South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules - LA Times

South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules

South Dakota's voter-approved same-sex marriage ban is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Monday, making it the latest in a string of marriage bans to fall nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier stayed her ruling until the appeals process plays out, but she found South Dakota had wrongly deprived six same-sex couples of their rights. The couples had sought to marry within the state or have their marriages from other states recognized at home."Plaintiffs have a fundamental right to marry," Schreier wrote in a 28-page ruling. "South Dakota law deprives them of that right solely because they are same-sex couples and without sufficient justification."

Click to expand...

Judge Rules SD Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - ABC News
South Dakota ban on gay marriage unconstitutional: U.S. judge | Reuters
South Dakota marriage law struck by judge - Washington Times
Federal Judge Strikes Down South Dakota
South Dakota Must Allow Gay Marriage: Judge - NBC News
South Dakota Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

yet another victory!!!!!
such a road equal rights has blazed in these last couple years, it makes me so proud that america is righting one of its wrongs and equal rights are winning all over the place!!!
Like i said many times equal rights will be national no longer than the end of 2016 but it wouldn't shock me if it happened this year.

1/13/2015 Version 24

37 States with Equal Rights and 9 Stayed/Appealed/Pending

37 States with Equal Rights
1.) Massachusetts - May 17, 2004
2.) Connecticut - November 12, 2008
3.) Iowa - April 27, 2009
4.) Vermont - September 1, 2009
5.)New Hampshire - January 1, 2010
Washing D.C. - March 9, 2010
FALL OF DADT Dec 18, 2010
6.) New York - July 24, 2011
7.) Washington - December 6, 2012
8.) Maine - December 29, 2012
9.) Maryland - January 1, 2013
FALL OF DOMA - June 26, 2013
10.) California - June 28, 2013
11.) Delaware - July 1, 2013
12.) Rhode Island - August 1, 2013
13.) Minnesota - August 1, 2013
14.) New Jersey - October 21, 2013
15.) Hawaii - December 2, 2013
16.) New Mexico – December 19, 2013
GSK v. Abbott Laboratories - January 21, 2014 (could be huge in gay rights, discrimination/heightened scrutiny)
17.) Oregon May 19, 2014
18.) Pennsylvania May 20, 2014
19.) Illinois - (ruled on Nov 20th 2013) June 1, 2014 effective
20.) Utah Oct. 6, 2014
21.) Oklahoma Oct. 6, 2014
22.) Virginia Oct. 6, 2014
23.) Wisconsin Oct 6, 2014
24.) Indiana Oct 6, 2014
25.) Colorado Oct 7, 2014
26.) Nevada Oct. 9, 2014
27.) West Virginia Oct. 9, 2014
28.) North Carolina Oct. 10, 2014
29.) Idaho Oct. 15, 2014
30.) Alaska Oct. 17, 2014
31.) Arizona Oct 17, 2014
32.) Wyoming Oct. 21, 2014
33.) Missouri Nov 5, 2014 (partial)
34.) Kansas Nov. 12, 2014 (partial)
35.) Montana Nov. 19, 2014
36.) South Carolina Nov. 20, 2014
37.) Florida Jan 6, 2015


9 Stayed/Appealed/Pending
*Arkansas - May 5, 2014 state court (Stayed), Nov 25 state supreme court (Stayed)
*Kentucky - February 14, 2014 (Must recognize out-of-state marriages which will lead to their ban being defeated) (6th going to SCOTUS)
* Louisiana – Sept 22, 2014 (appealed to the 5th)
*Michigan - March 21, 2014 (Stayed) (6th going to SCOTUS)
*South Dakota - Jan 12, 2015 ruled on by federal district judge, stayed
*Mississippi – Nov 25, 2014 (stayed)
*Ohio - April, 2014 Trial had narrow ruling that Ohio will recognize OTHER state marriages but didn’t impact bans. New cases expected. (6th going to SCOTUS)
*Tennessee March, 2014 (Direct US Constitution Challenge)(Prilim in and 3 couples are recognized, later broader ruling coming) (6th going to SCOTUS)
Texas - February 26, 2014 (Stayed)


4 States Working Towards Equal Rights

4 States with Pending Court Cases to Establish Equal Rights
Alabama (federal lawsuit)
Georgia (federal lawsuit)
Nebraska (Lawsuit and amendment)
North Dakota (Amendment)


thats 50 states that could have equal rights by 2016 and some much sooner!

