of procreating, though it took over 450 embryos and 370 pregnancies, etc...

>In vitro fertilization using others genetic materials is not in violation of their agreement. And them using some future technology to transform non-gamete material into that suitable form for a mixed genome conception would be no differernt than the IVF ethical quandry of using one spouse's close relative for their reciprocal genetic donor. This again shows the futility of trying to tie licensing the civil contract to a mandate for procreation.

SSP is way way way more risky than near-relative procreation. IVF is basically a sex position, it didn't change anything about the fertilization process. SSP introduces imprinting issues and major unknowns. You can't even perfect it on chimpanzees or pigs, humans are going to have different risks and it will always be unethical.

>Who is Judge William Downing? The Zablowski case specifically listed the possibility of consummation as one of the four elements of marriage.

>>Just not until they get out?

>No reason to think they will ever get out.

Are you sure you're a liberal ;-)

>If the signee's ability to procreate between themselves is a deal breaker than many married signees should never have been given license to do so. You can't give a pass to some without giving a pass to all.

It's the huge risk to any surviving children of their attempt to procreate that is the deal breaker. Today, everyone has an ability to procreate. Cloning and same-sex procreation, and all forms besides combing an egg and sperm, are unethical.

>> Did you click on the link to Kaguya? So it isn't a question of ability, in this age of technology, it is a question of RIGHTS.

>I agree - but since licensing of the civil contract is not necessarily tied to the ability to procreate it is immaterial.

EVERY COUPLE that has ever married has had the right to attempt to procreate. Privacy means they can use IVF or other legal technologies. Publicly same-sex couples wouldn't be able to use legal technologies.

>The same technology that would allow two sterile opposite sex cousins to procreate would also allow 2 same sex individuals to, both would be banned by this entry of your reference:

"Prohibit attempts to conceive a child by any means other than the union of egg and sperm."

Sterile people usually have eggs and sperm in their bodies, but have some reason why they don't get to meet and do their thing. IVF and other forms of medicine can sort of heal them. A man and a woman have a right to restore their health and attempt to procreate. Being a man is not a health problem, the other person you want to procreate with is just also a man.

>Accepting that we are back to the fact that opposite gender first cousins are specifically allowed license to the civil contract as long as one or the other is sterile.

What states? Do they still do this now what IVF is around? I think these laws were just short-sighted "who cares, let them marry" laws, and weren't intended to strip procreation rights from marriage.

>No procreation is possible between the 2 of them just as it isn't between two same gender married citizens.

Never say "not possible" today.

>Allow them or any sterile citizen to marry and your position become untenable , if you allow one you have to allow the other.

All we would do is ban non egg and sperm procreation. Every man has a right to attempt to combine his gamate with a woman's gamate, even if he might not be able to, even if they have to use IVF.

>There is no requirement to procreation tied to the civil contract. Many within the contract do procreate, the state can require those that procreate to be within the contract, but no state requires those in the contract to procreate or even to be able to potentially procreate.

MArried peoiple have a right to procreate, not an ability.

>If this were true there would be no brides who have had hysterectomies, no grooms who have had radical orchectomies. Face it, this dog won't hunt, this bird won't fly, or whatever homily you want to toss in there.

THose brides have a right to attempt to combine their gamates just like everyone does. But just not with another gamate of the same sex, or a different species, or with added genes, etc.
 

There it is again, the overpopulation argument. Few have the guts to say it publicly, because it can be boiled down to this ugly bit of elitism: "Heterosexuals are the problem, homosexuals are the solution." Utterly apalling...

Even if you believe such tripe, go peddle it in the third world where overpopulation is actually taking place -- not here in the prosperous west where birth rates are falling and 1 acre lots are normal.
 

My sense of the purpose of this post is apparently different from most. I do not know law well, so that may explain it. From what I understand, it is a look at the legal arguments made for/against same sex marriage, as was said on the federal level. It does not seem, to me, to say that same sex marriage should or should not be allowed. If you would just take a moment and put your opinions on it aside, you would get the point of the arguments.
Personally, I cannot see how same sex marriage can ruin mine. I do not understand that argument. We as a people look down on other countries for their prejudices and restrictions of their people. Why do we think we have a right to dictate to other countries about freedoms, when we are consistently denying our own people certain freedoms. This includes not only the same sex marriage argument, but other areas as well. Such as, with the clear mandate(?) in the constitution disallowing religion in federal and state matters. I find these people restricting other's freedoms arrogant, and their arguments baseless no matter how you look at it.
 

Besides calling people ignorant bigots, JohnnyATL keeps harping that "SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL". Which is exactly why opposite-sex unions (besides being the ONLY way "families" are ever created) are so important: they are a perfect INTEGRATION of the sexes.

You are the one claiming that separate is equal, not me.
 

Since the racial analogies are such a favorite of SSM supporters, lets go one step further:

There are some white people who really dislike black people, and vice versa. So much so, that they would not even send their kids to school with members of another race.

Are they free to open their own "whites only" or "blacks only" school? Sure they are -- but they will NOT be entitled to government support or recognition. Only schools which enforce racial integration are entitled to government recognition. Parents, no matter how racist, are still free to educate their children as they see fit. But as a matter of government policy, separate is NOT equal, and integration is worth the effort.

The same holds true for marriage. You and your boyfriend are free to call yourselves married, and to setup whatever kind of "family" you choose. But to say the government is descriminating against you for making that choice, by not recognizing your relationship with benefits, is the same as a Klansman saying he's being descriminated against because the government won't recognize his "whites only" school.

So we agree -- separate is NOT equal. You want equality? Then sexually integrate your family.
 

"...it remains unequivocally true that the civil institution of marriage is not dependent on either the intent or the ability to procreate, as has been pointed out in postings above."

Yep, that's correct. But it is dependent on sexual integration. Everywhere but Massachusetts anyway...

"...But EVERY PARENT also has the absolute right (including even non-citizens) to have their children educated in public schools – where racial discrimination is ILLEGAL. "

Yep, just as every person has the absolute right to marry and be granted public recognition. But sexual descrimination is ILLEGAL. I'm glad we're seeing eye to eye now.

"...No one will be turned away from this state-sponsored benefit because of their race."

Nor their sexual orientation...

"...But not so a same-sex couple who wish to be afforded the state and federally sanctioned benefits attending marriage. The same benefits (and there are many) that a heterosexual couple can obtain at a drive-through chapel in Vegas on a whim, are forever out of their reach."

No, thats not quite correct -- not just ANY heterosexual couple is entitled to those benefits -- only opposite sex couples. Same thing for gay couples. They don't even ask about that in Vegas, i hear...

"...It is time that we as a nation also agree that discrimination based upon sexual orientation is WRONG."

An arguable point, and i'm not inclined to disagree. Except marriage does NOT descriminate based on sexual orientation.

"...You can dress your argument up all you want in your best Sunday clothes Marty."

I would never presume. I KNOW i'm out of my league on this blog... obviously so are you.

"...your thinly veiled moral judgment of me and the utter failure to countenance the very real fact ... that being gay, like race, is not a choice for millions of Americans."

My moral judgement is hardly "thinly veiled" my friend, nor is yours. Sexual orientation may or may not be a choice, the jury is still hung on that point. But marriage, and who you choose to marry most certainly IS a choice.

You dont want equality -- you've already got it. No, you're after something special...
 

Point taken BBD, but with respect to the "equality" argument, there is not even a requirement of "love" for the State to recognize a marriage. One would certainly hope so, but just as marriage cannot make you love your spouse, neither can love make a spouse of your lover. At least not in the eyes of the State. You, however, are free to call your lover by whatever name you choose -- there is no "ban" on that.

We can cover the emotionalism, orientation, and religious aspects of marriage, or we can argue equality in the eye of the law, or, if you prefer, we can skip around in an endless circle whenever someone finds their position a little cramped.

For now, i'm going to stick with the equality aspect, with regards to state recognition, and let others speak to the rest. My point is very simple: the requirements of a valid marriage are few and light, and equally applied to all citizens without regard to race, religion, gender, handicap, sexual orientation, etc. etc. Not even "love".
 

HVC: "Finally, the discussion might better be why married is different than single; i.e., would this be such an issue if the state treated married and single individuals the same?"

The de-institutionalization of marriage is exactly where we're headed, because arguments for SSM apply equally to all manner of "non-marriage" relationships. It ignores the fundamental question of WHY the State feels a need to encourage, foster, and provide incentives for marriage in the first place. Obviously our generation is on the verge of forgetting the answer to that very question.

Which can only mean the death of marriage as a civil inistution worth protecting. Which can only mean... (care to guess?)
 

"...Sexual orientation is a defining, immutable characteristic (NO – the Jury is not out on that Marty; it lives only because bigots continue to push the idea that a “choice” is involved."

You can keep telling yourself that.
But you'd be wrong. Here are a few links that might expand your worldview, if your mind is open enough:

http://www.queerbychoice.com/
http://www.narth.org
http://www.exodus-international.org/
http://exgay.blogs.com/xgw/

And remind me someday to tell you about when I chose to be heterosexual. Chose to NOT be homosexual is probably more accurate, as heterosexuality is not even an "orientation" per se, but the natural state of humankind -- proven daily by gay couples at fertility clinics across the country.
 

BobVB - after the egg and sperm law is passed, people will only be allowed to have children with a person of the opposite sex. If a woman is allowed to marry another woman, their marriage would have different rights than if she had married a man. Not being allowed to attempt to have chidren with the person you are married to is a significant difference, and the right to have children together is the sine qua non of marriage. No marriage has ever not been allowed, by law, to have children together before.

You bring up cousin marriage, but this actually proves my point that marriage grants procreation rights. 24 states permit cousin marriage. A few of the states that don't will allow it if the couple proves they can't have kids, as a sort of compromise. They felt that te problem with these marriages was a higher risk of birth defects, and so if there weren't going to be any children, then there wasn't going to be a problem. It seemed a harmless and practical compromise for a few rare cases, but you can't cite these marriages as evidence that marriage doesn't grant procreation rights. Come on, it should be obvious that they are regulating cousin procreation, but doing it by regulating cousin MARRIAGE - they consider the two things synonymous. They allow the couple to have the procreation right of marriage, but only because they won't be able to exercise it.

But we don't know how these states do it in these IVF/surrogacy days. It would seem impossible to prove infertility anymore. Do they allow the marriage where pregnancy won't happen through sex, but forbid them from attempting to create offspring using modern techniques available to other infertile and older couples? If so, I think it is misguided, as all marriages should have the same rights, in order to serve marriage's other main purpose of creating equality. But even that conflicted solution would be acceptable, if same-sex marriages were not given all the rights of hetero marriages. But I think if we have "same-sex and infertile cousin marriages" that don't allow artificial attempts at procreation, and regular hetero marriages that do allow attempts at procreation, then they should have different names and different benefits and protections, and all marriages should continue to have procreation rights.

See my blog for more on SSP and marriage rights.
 

I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be one. (I was pre-law in college, but stopped there.) In the interest of full disclosure, I am a married lesbian, my wife and I have been together for 6 years, we even had an (extra-legal) wedding ceremony, exchanged rings, a honeymoon, the whole bit. We plan to have children soon, via adoption, a choice we would have made anyways even if we could procreate together.

Back to the legal issue at hand. I'm curious, isn't one of the fundamental principles of filing a lawsuit against a person, entity or the government is the burden of proving "harm" due to mistreatment, discrimination, etc.? Therefore the question is this-- is there harm in limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples? If so, what is it?

I'd argue that there is, that if marriage is the foundation of a healthy society then banning gays and lesbians from marriage and the rights that accompany marriage is both harmful to them, financially and socially, as well as to their families and to society in general. Why would anyone want all of these marriage-in-name-only families in our society? These families are integrating themselves into our society already-- in cities, in suburbs, in urban areas. They live everywhere, in every county, have a wide variety of economic and educational backgrounds, as the 2000 census indicates. (Which is believed to be a dramatic undercount, as this was the first time same-sex couples were counted.)

As it stands the government is creating illegitimate children by willfully ignoring that there is no spouse, often a second legal parent, because no legal marriage contract exists. If given a choice these people would marry, would opt-in to the rights and responsibilities of traditional marriage. We all know this argument pretty well-- the rights that come with legal marriage-- so I won't get into the hospital visitation, inhereitence stuff here.

I personally find it really perplexing that first the homophobes complain that all the gays are too promiscuous, we can't commit, etc. Now they complain that we want to settle down, get married, have families and pursue our right to happiness. Then they use the excuse that their religion says gay marriage is bad, ignoring that there are plenty of Christians, Jews, etc. who are getting married with both the blessing of their clergy and their communities. Folks, face facts, you have no leg to stand on except for a firm belief in an inherent superiority of yourself and your families. But times are changing, the inferiority of homsexuals is no longer a given in our society and most other "first world" nations.

We are here, we are queer and-- I'm sure this scares you the most-- we're really not that different from anyone else, we want a lot of the very same things as you. Once the stigma against us and all the people who are challenging our right to exist disappear, we'll just be another minority group that is both a part of and seperate from society at large.
 

I suspect Prof. Balkin has had just about enough of our abuse of his blog, so as much more as i might have to say to you on the matter, JohnnyATL, perhaps our paths will cross again on another blog.

I leave you with one more link, a long list of testimonials of men and women whose "orientation" has changed for the better.

http://www.pfox.org/Testimonials.asp

I don't expect you to actually read them, as your intolerance for such openminded consideration is painfully obvious. But you might get some jollies by calling them nasty names. I'm sure you've earned that right.

Adeui, and thanks to you all for an interesting discussion.

PS: Mike and the gang at XGW would love to have you as a regular, Johnny, they're great at spirited debates like this one. But be forewarned, you're bound to meet some folks in the comments who are living proof that the jury IS still out on that whole "immutability" thing. Not that you, or the the other XGW regulars, will bother to listen to them. But it's fun to call them names anyway.
 

Marty-

It's not closed minded to challenge the legitimacy of a group-- Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays-- that uses the existence of homophobia in society and in the families of gay people to beat them up with it, to make them feel bad about being who and what they are. Also, at the very heart of any ex-gay organization's mission? Religion. They're not organizations as much as they are ministries. (They also call themselves as much.)

Also, can we please talk about how the two ex-gay founders of Exodus International (a much bigger ex-gay ministry than PFOX) ran off together? What does that tell you?

Trust me, I'm sure I know more about ex-gays than you do. (Unless you are one.) I've studied ex-gay groups, I've talked to ex-gay people, there is no real "success" in making a gay person straight. Ex-gay people openly admit that they are suppressing the part of them that they have been taught is wrong according to someone's else's scriptural interpretation-- the part of them that others have told them that they should hate. (Ironically Jesus never ever talked about homosexuality.) Most ex-gay people talk about it being an everday struggle, they are the only heterosexuals I've ever encountered who talk about "choosing" heterosexuality. Do you honestly think that makes them truly straight?

Personally I have no animosity towards ex-gay people, I mostly feel great sympathy towards them, they are victims. But the folks who prey on them are nothing more than snake oil peddlers, selling false hopes to people who need love and support, not lessons in self-loathing.
 

Society should endeavor to create straight people who create equality by pairing up with a person of the other sex into a single legal entity, and who share responsibility for the children they create with the person they create the children with.
Society might not be able to make every person straight, but it should be respected as the ideal that everyone should be. Wouldn't you want to be able to be have offspring together with the person you love and live with? Embody your kinship in a child that is half you and half the person you love? Not have some female third party busting into your life with claims of parenthood? Not having your child asking about who her mommy is? Not being shut out from the bio relationship your adopted son has with his "real" dad? You would be able to do that, without unethically creating thousands of destroyed freak babies and ushering in a brave new world of manufactured people, if you were just straight. That's why society should try to make straight people.
 

Oops, more "choice" that doesn't fit the template...
http://www.washblade.com/2005/2-11/view/columns/choosing.cfm

Don't you wish these people would just shuttup?
 

Justice Ling-Cohen: The right to marry 'is not a privilege conferred by the State, but a fundamental right that is protected against unwarranted State interference.' So, she's opening it up to sibling marriages, 12 year olds, polygamy, the entire Augusta National Golf Club, etc? Seems like "unwarranted" is the key word here.
Attempting to create a person through any means other than combining an egg and a sperm is unethical, unreliable, unsafe, and ought to be prohibited. Therefore, it is not unwarranted to prohibit marriages that can only procreate through unethical and prohibited means.
 

JohnnyATL - I'm not suggesting that gays, once gay, can change, or that society should punish them. I'm saying that society should raise people to be straight. Those "bisexuals" at Yale are people that claim to be able to go either way, but absent any encouragment to be straight, and with heavy pressure to not be homophobic, and surrounded by pornography and propaganda, wind up gay. That's tragic, because now they will not be able to exercise their basic human right to procreate unless they do it in an unethical way that creates hundreds of stillborn babies and defect-prone adults, or in an illegal(!) way that seperates their child from its other parent, and seperates them from their spouse.
It's funny that you bring up eugenics, because stopping eugenics is the entire reason I oppose gay marriage. Natural egg and sperm procreation, between loving couples who choose to marry and procreate together, is the opposite of eugenics.
 