US Court of Appeals Tracker
Map: Court Locator
1st - all states have equal rights (puetro rico pending)
2nd - all states have equal rights
3rd - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
4th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
5th - pending (jan)
6th - ruled against equal rights going to SCOTUS
7th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
8th - ruled against it in 2006, talks of more cases from each state
9th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
10th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights
11th - ruled (or denied appeal) in favor of equal rights



State Attorney Generals no longer defending the bans due to their unconstitutionality
California (Has equal rights now)
Illinois (Has Equal rights now)
Kentucky
Nevada(has equal rights now)
Oregon (has equal rights now)
Pennsylvania(has equal rights now)
Virginia (has equal rights now)

ALL STATES ARE NOW FIGHTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS

#EqualRightsAreWinning!!!!!!!!!!!!


70% of the population lives where there are equal rights

also please feel free to let me know of any corrections or updates that need made, equality is kicking so much ass its hard to keep up, thanks[/QUOTE]

AGENT J said:

South Dakota's same-sex marriage ban unconstitutional, judge rules - LA Times



Judge Rules SD Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional - ABC News
South Dakota ban on gay marriage unconstitutional: U.S. judge | Reuters
South Dakota marriage law struck by judge - Washington Times
Federal Judge Strikes Down South Dakota
South Dakota Must Allow Gay Marriage: Judge - NBC News
South Dakota Gay Marriage Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

yet another victory!!!!!
such a road equal rights has blazed in these last couple years, it makes me so proud that america is righting one of its wrongs and equal rights are winning all over the place!!!
Like i said many times equal rights will be national no longer than the end of 2016 but it wouldn't shock me if it happened this year.

Click to expand...

Good. I agree that SSM is, in my opinion, a right that should be protected. Well done.

That said, issues like SSM and abortion (social) are electing Presidents these days. We need to focus on our economy and foreign policy so we can stop this downward spiral. SSM should be a state right. Once all the states legalize it, the feds will too, not matter the President. In reality, no matter who wins in 2016, it's likely SSM will be federally recognized.

I am totally cool with SSM and enjoy seeing these rights finally coming to light. However, I think it's time our leaders begin thinking of our nation as a whole, and propping us back up!

11Bravo said:

Good. I agree that SSM is, in my opinion, a right that should be protected. Well done.

That said, issues like SSM and abortion (social) are electing Presidents these days. We need to focus on our economy and foreign policy so we can stop this downward spiral. SSM should be a state right. Once all the states legalize it, the feds will too, not matter the President. In reality, no matter who wins in 2016, it's likely SSM will be federally recognized.

I am totally cool with SSM and enjoy seeing these rights finally coming to light. However, I think it's time our leaders begin thinking of our nation as a whole, and propping us back up!

Click to expand...

If you agree with the fact marriage is a right then it should NEVER be up to the states.

anyway, you right about the rest, not just now but many times hot topic issues in the past at lease determine the nominees for president
and while i may agree that sometimes there are more pressing issues then what you mentioned "equal rights and abortion" if people feel a candidate is going to go backwards on those issues its gonna present problems even if they are going forward on others.

a lot of time people arent willing to take steps back on one issue to move forward on another

again its not that i disagree that theres more important things but the issue isnt focusing on these things, the issue is they shouldnt be issues in the first place
if people and candidates alike wouldnt push for these issues they wouldnt matter

and in 2016 any candidate that makes anti-gay rights or banning abortion part of thier campaign platform they will not and can not win .. . . thats not based on my views thats just whats going on in the country today

AGENT J said:

If you agree with the fact marriage is a right then it should NEVER be up to the states.

anyway, you right about the rest, not just now but many times hot topic issues in the past at lease determine the nominees for president
and while i may agree that sometimes there are more pressing issues then what you mentioned "equal rights and abortion" if people feel a candidate is going to go backwards on those issues its gonna present problems even if they are going forward on others.

a lot of time people arent willing to take steps back on one issue to move forward on another

again its not that i disagree that theres more important things but the issue isnt focusing on these things, the issue is they shouldnt be issues in the first place
if people and candidates alike wouldnt push for these issues they wouldnt matter

and in 2016 any candidate that makes anti-gay rights or banning abortion part of thier campaign platform they will not and can not win .. . . thats not based on my views thats just whats going on in the country today

Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense. I mean, it should be a protected right so yes the feds should secure it. I still stand by the rest of what I said though. I think social issues should come after economic and foreign policy IMO.