The strong argument agaisnt same-sex marriage is that same-sex procreation is completely unethical.

The RIGHT to Procreate is the sine qua non of marriage. Every marriage has it. Even those cousin marriages were given the right to procreate, but only because they would not be able to. I suspect that those exceptions are not made anymore, in these days of fertility treatments.

>What you seem to be railing against is cloning. Fine. Another blog, another day.

Not just cloning, but all non egg and sperm procreation. Here is the blog: eggandsperm.blogspot.com

>Trying to smear gays and lesbians with the bizarre notion that they seek to “clone their own” is just another low-ball tactic to confuse the debate surrounding the continued oppression of gays and lesbians.

Oh, really? Gay and LesbiansThere is not a right to attempt to create people by combining two eggs or two sperm. Any technique besides combining an egg and a sperm should be prohibited.

Of course a marriage doesn't NEED to procreate, but it has the right to procreate. When two people marry, they have the right to attempt to create offspring. You can bring up all sorts of irrelevant tangents, but a person should only have a right to attempt to procreate with a person of their own sex, and all marriages should have the right to attempt to procreate.
 

Oops, i meant a person should only have a right to procreate with a person of the other sex!
 

JATL: And make no mistake, religious beliefs are the foundation upon which all opposition to same-sex marriage is founded. As i read the comments above, the only ones bringing religion into this debate are from, like you JohnnyATL, supporters of SSM!

There have been many principled objections stated here, not the least of which are the problem legal precendents being set for other non-marital relationships by the simple-minded reasoning of Ling-Cohen. Of course, you don't have to think about those problems -- so long as you get what you want...

So why you insist on bringing up the religious aspects of this debate (where you have absolutely NO case to make) is beyond me. Unless you're just demagoguing everyone again...

Why so much rage, friend? You weren't molested by a gay preist when you were little, were you?
 

Society has been very successful at raising straight people. There is no encouragement for people to be straight these days. About the only thing that is considered wrong for someone to do these days is "pretend" to be straight when they "are really gay". At the same time, they are told that it is noble and honorable and hip and exciting to be gay.

Changes I would suggest: ending gay straight alliances in schools, prosecuting pornography creators and disrtibutors, allowing people to express preference for straightness and abhorance of homosexuality without fear.

I'm encouraging all people to take advantage of all their civil rights, including marriage and procreation.

What's your position on SSP rights, anyhow?

THe egg and sperm law would not effect people's ability to raise children in all the ways they do now (adoption, sperm donors, etc).

Infertile hetero couples and older couples all HAVE THE RIGHT to marry and attempt to combine their gamates. Their medical condition is private and unknowable. If they have a kid, using technology or through sex, it will be legal and ethical, because they will have combined an egg and sperm. A same-sex couple PUBLICLY will not be able to combine an egg and sperm. They would HAVE TO - obviously and publicly - do what was done to create Kaguya, and that owuld be illegal and unethical. See?

THis isn't Science Fiction it has been done in mice, and gays and lesbians are on record as awaiting it with baited breath. The time to talk about it is now, when we are debating giving the rights of marriage to same-sex couples.

SSP will lead to all sorts of other genetically altered births, and that most certainly IS eugenics. Keeping procreation natural, and encouraging everyone to take part in it, is NOT eugenics. James Watson is a eugenicist, he of Cold Spring Harbor labs, formally called the "Eugenics Record Office".
 

"marriage is a civil institution and our Constitution provides for the separation of church and state, i.e., no endorsement of religion and therefore no importation of religious views on homosexuality to craft public policy that affects all citizens, gay and straight. "

Having already explained that marriage laws do not consider sexual orientation, one way or the other, you would surely agree then that because marriage is not mentioned in the constitution as a "basic civil right" (but it's about to be, if you keep ignoring the wishes of your neighbors) it is subject to regulation by "We the People" though our duly elected reprasentatives. And since "We the People" are a largely religious folk, it is no suprise (and no infringement of 1A) that our values should be reflected in marriage law. That is, unless your reading of 1A is decidely hostile to religion, as i suspect it would be for someone of your persuasion... but hostile to religion is no more constitutional than endorsement of it.

And just to set your own records straight (no pun intended), you might want to brush up on the so-called "founders" of Exodus (not quite), both of whom were married to women and fathers of children that they abandoned for each other -- one of whom subsequently died of AIDs.

Just so you know.
 

The debate has already started, and the consensus has already been reached, that non egg and sperm reproduction is unethical and unsafe and should be prohibited. This means that there is a right that you have with a woman but not with a man. Do you agree with that part, so far? Now, the way it involves marriage - are there ANY marriages that do not have a right to procreate together? No. Even those old "cousin marriages" had that right, because back when they were granted, there was no IVF, no 60 year olds were having children. They were given the right only because the state believed they would not be able to exercise it. A marriage without the right to procreate is not a marriage at all. Do you think the Lovings, or the Supreme Court, would have settled for that sort of marriage? No, they wanted to mix their genes and have babies. Virginia couldn't sterilize them or make them promise not to have kids. That was the "basic civil right" that was the whole basis for their right to marry. If you accept that you don't have a right to have children with a man, but you do a woman, that would be a start.
 

So you refuse to say if you think two women should have a right to try and create a child together? Either you think they should, which is VERY selfish, irresponsible and unethical, or you agree that there is a right that same-sex couples should not have. Which is it?
I don't confuse ability with rights, marriage grants the RIGHT, not the ability. And it's not irrelavent, procreation rights were at the heart of Loving v Virginia, and fundamental to its resolution. Marriage certainly is a fundamental right, and the right to procreate is a "basic civil right" that is the basis for people having a right to marry, but not with a person of the same sex! Banning people from marrying and attempting to procreate with someone of the other sex IS NOT INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION. People have the right to marry and procreate with a person of the other sex - even you, even Abe Lincoln, everyone. No one is barred from marriage. Everyone has the right, and yes, even the ability, to be straight.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

The "ethical dilemma" (if it could be called that) of SSP certainly exists, and the consensus among ethicists and scientists is that it would be "completely unethical" to try it on humans. Perhaps, in the future, it won't be, but it certainly is now. The success rate in mice was less than 1%, and humans would be even more complicated. Even the sort of "same sex IVF" you conjecture would have the same inherent problems of not understanding how genes get imprinted by sperm and egg. You can't just take the DNA from an egg and put it in a sperm and expect it to work the right way. It would be unethical even to try. Heck, according to PETA,it is unethical to try it on ANIMALS, and I happen to agree with them. There is NO NEED for this research, it serves no medical purpose, no one is dying of not being able to create a baby from two eggs.

BTW, IVF is TEN TIMES more likely to result in birth defects than sexual intercourse (and riskier even when compared to women the same age), and the President's Council also recommended that certain forms of IVF be banned. IVF isn't a sacred right, and it hasn't gained near universal acceptance. It is more under scrutiny than ever. yes, I would be opposed to same-sex procreation if it was just as safe as IVF, or even regular sex. WHY? First of all because it can't be tested without putting people at grave risk. Second, it can only be done "in house" by females, and they would only produce females. Men would have to use artificial wombs or surrogates, adding risk and cost. I think men and women should remain partners, people should be forced to cooperate in life with a complimentary life partner. And I believe in evolution, not "intelligent design". I don't think we should let anyone replace it with their religious God complex. You might think scientists are smart and clear headed, but they are quite misanthropic and crazy and ill-developed people, not fit at all to make decisions for everyone about the future of life.

As to the rights of marriage, Marriage would not be a "basic civil right" if the Lovings had been free to procreate outside of marriage. They had to get married to legally procreate. Virginia's Court just recently removed their fornication law, but I think only to give it to the Supreme Court to overrule. Marriage still grants the same rights it always did, even though fornication is not prosecuted these days. The “right to procreate” is indeed NECESSARY for marriage. It is the "sine non qua". A marriage without procreation rights is not a marriage. A state could, if it wanted, grant ALL THE OTHER rights of marriage as a civil union. As long as it doesn't grant same-sex couples a procreation right, I'll be happy.
 

oops, I meant "sine qua non" - "without which, not".

Look at Loving v Virginia and apply the logic to banning not interracial procreation but same-sex procreation. And yes, Virginia was trying to keep the Lovings from procreating, from mixing their genes, not from visiting each other in the hospital. Is it "invidious discrimination" when there is a less than 1% "success rate" to same-sex procreation in mice? Even that "success" is questinoable, since all the problems with Kaguya's genes may not have surfaced. To allow anyone to attempt it would be unethical.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

You say that "No proponent of same-sex marriage equality is arguing for the right to same-sex pro-creation."

But they are arguing for "equal rights". The same rights that a hetero couple has. Procreating together should be a right of hetero couples only.

>Your attempt...

hey, I'm not attempting to grant "all the rights of marriage" to same-sex couples. I'm not trying to say that same-sex couples should have equal rights to both-sex couples.

>This is NOT the “why” gays and lesbians want equal marriage rights.

Every loving couple wants to have children TOGETHER. Look at the troubles that older hetero couples go to, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on pie in the sky treatments, just to avoid going childless or having to adopt or use a sperm donor or any of the other things that gay couples are supposedly perfectly happy about doing. I don't buy it, I think gay couples would want to have children together, same as any couple.

Yes, I am directed at legislation that limits attempts at conceiving to combining an egg and sperm. The problem is that "equal rights for gay couples" contradicts this much needed and wholly appropriate legislation.

3. The “right to pro-create” is NOT the sine qua non of marriage (Ask any same-sex couple who have married in Massachusetts).

Those couples currently have a license to procreate together. It must be rescinded.

What is "circular" about saying that marriage universally and always meant procreation rights, and therefore it means procreation rights right now? Your reasoning is faulty - that since we stopped prosecuting fornication and rescinded illegitimacy laws, that suddenly marriage changed its legal meaning. People argued back when we repealed illegitmacy laws that it would lead to more people having children out of wedlock and harm marriage, but they were scoffed at. It won't affect marriage, you all said, it is only to help children born out of wedlock.

And everyone has equal treatment under the law.

>I read you as saying you’re OK with same-sex marriage;

Wrong.

>you just want a law passed that would prevent anyone from using ethically questionable reproductive technologies.

Specifically, I want the egg and sperm law as proposed by the President's Council on Bioethics passed. But I also want for everyone to be raised to be able to have children with the person they love. I don't think that people should think that who you marry and where your children come from are unrelated, because it destroys family responsibility. If Murphy Brown is fine raising a kid by herself, why should the woman I got pregnant need me to take care of her?
 

>NOT A WORD ABOUT THE LOVINGS RIGHT TO PROCREATE AS BEING THE UNDERLYING BASIS

Take a closer look at Loving v Virginia, and note where the phrase "basic civil rights of man" comes from. Note that the Court had no problem taking that quote from Skinner v Oklahoma, where it referred to procreation and only procreation, and plugging it right into this case about marriage. That's because the two rights are synonymous, they overlap completely. Marriage rights ARE procreation rights. There are no marriages without procreation rights, and - still today but more obviously in 1967 - there are no procreation rights without marriage rights. Currently, all the people who have children outside of marriage do it WITHOUT A LICENSE. They don't have a right to, but they do it anyway.

The laws against interracial marriage were racist and intended to maintain white supremacy. To suggest that same-sex procreation is comparable to interracial procreation is incredibly racist and misses the point completely.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 

Thanks for admitting I was right that the phrase "basic civil rights of man", which comes from Skinner, is about procreation. I don't see how you can still not see the connection to why those procreatin rights are cited in Loving. Perhaps you missed this quote from Zablocki I posted here last week:

"if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place."

Don't you see that if the Loving's had been allowed to procreate outside of marriage, then the Court couldn't have said that denying them marriage denied them the "basic human right" of marriage.

>”Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. The power to sterilize [NOTE – it does not mention marriage]

Because they were sterilizing people whether they were married or not. Sure, they could marry after they were sterilized, but note that the fact that they could still marry didn't somehow make it acceptable to sterilize them. Marriage without procreation rights is not good enough. See?

Procration rights are necesarry and sufficient for marriage. As soon as the state grants someone procreation rights, they are married. It doesn't matter if they are in love, or dedicated to each other, or whatever. And procreation rights are all society has to grant a couple to grant them marriage. Society hasn't always offered those other "1000 benefits" of marriage, but it has always granted the couple the right to start attempting to procreate.

>If “marriage” and “procreation” were one and the same, there would be no need for the court to use the conjunctive “and”, it would be redundant.

Marriage and procreation are not the same things, obviously, procreation is having children, and marriage is the public joining of the two people so that they may attempt to procreate, whether they do or not.

>And in quoting Skinner in Loving, the Court uses only the term “marriage” – and does not at all address the right of procreation in the marriage – merely the right and freedom to choose the partner to whom one wishes to be married. No part of the Loving decision rests on either the intent or ability to pro-create.

That's because it is so well understood that marriage, and only marriage, gives the right to procreate. (And for the last time, intent or ability have nothing to do with having the right)

>your assertion that marriage grants the only license to procreate is simply preposterous.

Find me the case or the law that says it is legal to have children children without being married. You might think Eisenstadt and Griswald do, but they are referring to the right to attempt to NOT have children in or out of marriage. I repeat that fornication has not been addressed by the Supreme Court, and I predict that Virginia's recent decision to decriminalize fornication will not stand.

You write: ” Currently, all the people who have children outside of marriage do it WITHOUT A LICENSE. They don't have a right to, but they do it anyway.” Uh huh, you’re dammm right. Why? BECAUSE IT’S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT OF A HUMAN BEING – IRRESPECTIVE OF MARITAL STATUS.

Why do you say "independent of marital status?" You note how they are always saying "marriage and procreation". The only time they ever seperated them was when they said Oklahoma cannot sterilize people, and that, obviously, was independent of marriage.

So, JohnnyATL, will you stand up and say if it can be banned or do you feel there is a right to it?
 

I meant to say "Don't you see that if the Loving's had been allowed to procreate outside of marriage, then the Court couldn't have said that denying them marriage denied them a "basic human right"? The right they were being denied was explicitly the procreation right found in Skinner, and that is why they had to be allowed to marry. If they could have procreated anyway, then there would be no "basic civil right" to marriage at all.
 

Skinner says “marriage and procreation” are “basic civil rights. Do I need to diagram the sentences of Skinner for you? TWO SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT RIGHTS.

They're seperate, but not independent. To execise procreation rights, you need to marry. Sterilizing people didn't prevent anyone from marrying, but denied them the basic civil right anyhow. Not allowing someone to marry also denies them very same basic civil right.

>The right of procreation ...is an innate human right and THAT is what Skinner stood for.

Right, but to exercise it, you have to marry. That's why there is a right to marry. THat was just so much of a given that it went without saying at the time of Loving, but the Court spelled it out in Zablocki.

>You just repeatedly and continuously confuse and insist on inter-linking the two concepts when that is not what the case law says.

Huh? The case law repeatedly interlocks the two concepts. You haven't answered what you think would have happened if the Loving's could have legally procreated without marrying, or what would have happened if the Virginia had insisted on sterilizing them before allowing the marriage. I'll tell you: if they could have procreated w/o marriage, the court would not have found that marriage was a basic civil right, and if they had tried to sterilize them before they got married, the court would have found that was unconstitutional, even though they were being allowed to marry.

>It is unequivocally true that the Court’s decision is Skinner does not grant a right to procreate that is founded upon the condition precedent of marriage.

Well, duh, it doesn't matter if someone is married or not, if they are being sterilized, they are being denied a basic civil right. How could marriage make any difference?

>Johnny Moral writes: ”Find me the case or the law that says it is legal to have children without being married.” WHY? It doesn’t matter!!! See SKINNER!

Skinner DOES NOT say it is legal to have children outside of marriage! In fact it goes out of its way to mention marriage in this case that is not about marriage at all, when it says that "marriage AND procreation" are fundamental to the survival of mankind, etc. In what way, smart guy, is marriage fundamental to the survival of mankind?

>A child born out of wedlock may suffer consequences of such decision; but I defy you to find the law where it says that it is ILLEGAL to have children while not married.

In Zablocki, and in the laws of Massachusetts and most other states. That's what fornication and adultery and MARRIAGE laws all say.

>On fornication laws, see Lawrence.

That was about sodomy, done in private, and sexual intercourse is as different from sodomy as life is from death.

And reading Lawrence, I came across this: "...it would demean a married couple were it said that marriage is just about the right to have sexual intercourse." Notice the word "just" - clearly the Court is saying that IN ADDITION to marriage being about the right to have sexual intercourse, it is about other things also. If it wasn't about the right to have intercourse (ie, to attempt to procreate), the Court would not have used the word "just".

The Virginia Supreme COurt is off it's rocker, and I can't wait for this to get to the Supreme Court.
Of course there is a "relevant distinction" sodomy doesn't create people. Sodomy doesn't become public, irrespective of the wishes of the two consenting adults. Intercourse does.

Both "improperly abridge a personal relationship that is within the liberty interest of persons to choose."

What about the interests of the future citizen created by intercourse? The state has an interest in their well-being, and can insist that people make a public lifelong legal commitment before making a public lifelong physical commitment.