11Bravo said:

I still stand by the rest of what I said though. I think social issues should come after economic and foreign policy IMO.

Click to expand...

again i dont disagree but its like i said i dont think people are willing to move backwards on a social issue to move forward on economic and foreign policy so the politics/people have to drop some of the social issues.

If you give up one right for economic and foreign policy then whats next, two rights? etc thats why its too hard. Politicians just have to drop some of them.

AGENT J said:

again i dont disagree but its like i said i dont think people are willing to move backwards on a social issue to move forward on economic and foreign policy so the politics/people have to drop some of the social issues.

If you give up one right for economic and foreign policy then whats next, two rights? etc thats why its too hard. Politicians just have to drop some of them.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't see the cons accepting SSM. However, I still think that a Republican is certainly electable. Especially if Hillary runs.

11Bravo said:

1.)Unfortunately, I don't see the cons accepting SSM.
2.) However, I still think that a Republican is certainly electable.
3.) Especially if Hillary runs.

Click to expand...

1.) "stereo-typically" you are probably right but you shouldn't group all cons together (you probably didnt mean too) there are MILLIONS that support equal rights for gays
2.) of course a republican is electable it just depends on what one
3.) well i disagree here, i think Hilary running makes it HARDER not easier, but Im simply basing that over the RUMORS of who might run for the republicans.

AGENT J said:

1.) "stereo-typically" you are probably right but you shouldn't group all cons together (you probably didnt mean too) there are MILLIONS that support equal rights for gays
2.) of course a republican is electable it just depends on what one
3.) well i disagree here, i think Hilary running makes it HARDER not easier, but Im simply basing that over the RUMORS of who might run for the republicans.

Click to expand...

True, didn't mean to call out the conservatives. I just stated their name because the conservative lobby is against SSM, not all conservatives though.

11Bravo said:

True, didn't mean to call out the conservatives. I just stated their name because the conservative lobby is against SSM, not all conservatives though.

Click to expand...

no biggie, it happens, i figured it was just a "slip of the keyboard"
millions of conservatives support equal rights

The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.

In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.

If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.

The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.

The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".

The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.

The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.

AGENT J said:

no biggie, it happens, i figured it was just a "slip of the keyboard"
millions of conservatives support equal rights

Click to expand...

I'm just ready for it to be over and legalized so we can move forward.

11Bravo said:

I'm just ready for it to be over and legalized so we can move forward.

Click to expand...

agreed so is the majority of america

11Bravo said:

Unfortunately, I don't see the cons accepting SSM. However, I still think that a Republican is certainly electable. Especially if Hillary runs.

Click to expand...

Fortunately they dont have to accept it. They arent allowed an opinion on who marries who now....on the 2 individuals, straight or not. Dont see why they should for gays either.

Ontologuy said:

The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.

In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.

If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.

The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.

The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".

The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.

The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.

Click to expand...

i love when you show how severely uneducated you are on this specific topic.

just for some more facts that further destroy your false claims
Fact: this is an equal rights issue
Fact: many states also have banns on same sex unions/partnerships etc
Fact: there is no such thing as hommariage with regards to legal marriage in the us
Fact: referring to same sex couples as married is not an oxymoron
Fact: claiming that its analogous to calling a cat show a dog show is 100% false and not analogous
Fact: the below couple was legally married and in a legal marriage no matter how much anybody cries about it or lies about it


sorry but nobody educated, honest and objective will ever buy the intellectually inane, logically inept, dishonest and mentally retarded "claims" in your post

if you disagree simply provide any facts that support your posted lies

as usual your posts fails is completely destroyed and facts win again

Ontologuy said:

The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.