>Let me ask rhetorically – if the “right to procreate” was so fundamental to Loving – isn’t it peculiar that it is not mentioned in the case at all as the basis for the decision?

What do you mean, it cites Skinner, and basis the whole decision on that quote from Skinner. You are just too young to realize how ingrained the idea was that first you marry, and then you can have sex was before the 70's came along. It was truly a radical notion that people might have sex outside of wedlock.

>You also direct me back to the quote you made from Zablocki ... But you did not quote the first part of that same paragraph of the Court’s opinion... First the Court equates the “decision to Marry” on the same plane as “decisions relating to procreation”.

That's because they are indeed on the same plane. But that still doesn't say that it's legal to have children out of wedlock. It's legal NOT TO (ie, to abort), and she has a right to have the baby once she is pregnant, but it wasn't legal for her to get pregnant.

THe Virginia case will get to the Supreme Court eventually, and I am confident that they will recognize the states interest in ensuring responsible reproduction and equal rights.
 

So you seem to admit that in 1940, marriage granted procreation rights? Well, find me the case or the law that stripped procreation rights from marriage. I can see that people have children outside of marriage and are not punished, but I can't see where marriage stopped making it legal. It might not be as necessary as it was, but it still does the same legal function it always did, doesn't it?

You know the part in the ceremony where the person says "you may kiss the bride"? Well, that is a euphenism. Obviously, the couple could kiss all along, right? What they couldn't do is have sex. What is really meant is "now, you may have sex with the bride."

At any rate, you have to agree that there is an egg and sperm law that has been proposed, and, even if you refuse to take a position on it, that there are good reasons to pass it, and if it passes, a man will have a right with a woman that he doesn't have with a man - namely, the right to procreate. I say that's a pretty significant difference, and that relationships that have a right to procreate deserve different benefits and protections and respect, and also that relationships that might procreate have much greater responsibilities. The life/death difference may be deeply insulting and disturbing to you, but it is very real. If you have sex with a woman, you might create life. On the other hand, you probably wear a condom because you don't want to die. Is truth really something you find offensive?

Also, you also have to admit that if you start calling couples that don't even have a right to procreate married, it will change the meaning of marriage - never before (and even you have to admit this is true) has a marriage not had the right to procreate.
 

What is it that you are trusting your partner about, and why? If you are surprised, and you very much might be (you provided the stats that show how untrustworthy people are), it will not be because you have created life, it will be because you might die. Whether or not that concerns you, and whether or not it happens to you, I am very much offended that you don't acknowledge that creating a life is a very real and weighty responsibility faced only by heterosexual couples. I am also concerned for your health, because considering how proud you are of your relationship's faithfulness, your friend might be afraid to admit an affair had occured for fear of upsetting you. He might choose to risk your life rather than lose your friendship by telling you he had cheated and you'd better use a condom for a while.
>Find ME the case law that says procreative rights existed SOLELY WITHIN MARRIAGE.
Again, it's explicit in Zablocki: "if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place." See that "only" there? That means "solely". If there was a right to procreate without marriage, then Zablocki and Loving would not have been decided the way they were. There would be no right to marry. How can you not see that??? Here's the progression, again: there is a right not to be sterilized, because procreation is a basic civil right, and you can't procreate if you have been sterilized. Marriage won't make you fertile again, or restore your basic civil rights. And then, there is also a right to marry, because that is how you legally procreate. Skinner wan't about marriage at all, but still it mentions marriage - why?Fornication and adultery are illegal in Massachusetts, and until recently, in most states. I do hope Virginia appeals to the Supreme Court. Fornication is not sodomy, and of course ensuring that both parties consent to the full responsibiities of chldbearing, and not just sex, is due process.
And - AGAIN - you have to agree that there is an egg and sperm law that has been proposed, and, even if you refuse to take a position on it, that there are good reasons to pass it, and if it passes, a man will have a right with a woman that he doesn't have with a man - namely, the right to procreate.
You also have to agree that all marriages have a right to procreate. There are male-female couples that do not have a right to procreate, such as siblings, etc, AND THEY ARE THE ONLY COUPLES WE DON'T LET MARRY. Why is that?
And up until now, most gays have denied that they wanted to change marriage, only that they wanted to be a part of it. But you are desiring to change marriage for everyone by making it no longer guarantee a right to procreate. That is a scary thought. All marriages should have a right to procreate, and all people should have a right to marry, including Abe Lincoln and you. But no one should have a right to marry and procreate with a sibling, or with a person of the same sex, because that is too risky for the person being created.
 

Your gay hero complex is just too much for me to take, though it is humorously stereotypical. You still don't get Zablocki or Skinner, after three or four times explaining them to you, so I give up there. I do want to answer this though: "Explain to me exactly how making marriage INCLUSIVE of same-sex couples will TAKE AWAY a heterosexual married couple’s right to have a child?"

This was based on the proposition that non egg and sperm procreation is banned. If same-sex procreation is not allowed, but a person is still allowed to marry someone of their same sex, then that would mean, because there would be no distinctions between the rights of same-sex marriages and both-sex marriages, that marriage would not guarantee a right for even a both-sex couple to procreate together. Every marriage would be equally subject to a risk assessment and could be prevented from procreating together, since same-sex marriages would be, and all marriages would be equal. This would be very bad, though you would probably gleefully approve of breeders being sterilized or their babies aborted because they might pass on some gene due to their lack of "planning". (And I want to say, just because people "want" a baby and plan for it, doesn't mean they aren't mentally ill and acting imprudently. Man-hating bigots and mentally ill people shouldn't be raising kids.)
 

Thanks for your great summary of the arguments for same-sex marriage. I have highlighted them in my blog posts about the upcoming oral arguments in the Washington state same sex marriage case which take place Tue Mar 8.
 

Hi there....I wanted to say I like tour blog. It has alot of informative information relating to child and other info.
Maybe you would be interested in checking out my website **Preschool Learning Online.com** it deals with some of the similar info like child and such...

Thanks for the informative stuff....
 

If you are interested about information on car transport, you should visit my website.
 

There is nothing wrong with encouraging the acceptance homosexuality and bisexuality in society. It certainly won't hurt anyone. It should be seen as normal and equal to heterosexuality, because it is! A huge benefit to society is that same-sex couples can adopt babies to give them a loving home and family.
 

Terimakasih Atas informasinya, Sedikit info kami.....


Obat Sipilis Di Apotik
Nama Obat Sipilis
Nama Obat Sipilis Di Apotik
Obat Sipilis Apotik


 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

obat mengatasi herpes
obat mengobati herpes
obat medis herpes kulit
obat herpes yang manjur
obat untuk herpes mulut
obat herpes di muka
obat herpes yg mujarab
obat tradisional herpes mulut
obat tradisional mengobati herpes
obat untuk menghilangkan herpes
cara menghilangkan herpes kelamin
obat nyeri herpes
obat nyeri herpes zoster
obat pereda nyeri herpes
nama obat herpes genitalis
nama obat herpes di apotik
obat penghilang nyeri herpes
obat untuk nyeri herpes
nama obat herpes
obat penghilang rasa nyeri herpes
nama obat herpes zoster
cara mengobati herpes kelamin
nama obat herpes simplex
obat pereda nyeri herpes zoster
obat herpes oles
obat herpes oral
obat oles herpes zoster
obat herpes untuk orang hamil
obat-obat herpes
obat herpes pada anak
obat herpes pada bibir
Obat herpes
obat herpes alami
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Bagaimana Cara Mengobati Jengger Ayam
Obat Tradisional Penyakit Jengger Ayam
Cara Pengobatan Jengger Ayam Mujarab
Cara Menyembuhkan Jengger Ayam
Obat Herbal Penyakit Jengger Ayam
Obat Mujarab Untuk Jengger Ayam
Mengobati Jengger Ayam Pada Wanita
Mengobati Jengger Ayam Pada Pria
Pengobatan Tradisional Jengger Ayam
Apa Nama Obat Jengger Ayam
Obat Jengger Ayam Ampuh di Apotik

Nama Obat Herpes Genital Ampuh
Cara Mengobati Herpes Genital Manjur
Pengobatan Herpes Genital Untuk Wanita
Pengobatan Herpes Genital Untuk Pria
Cara Mengobati Penyakit Herpes Genital
Cara Pengobatan Herpes Genital Mujarab
Obat Penyakit Herpes Genital Manjur
Obat Tradisional Penyakit Herpes
Pengobatan Ampuh Herpes Genital
Obat Herpes Genital di Apotik
Tips Pengobatan Herpes Genital
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Obat Kondiloma Akuminata Manjur
Pengobatan Kondiloma Akuminata Mujarab
Nama Obat Kondiloma Atau Kutil Kelamin
Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Herbal
Pengobatan Ampuh Kondiloma Akuminata Tradisional
Bagaimana Mengobati Kondiloma
Obat Penyakit Kondiloma Akuminata Alami
Kondiloma Akuminata dan Pengobatannya
Pengobatan Alternatif Kondiloma Akuminata
Pengobatan Kondiloma Akuminata Pada Wanita
Penyebab Kondiloma dan Pengobatannya