Click to expand...

LOL So your analogy has gays being non-Homo sapien? Different species from straight people? LOL

The standards by which cats and dogs are judged are very different....marriage for gay and straight people are exactly the same except for gender....which makes absolutely no difference in the relationship, families, the laws of the marriage contract, the benefits and legal privileges that are accorded them.

What a ridiculous and un-conservative idea: a different name for the same institution and license. More bureaucracy, more paperwork, bigger govt to accommodate it and in the end:

People will STILL SAY they are married! LOL There will be no distinction legally OR socially. heh. And the prehistoric stigma will eventually disappear.

11Bravo said:

I guess that makes sense. I mean, it should be a protected right so yes the feds should secure it. I still stand by the rest of what I said though. I think social issues should come after economic and foreign policy IMO.

Click to expand...

The government can do several things at once. Advantage of having more than two or three people running it.

Ontologuy said:

The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.

In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.

If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.

The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.

The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".

The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.

The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.

Click to expand...

Oh look it's the same ridiculous, flawed, completely irrelevant example of dog shows. It is utterly comical that you think an animal show is "of an analogous nature" to a private legal contract between human beings. It is also utterly comical that you blatantly ignore all of the judicial actions to date and actually convince yourself that SCOTUS is going to take your side in this argument. Even Antonin Scalia sees the writing on the wall, he knows full well what the ramifications of Lawrence and Windsor are. You? You just seem to pretend those decisions don't exist.

Dog shows are private events. If the people running that event want to allow cats to enter, they can do that. If they want to bar cats from entry, they can do that.

The American government doesn't have the same freedom. It is constrained by the constitution, and the 14th amendment bars the government from enforcing gender restrictions on a private contract in absence of an important state interest.

Deuce said:

The government can do several things at once. Advantage of having more than two or three people running it.

Click to expand...

Where have you been? Obviously they cannot. Our Congress is just as stupid as our President. They all can't do anything.

11Bravo said:

That said, issues like SSM and abortion (social) are electing Presidents these days.

Click to expand...

what evidence do you have of this? Even the dem candidates cowered on the issue until 2012.

That said, I would use it as a litmus myself, because no one so imbecilic as to oppose gay rights should be the head of state. I think we can do better than that. In addition, he/she would in the process fail to uphold the oath to defend the constitution.

Yes, the economy is important, but the president doesn't have authoritarian control over that either. He can't waive a wand and everything is fixed. Nowhere does the constitution mention a right to employment and a living wage. Perhaps it should but until then, it's not in his job description. If anything, he's far more responsible for the outcome of minority rights, since he appoints SCOTUS judges.

11Bravo said:

SSM should be a state right. Once all the states legalize it, the feds will too, not matter the President. In reality, no matter who wins in 2016, it's likely SSM will be federally recognized.

Click to expand...

no it should not be a state right, and the bigoted voter ballot outcomes prove that. It's "no matter the president" because he failed to uphold the constitution and push for federal legislation, which would make court intervention unnecessary

11Bravo said:

I am totally cool with SSM and enjoy seeing these rights finally coming to light. However, I think it's time our leaders begin thinking of our nation as a whole, and propping us back up!

Click to expand...

Cool but SSM federal law could've been done quickly and they could've 'move on' long ago. It sure didn't take congress long to pass the "patriot act", didn't even read the bill in fact, or the bank bailouts. The politicians instead in their cowardice failed to protect the rights of a minority and uphold their oaths. They should all be ****canned

chromium said:

what evidence do you have of this? Even the dem candidates cowered on the issue until 2012.

That said, I would use it as a litmus myself, because no one so imbecilic as to oppose gay rights should be the head of state. I think we can do better than that. In addition, he/she would in the process fail to uphold the oath to defend the constitution.

Yes, the economy is important, but the president doesn't have authoritarian control over that either. He can't waive a wand and everything is fixed. Nowhere does the constitution mention a right to employment and a living wage. Perhaps it should but until then, it's not in his job description. If anything, he's far more responsible for the outcome of minority rights, since he appoints SCOTUS judges.



no it should not be a state right, and the bigoted voter ballot outcomes prove that. It's "no matter the president" because he failed to uphold the constitution and push for federal legislation, which would make court intervention unnecessary




Cool but SSM federal law could've been done quickly and they could've 'move on' long ago. It sure didn't take congress long to pass the "patriot act", didn't even read the bill in fact, or the bank bailouts. The politicians instead in their cowardice failed to protect the rights of a minority and uphold their oaths. They should all be ****canned

Click to expand...

Holy moly! Seems I stumbled upon an Obama-drone of the likes we've never seen.

You somehow turned a rational conversation into defending Obama in ways that weren't even mentioned. Crreeeeepppyyyyyy

11Bravo said:

Where have you been? Obviously they cannot. Our Congress is just as stupid as our President. They all can't do anything.

Click to expand...

that's more an argument for ceasing to elect a senate than to excuse them for failing to do their jobs

11Bravo said:

Holy moly! Seems I stumbled upon an Obama-drone of the likes we've never seen.

You somehow turned a rational conversation into defending Obama in ways that weren't even mentioned. Crreeeeepppyyyyyy

Click to expand...

How in the world do you glean that from my post. I dislike obama intensely and included him in my "prez candidates from both parties cowered on the issue until 2012." Really now, you posted so quick did you even read my whole post? I said clearly he failed to uphold his oath by not pushing for legislation

Only defended him on not handing out jobs left and right. That's actually not in his oath

For all vitriol towards bush on this issue, and he certainly deserves it don't get me wrong, it was clinton who rubber stamped *two* federal laws that have been ruled unconstitutional for discriminating against gays. I despise both parties equally

chromium said:

How in the world do you glean that from my post. I dislike obama intensely and included him in my "prez candidates from both parties cowered on the issue until 2012." Really now, you posted so quick did you even read my whole post? I said clearly he failed to uphold his oath by not pushing for legislation

Only defended him on not handing out jobs left and right. That's actually not in his oath

For all vitriol towards bush on this issue, and he certainly deserves it don't get me wrong, it was clinton who rubber stamped *two* federal laws that have been ruled unconstitutional for discriminating against gays. I despise both parties equally

Click to expand...

Well then, thank you for explaining. You rubbed off initially as such, but I now retract my previous comment.

Ontologuy said:

The OP's contention that the judicial activism about the oxymoronic same-sex "marriage" being all about the equal right to "marry" is simply misplaced.

In those states where there is no "homarriage" or such an aptly named domestic partnership civil union statute to grant same-sex committed romantic relationships the same public and private recognition as the "marriage" domestic partnership civil union statute in those states grant, that's why those states are having their, in essence, "no public and private recognition of same-sex committed romantic relationships" condition challenged by the courts, thus resulting in their ban on the oxymoronic SSM overturned.

If these states would institute a "hommariage" domestic partnership civil union statute for same-sex committed romantic relationships, that would give public and private recognition to these relationships, then no judge would overturn any statute these states make reaffirming the reality that "marriage" means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it does mean and has always meant.

The constitution understandably grants the right of recognition of rights of specified domestic partnership civil unions.

The constitution does not grant the right to call them all "marriage".

The SCOTUS will address that reality around June of this year.

The right response will be that states must grant such unions legitimacy .. but they can call those unions something other than "marriage".

It's the same as not allowing cat owners to have their own shows. That would simply be wrong. But, to deny cat owners the choice to call their shows "dog shows", that makes perfect sense with respect to the foundational test of definitive propriety.

Neither is it wrong to deny cat owners entry of their cat in a dog show.

These are obvious realities of an analogous nature that need be respected from an intelligent perspective.

Click to expand...

So why don't heteros go call their relationships domestic partner and gay couples call it marriage? Oh right, because you view one as inferior to the other. There was simply never a push for DPs with equal right to marriage. That never happened, because the same assholes opposing SSM were opposing DPs. That and the 2nd class insult of needless new terminology is why we're at this point.

I don't know where you get these analogies...Gay people are not so fundamentally different that it's like cats and dogs. You've explained this yourself - the difference is the attractions brought on by brain chemistry and that's it. Yes, still human. The love is the same, the commitment is the same, the consensual nature of it is the same, and some even want to raise kids just like any hetero couple.