Obat Kanker Payudara Paling Manjur
Mengobati Kanker Payudara Dengan Cepat dan Aman
Pengobatan Herbal Kanker Payudara Stadium 3
Mengobati Kanker Payudara Tanpa Operasi
Cara Mengobati Kanker Payudara Ampuh Stadium Akhir
Cara Mengobati Kanker Payudara Mujarab
Inilah Obat Kanker Payudara Yang Ampuh
Penyakit Kanker Payudara Tanpa Operasi
Obat Kanker Payudara Tanpa Operasi Stadium 2
Cara Tradisional Menyembuhkan Kanker Payudara
Cara Menyembuhkan Kanker Payudara Tanpa Operasi
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Pengobatan Klamidia Pada Wanita, Cara Mengobati Klamidia Ampuh, Pengobatan Klamidia Pada Pria, Pengobatan Klamidia Mujarab, Obat Klamidia Paling Ampuh, Cara Mengobati Klamidia Ampuh, Cara Mengobati Klamidia Mujarab, Cara Mengobati Klamidia Dengan Cepat, Cara Menyembuhkan Klamidia, Obat Tradisional Penyakit Klamidia, Obat Klamidia Paling Manjur, Pengobatan Manjur Penyakit Klamidia, Obat Tradisional Klamidia, Obat Alternatif Klamidia, Cara Pengobatan Klamidia, Cara Mengobati Penyakit Klamidia, Cara Mengobati Klamidia Ampuh, Obat Herbal Penyakit Klamidia, Obat Klamidia Paling Manjur, Cara Obat Klamidia Paling Manjur, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Nama Obat Gonore Ampuh di Apotik, Cara Mengobati Penyakit Gonore, Cara Pengobatan Gonore Manjur, Obat Gonore Ampuh, Cara Mengobati Gonore Pada Wanita, Cara Mengobati Gonore Ampuh, Obat Penyakit Gonore Pada Pria, Obat Gonore Manjur, Cara Mengatasi Gonore Aman, Pengobatan Gonore Ampuh De Nature, Obat Penyakit Gonore Paling Ampuh, Pengobatan Paling Ampuh Gonore, Cara Pengobatan Gonore, Cara Mengobati Gonore Pada Pria, Cara Mengobati Gonore Pada Pria, Penyakit Gonore dan Obatnya, Obat Gonore Tradisional, Obat Gonore Paling Manjur De Nature, Obat Gonore Ampuh Resep Dokter, Obat Gonore Tradisional || Pengobatan Penyakit Sipilis Paling Ampuh, Obat Penyakit Sipilis Paling Ampuh, Pengobatan Penyakit Sipilis Pada Wanita, Cara Menyembuhkan Sipilis, Obat Herbal Untuk Penyakit Sipilis, Cara Mengobati Sipilis Paling Manjur, Cara Menyembuhkan Gejala Sipilis, Cara Pengobatan Penyakit Sipilis, Obat Alami Untuk Gejala Penyakit Sipilis, Obat Penyakit Sipilis De Nature, Cara Menghilangkan Gejala Sipilis, Nama Obat Sipilis Paling Ampuh, Pengobatan Sipilis Untuk Pria, Resep Obat Sipilis Tradisional, Mengobati Penyakit Sipilis, Apa Obat Sipilis Yang Ampuh, Mengobati Penyakit Sipilis Dengan Cepat, Pengobatan Sipilis Ampuh di Bandung, Cara Pengobatan Sipilis Pada Pria, Cara Pengobatan Sipilis Pada Wanita
 

Obat sipilis manjur atasi raja singa
obat sipilis di apotik
obat sipilis di apotik umum
obat sipilis dengan bayam duri
obat sipilis alami
obat sipilis di apotik k24
obat sipilis tradisional
obat sipilis paling ampuh
obat sipilis raja singa
obat sipilis pada wanita
obat sipilis resep dokter
obat tradisional kutil kelamin pada pria
propolis untuk obat kutil kelamin
obat alami untuk penyakit kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin resep dokter
resep obat kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin salep
obat kutil di sekitar kelamin
obat sakit kutil kelamin
obat kutil kelamin terbaik
Obat kutil kelamin yang untuk wanita hamil
obat kutil kelamin terbaru
Obat wasir dan ambeyen
Obat wasir de nature
Obat wasir dari dokter
Obat wasir daun handeuleum
Obat wasir dari tumbuhan
Obat wasir dragonrear
Obat wasir dimasukkan ke anus
Obat wasir di bandung
Obat wasir dr hembing
Obat wasir di pasaran
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Cara Mengatasi Keputihan Berwarna Hijau, Obat Alami Wasir Atau Ambeien Pasca Melahirkan, Obat Untuk Kutil di Sekitar Vagina, Cara Mengatasi Keputihan, Obat Alami Wasir, Obat Untuk Kutil Kelamin, Obat Gonore Murah, Obat Penyakit Gonore, Pengobatan Tradisional Sipilis, Cara Mengatasi Sipilis, Obat Tradisional Sipilis
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Obat kondiloma di apotik, Obat kondiloma untuk ibu hamil, Obat kondiloma akuminatum, Obat herbal kondiloma, Obat tradisional kondiloma, Obat penyakit kondiloma, Obat tradisional kondiloma akuminata, Obat herbal kondiloma akuminata, Jual obat kondiloma, Obat oles kondiloma, Obat alami kondiloma akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Herbal, Pengobatan Kondiloma Akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Tradisional, Obat Herbal Kondiloma Akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Ampuh, Ciri Ciri Penyakit Kondiloma Akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Alami, Cara Pengobatan Kondiloma Akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Mujarab, Obat Penyakit Kondiloma Akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Paling Ampuh, Obat kondiloma di apotik, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Dengan Cepat, Tips Menyembuhkan Kondiloma Akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata 3 Hari, Tanda Tanda Kondiloma Akuminata, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata 2 Hari, Nama Obat Penyakit Kondiloma Akuminata, Obat Kondiloma Akuminata Murah, Cara Mengobati Kondiloma Akuminata Paling Cepat, Cara Menyembuhkan Kondiloma Akuminata, Obat De Nature
 

This was a fantastic article. Really loved reading your we blog post. The information was very informative and helpful...

Cara mengobati kanker dengan herbal, Cara mengobati kanker dengan tradisional, Cara mengobati kanker dengan alami, Cara mengobati kanker dengan cepat, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir, Cara mengobati kanker tanpa ke dokter, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Gambar obat kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker ampuh dengan singkong, Cara mengobati kanker stadium awal tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur dari tumbuhan, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 1 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker ampuh dengan daun sirsak, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 2 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling mujarab yang efektif, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3 tanpa operasi, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 3, Cara mengobati kanker stadium 4 tanpa operasi, Obat kanker paling manjur 2016, Cara mengobati kanker stadium akhir tanpa operasi, Pengobatan kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang manjur, Pengobatan kanker manjur dan aman, Cara pengobatan kanker yang mujarab, Cara pengobatan kanker tanpa operasi, Cara pengobatan kanker yang ampuh, Obat kanker mujarab tanpa operasi, Obat kanker manjur tanpa operasi, Obat De Nature
 

obat herpes genital
obat penyakit herpes kelamin pria
pengobatan herpes kelamain pria
apa obat herpes genital
apa obat herpes genital
tanaman obat herpes genital
nama obat herpes genital
Obat herpes alat kelamin
Obat alami untuk herpes genital
obat herpes kulit untuk anak
harga obat herpes genital
obat herpes di kelamin
obat herbal untuk herpes genital
obat herpes kumplulan tips
obat medis herpes genital
obat untuk menyembuhkan herpes genital
perkembangan obat herpes genital
 

obat herbal mengobati kanker serviks stadium 3
obat alami untuk mencegah kanker serviks
obat medis untuk kanker serviks
wwwobat kanker serviks
obat vaksin kanker serviks
obat untuk mengatasi kanker serviks
Tumbuhan untuk obat kanker serviks
Obat untuk menyembuhkan kanker serviks
obat untuk penderita kanker serviks
obat tradisional untuk kanker serviks
obat utk kanker serviks
obat untuk kanker serviks
obat tradisional utk kanker serviks
sirsak obat kanker serviks
obat sakit kanker serviks
hello world obat untuk kanker rahim stadium 3
obat herbal kanker rahim stadium 4
obat kanker rahim stadium 1 1
Obat kanker rahim stadium 2
Obat penyakit herpes kelamin pria
 

obat herpes ampuh
obat herpes kulit kumpulan tips
obat herpes apa
obat herpes biar cepat kering
obat buat herpes genital
obat herpes genital wanita
obat herpes kulit alami
obat herpes mujarab
obat herpes pada mulut
obat herpes resep dokter
obat herpes tumbuhan
obat tradisional herpes genital
 

kanker serviks gejala awal
kanker serviks stadium 1b
kanker serviks stadium lanjut
kanker serviks adalah penyakit kanker yang menyerang
kanker serviks apakah menular
kanker serviks apakah bisa sembuh
kanker serviks apa bisa hamil
kanker rahim apakah bisa disembuhkan
kanker serviks bisa disembuhkan
kanker serviks bisa melahirkan
mengenal kanker serviks cara pengobatan
kanker serviks dan pengobatannya
obat herpes alami
obat herpes kulit
obat herpes agar cepat kering
obat alami herpes kulit
obat herpes biar cepet kering
obat herpes paling cepat
obat herpes dokter
obat herpes genital pria
obat herpes genital di apotik
obat herpes genital wanita
obat herbal herpes genital
obat jitu herpes
 

Obat sipilis Obat kutil kelamin obat wasir
Obat sipilis raja singa paling ampuh
obat sipilis amoxicillin
obat sipilis adalah
obat sipilis atau raja singa
obat sipilis apa
obat sipilis anjuran dokter
obat sipilis apa ya
obat sifilis akut
obat sipilis apa namanya
obat alami sipilis pada pria
obat antibiotik sipilis di apotik
obat sifilis ampuh
apa obat sipilis
obat sifilis apotek
obat sifilis adalah
obat sifilis atau raja singa
Cara paling ampuh mengobati kutil kelamin
pengobatan ampuh kutil kelamin pada wanita
obat kutil kelamin yang ada di apotik
obat kutil kelamin yg dijual di apotik
obat kutil di kemaluan wanita
pengobatan kutil kelamin pada pria
pengobatan penyakit kutil kelamin pada pria
obat penyakit kutil pada kelamin pria
Pengobatan kutil kelamin aman dan tanpa operasi
obat kutil pada alat kelamin pria
pengobatan kutil kelamin
Obat herpes zoster tradisional
Obat herpes untuk ibu hamil
Obat herpes ampuh
Obat herpes untuk anak
Obat herpes mulut
Obat herpes tradisional yang ampuh
 

Obat herpes untuk balita
Obat herpes selain acyclovir
Obat herpes di wajah
Obat herpes alami
Obat herpes di leher
Obat salep buat kutil kelamin
Obat cina kutil kelamin
Cuka obat kutil kelamin
Obat cina untuk kutil kelamin
Obat cina penghilang kutil kelamin
Obat china untuk kutil kelamin
Obat kutil di kelamin pria
Obat tradisional kutil di kelamin
Obat kutil di daerah kelamin
Obat untuk menghilangkan kutil di kelamin
Obat sipilis
Obat sipilis Yang manjur
obat sipilis denature indonesia
Obat sipilis resep dokter
Obat sipilis paling manjur
Obat sipilis pada wanita
Obat sipilis paling ampuh
Obat sipilis manjur
Obat sipilis ampuh
Obat sipilis atau raja singa
Obat sipilis herbal
Obat sipilis murah
Obat sipilis anjuran dokter
Obat sipilis apa namanya
Obat sipilis dijual di apotik
Obat alami sipilis pada pria
Obat sifilis ampuh
Obat sipilis buat wanita
Obat sipilis bagi wanita
Obat buat sipilis
 

obat alami untuk penderita herpes
obat herbal alami penyakit herpes
obat alami mengatasi herpes
obat alami menyembuhkan penyakit herpes
pengobatan tradisional herpes genitalis
obat alami penghilang bekas herpes
obat alami atasi herpes
obat tradisional herpes atau dompo
obat penyakit kulit herpes alami
pengobatan alami herpes simplex
obat penyakit herpes alami
obat alami herpes simplek
rehabilitasi kanker serviks
kanker serviks stadium 1 sampai 4
kanker rahim serviks
kanker serviks pada wanita belum menikah
kanker serviks pembalut berbahaya
kanker serviks pembunuh wanita
obat kanker serviks tradisional
kanker serviks tanpa operasi
kanker rahim obat herbal
kanker serviks ovarium
kanker serviks di negara berkembang
kanker serviks menyerang umur berapa
 

obat wasir,Solusi Wanita Herbal Tanpa Efek Samping 100% Aman, Obat Herbal Kutil Kelamin Manjur
 

kanker serviks apa
kanker serviks awal
kanker rahim akibat
kanker rahim ciri
kanker rahim ciri2nya
kanker serviks etiologi
kanker serviks figo
forum kanker serviks
kanker serviks gatal
kanker serviks hpv
kanker serviks itu apa
informasi kanker serviks
obat herpes alami
obat herpes anak
obat herpes apa ya
obat herpes ampuh
obat herpes bagus
obat cacar herpes
obat herpes cream
obat herpes di paha
obat herpes genetal
obat herpes genitalia
obat herpes ibu hamil
tanaman obat herbal herpes
 

Gejala dan pengobatan ambeyen Cara Mengobati Ambeyen Tanpa Operasi Obat ambeyen de nature Obat alami penyakit wasir Obat ambeyen herbal ampuh Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Obat herbal ambeyen Sembuhkan wasir dengan ambeclear dan salwa Jual obat ambeyen herbal Spesialis pengobatan wasir Obat khusus wasir Obat wasir stadium 2 Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeyen berdarah Cara mengobati ambeyen stadium 4 Agen resmi obat wasir ambeclear dan salwa Penjual obat ambeyen Mengobati wasir tanpa operasi
 

Gejala dan pengobatan ambeyen Cara Mengobati Ambeyen Tanpa Operasi Obat ambeyen de nature Obat alami penyakit wasir Obat ambeyen herbal ampuh Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Obat herbal ambeyen Sembuhkan wasir dengan ambeclear dan salwa Jual obat ambeyen herbal Spesialis pengobatan wasir Obat khusus wasir Obat wasir stadium 2 Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeyen berdarah Cara mengobati ambeyen stadium 4 Agen resmi obat wasir ambeclear dan salwa Penjual obat ambeyen Mengobati wasir tanpa operasi
 

Gejala dan pengobatan ambeyen Cara Mengobati Ambeyen Tanpa Operasi Obat ambeyen de nature Obat alami penyakit wasir Obat ambeyen herbal ampuh Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Obat herbal ambeyen Sembuhkan wasir dengan ambeclear dan salwa Jual obat ambeyen herbal Spesialis pengobatan wasir Obat khusus wasir Obat wasir stadium 2 Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeyen berdarah Cara mengobati ambeyen stadium 4 Agen resmi obat wasir ambeclear dan salwa Penjual obat ambeyen Mengobati wasir tanpa operasi
 

Gejala dan pengobatan ambeyen Cara Mengobati Ambeyen Tanpa Operasi Obat ambeyen de nature Obat alami penyakit wasir Obat ambeyen herbal ampuh Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Obat herbal ambeyen Sembuhkan wasir dengan ambeclear dan salwa Jual obat ambeyen herbal Spesialis pengobatan wasir Obat khusus wasir Obat wasir stadium 2 Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeyen berdarah Cara mengobati ambeyen stadium 4 Agen resmi obat wasir ambeclear dan salwa Penjual obat ambeyen Mengobati wasir tanpa operasi
 

Gejala dan pengobatan ambeyen Cara Mengobati Ambeyen Tanpa Operasi Obat ambeyen de nature Obat alami penyakit wasir Obat ambeyen herbal ampuh Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Jual obat ambeien herbal de nature Obat herbal ambeyen Sembuhkan wasir dengan ambeclear dan salwa Jual obat ambeyen herbal Spesialis pengobatan wasir Obat khusus wasir Obat wasir stadium 2 Obat ambeien di apotik Jual obat ambeyen berdarah Cara mengobati ambeyen stadium 4 Agen resmi obat wasir ambeclear dan salwa Penjual obat ambeyen Mengobati wasir tanpa operasi
 

Obat wasir di apotik online Obat ambeyen tanpa operasi Jual obat ambeien herbal Obat ambeien ambeclear salwa Produk obat wasir terbaik Obat ambeyen tanpa efek samping Obat herbal ambeyen wasir Obat tradisional ambeien Obat ambeien tradisional ampuh Cara mengobati ambeien stadium 4 Obat wasir stadium 3 Obat wasir ambeyen herbal ampuh Cara tepat mengobati ambeyen Obat bab berdarah Spesialis pengobatan ambeien Obat ambeyen ambeclear salwa Obat Ambeyen Alami Cara mengobati ambeyen tanpa efek samping Mengobati ambeyen tanpa operasi Obat khusus penyakit ambeien
 

Jual obat penyakit ambeien Obat penyakit wasir ambeien Obat penyakit wasir ampuh Obat penyakit wasir luar Pengobatan penyakit wasir dalam Obat penyakit wasir yang manjur Obat ampuh khusus penyakit wasir Obat herbal penyakit wasir berdarah Jual obat wasir ambeien manjur Mengobati wasir tanpa operasi dan aman tanpa efek samping Obat wasir berdarah ambeclear dan salep salwa Apa obat wasir yang ampuh? Produk ambeclear dan salwa efektif sembuhkan wasir Jual obat herbal ambeclear dan salep salwa Obat wasir luar berdarah Obat tradisional wasir ambeclear salwa Pengobatan wasir dengan ambeclear dan salwa Obat wasir ambeclear efektif sembuhkan wasir dalam 1 minggu Cara cepat mengobati wasir ambeien tanpa operasi
 

obat kanker serviks lengkap manjur
obat kanker serviks menurut who manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur de nature
obat kanker serviks menurut depkes manjur
obat kanker serviks yang menyerang manjur
obat kanker serviks pengobatan dan pencegahan
obat kanker serviks alami manjur
obat kanker serviks tradisional manjur
obat manghindari risiko kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks pencegahan manjur
obat kanker serviks atasi penularan manjur
obat herpes pada leher manjur
obat herpes genital sembuh total manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital simplex alami manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes simplex genital manjur
obat untuk virus herpes genital simplex manjur
obat virus herpes genital amnjur
obat untuk herpes genital manjur
obat herpes untuk anak aman
obat tradisional herpes genitalis manjur
obat herpes tumbuhan ternyata manjur
 

Obat Sipilis Amoxicillin
Obat Sipilis Adalah
Obat Sipilis Apa
Obat sifilis Akut
Obat Sipilis Apa Namanya
Obat Sipilis Alami
Obat Sipilis Tradisional
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik
Obat Sipilis Paling Ampuh
Obat Sipilis Dengan Bayam Duri
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik
Obat Sipilis Alami
Obat Sipilis Paling Ampuh
Obat Sipilis Dengan Bayam Duri
Obat Sipilis Raja Singa
Obat Sipilis Jogja
Obat Sipilis De nature
Obat Sipilis Tradisional Daun Sirih
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik Umum
Obat Sipilis Kimia Farma

 

Obat Sipilis Amoxicillin
Obat Sipilis Adalah
Obat Sipilis Apa
Obat sifilis Akut
Obat Sipilis Apa Namanya
Obat Sipilis Alami
Obat Sipilis Tradisional
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik
Obat Sipilis Paling Ampuh
Obat Sipilis Dengan Bayam Duri
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik
Obat Sipilis Alami
Obat Sipilis Paling Ampuh
Obat Sipilis Dengan Bayam Duri
Obat Sipilis Raja Singa
Obat Sipilis Jogja
Obat Sipilis De nature
Obat Sipilis Tradisional Daun Sirih
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik Umum
Obat Sipilis Kimia Farma

 

obat sipilis di apotik umum
sipilis kimia farma
sipilis dokter
obat sipilis resep dokter
sipilis generik
Obat Sipilis Jogja
Obat Sipilis Tradisional Daun Sirih
obat sipilis di apotik umum
obat sipilis kimia farma
obat sipilis dokter
obat sipilis resep dokter
obat sipilis generik
cari obat sipilis di apotik
cara obat sipilis
resep obat sipili tradisional
cefixime obat sipilis
ciproxin obat sipilis
Obat Sipilis Tradisional Daun Sirih
obat sipilis generik
obat sipilis yang paling ampuh
obat sipilis pada pria rumah
obat sipilis murah
obat sipilis
obat sipilis tradisional
obat sipilis di apotik
Obat Sipilis Alami
obat sipilis paling ampuh
Obat Sipilis Dengan Bayam Duri
obat sipilis pada pria
obat sipilis raja singa

 

obat kanker serviks herbal manjur
obat kanker serviks ampuh paten
obat kanker serviks paling manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur paten
obat kanker serviks herbal paten
obat kankerviks herbal alami
obat ampuh kanker serviks
obat untuk kanker serviks ampuh
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat tradisional kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur paten ampuh
obat kanker serviks secara herbal
obat herpes alami paten
obat herpes genital alami paten
obat herpes paten genital
obat paten herpes genital ampuh
obat paten herpes genital manjur
obat herpes atau dompo oaten
obat buat herpes genital paten
obat bagus buat herpes genital paten
obat herpes cepat sembuh paten
obat herpes paling cepat sembuh paten
obat herpes herbal di kemaluan
obat herpes genital kulit top manjur
 

Obat Sipilis Jogja
obat sipilis de nature
Obat Sipilis Tradisional Daun Sirih
obat sipilis paling ampuh
obat sipilis di apotik
obat sipilis raja singa
Obat Sipilis Jogja
obat sipilis de nature
obat sipilis tradisional daun sirih
obat sipilis di apotik umum
obat sipilis dokter
obat sipilis generik
obat sipilis yang paling ampuh
obat sipilis
Obat Sipilis Tradisional
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik
Obat Sipilis Alami
Obat Sipilis Paling Ampuh
Obat Sipilis Dengan Bayam Duri
Obat Sipilis Pada Pria
Obat Sipilis Raja Singa
Obat Sipilis Jogja
Obat Sipilis De Nature
Obat Sipilis Di Jual Di Apotik
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik Terdekat
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik Kimia Farma
Obat Sipilis Di Apotik Resep Dokter
Obat Sipilis Di Kimia Farma

 

Obat kanker serviks manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
 

Obat kanker serviks manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
obat herpes genital manjur
 

obat herbal kanker serviks
obat herbal kanker serviks ampuh
Obat herbal kanker serviks paten
obat herbal kanker serviks manjur
obat herbal kanker serviks mujarab
obat herbal kanker serviks terpercaya
obat herbal kanker servik
obat herbal kanker servik ampuh
obat herbal kanker servik manjur
Obat herbal kanker servik mujarab
obat herbal kanker servik paten
obat herbal kanker servik terpercaya
obat herbal herpes genital klik disini
Obat herbal herpes genital baca sekarang
obat herbal herpes genital manjur
obat herbal herpes genital ampuh
obat herbal herpes genital 2016
obat herpes genital herbal 2015
obat herpes genital herbal 2016
Obat herpes genital herbal bulan ini
obat herpes genital herbal klik sekarang
obat herpes genital herbal 1945
obat herpes genital herbal manjur
obat herbal herpes genital berkhasiat
 

obat wasir obat wasir stadium 4 obat wasir ampuh obat wasir herbal obat wasir tanpa operasi cara mengobati wasir
 

Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
Obat Ambeien Tanpa Operasi
 

obat umum kanker serviks herbal
obat kanker serviks menurut dokter
Obat herbal kanker serviks pada umumnya
Obat tradisional kanker serviks paten
obat tradisional kanker serviks manjur
obat tradisional kanker serviks mujarab
obat tradisional kanker serviks ampuh
obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal ampuh
obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal mujarab
obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal paten
Obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal manjur
obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal
obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal spesial
obat kanker serviks manjur herbal khusus
obat kanker serviks manjur herbal khusus wanita
obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal ampuh
Obat kanker serviks manjur herbal khusus umum
obat tradisional kanker serviks herbal
obat herpes herbal alamiah
obat herbal tradisonal herpes genital ampuh
Obat herbal alamiah herpes genital
 

obat herbal tradisonal herpes genital ampuh
Obat herbal alamiah herpes genital
Obat tradisional herpes genital manjur
obat tradisional herpes genital ampuh
obat tradisional herpes genital paten
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital ampuh
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital
obat tradisional herpes genital terbukti manjur
Obat herbal tradisional herpes genital paten
obat tradisional herpes genital terbukti
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital manjur
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital
obat tradisional herpes genital herbal manjur
obat herbal tradisional herpes genital

obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
obat kanker serviks manjur
 

Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
 

Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
Obat kanker serviks
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
obat herpes genital
 

gut post..............................................
 

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
 

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`