Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

..........

 

Well lets look at what you posted

Quote Originally Posted by SFJEFF View Post
I still am waiting for an analysis of the 'only heterosexuals can be married' camp about why sterile first cousins are allowed to be married- but only if they prove that they are sterile- but not same gender couples.

Quote Originally Posted by dixon76710 View Post
. Encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.

So how does encouraging first cousins who are sterile to marry increase the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home?

 

Encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging homosexuals to do so does not.
And finally, government isn't concerned with married couples not procreating and is instead only concerned with unmarried couples doing so. Encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.

 

Interesting- so how does marriage of sterile first cousins marrying increase the number of children with parents at home and reduce the number of single mothers?

 

It doesnt, I said encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.
We dont know which couples will procreate, we only know that all who do would be heterosexual couples.

- - - Updated - - -

It doesnt, I said encouraging all heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.
We dont know which couples will procreate, we only know that all who do would be heterosexual couples.

 

Dixon We dont know which couples will procreate,

We know these couples can't- and the State of Wisconsin knows it

But the State of Wisconsin knows- and requires that these heterosexual couples not be able to procreate- before allowing them to get married.

Therefore- the State of Wisconsin is not linking marriage to procreation or to reducing single mom's or to encourage children to be with heterosexual parents.

 

How does allowing sterile couples to marry like Wisconsin does- encourage procreation within marriage and reduce single motherhood?

 

If there is anything besides extraordinary hostility towards liberals and feminist women that would motivate such an adventure into abject lunacy, I don't know what it might be. It's bad enough that you seem oblivious to the plight of non-feminist women under polygamy, but that you evidently care nothing for the welfare of children forced to live in such circumstances is even worse.

Actually it's both.

What precisely is that supposed to mean?

Nothing in 14A defines marriage as a privilege; and while it might reasonably be contended that government acknowledgment of marriage is a privilege, that is hardly necessary for two people to engage in matrimony, any more than government involvement is necessary for two private parties to enter into any other contract.

Non sequitur, obviously, since marriages can generally be expected to yield children regardless of any such requirement or absence thereof; and since the quality of said children bears directly on the realization of the goals stated in the Preamble, it behooves society not to pretend a newer but way crummier mousetrap is as good as the original.

Such studies are worthless, and common sense says just the opposite.

Children reared under "gay marriages" don't have two parents. In the absolute best case scenario, they have one parent and one adult who is neither their father nor their mother.

You are welcome to provide evidence that a man had the right to "marry" another man as of 1789.

 

Had I said we do not know which couples will procreate or which will not procreate, you would of had a relevant point. I didnt, you dont, or were you just looking for an irrelevant tangent to hide behind?

 

For the same reason that it is illegal under federal law to grow pot in your basement and consume it yourself or sell it only in state. An exeption to the rule does not invalidate the rule.

You state that you have to show some overlying reason for homosexual couples to marry. Well lets take Russia's crackdown on homosexuality. Russia is suffering from a massive fertility rate collapse. Its prohibitions on homosexuality and same sex marriage are made with the overriding state need to increase the fertility rate.

So by your analysis is such restriction justified since ti serves an obvious state need?

You need to be careful what you wish for as America is also flirting with disaster due to a decreasing fertility rate.

 

Ive answered this repeatedly, IT DOES NOT! You can let go of the strawman if you can. Ecouraging all heterosexual couples to marry reduces the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging all homosexual couples to marry does not. The presence of sterile couples among the millions of fertile heterosexual couples doesnt change that fact.

 

First, why? Why are married couples expected to produce children? That may be the circumstance for many, quite possibly even a majority, but there certainly should be no expectation of it. My wife and I, for example, have absolutely no desire to have children - ever.

Second, completely irrelevant and missing the point. I'm not sure why this is so hard to grasp. It's already been explained as simply as possible, by more than just myself.

Neither gay marriage nor children raised by a gay couple are in contradiction with a single point of the Preamble. And has already been pointed out, there is no detriment to children raised by a homosexual couple.

They may be in opposition to your chosen bigotry, but that in no way makes them worthless.

Really? So explain to me how a child growing up without attention or affection, and being moved around from institution to institution, is better off than a child raised by two loving and caring men or women in a stable home?

The term "parent" isn't reserved to refer only to the biological man and woman who physically produced a child. A couple who adopts and raises a child, heterosexual or not, are "parents" to that child. In fact, I'd say even more so.

You're misrepresenting what I said. First, let me remind you that the Constitution does not grant rights, but rather limits the powers of the government. As such the 14th Amendment has always afforded the "right" for gay marriage, they just were not permitted to express it until recently. Sort of like how blacks and whites always had the "right" to marry, but simply were not permitted to until 1967.

 

We dont know which couples will procreate, we only know that all who do would be heterosexual couples.

But not these heterosexual couples.

Again Dixon- what is your argument for excluding same gender couples- that does not apply equally to heterosexual sterile couples that Wisconsin requires to be sterile to be married?

 

For the same reason you cant grow pot in your basement for your own use. The law doesn't care about what ifs or exceptions. As long as there is a legal reason to enact the ban your exception to the rule means jack (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

There need be no argument. The law need not cater to exceptions. That is a fundamental principle of our legal system. That is why you cant grow pot in your basement for your own use.

 

Fascinating- how will prohibiting homosexuality increase the fertility rate?

Indeed the State could structure marriage laws in such a way to promote fertility- but the State doesn't.

There are multiple problems with trying to use laws to 'promote' fertility- not all of them having to do with marriage. The Supreme Court has already ruled that Americans have a right to control their own fertility- so there can't be any overt requirements to have children.

Among the other problems with that is that prohibiting 'homosexuality' doesn't have any direct affect on fertility. If the State really wanted to promote fertility, it could use positive enforcements- it could pay parents a bonus for having children.

Of course then we might have parents just having children to get paid. We could provide free daycare and free college education to encourage families to have children.

But telling homosexuals that they can't get married doesn't make heterosexuals more fertile.

 

Encouraging sterile heterosexual couples to marry does not reduce the number of single mothers on their own or with absent or unknown fathers.

I am still looking forward to any rational as to why the state of Wisconsin has a specific provision requiring heterosexual couples to prove that they are as infertile as homosexual couples are in order to get married that is not blatant discrimination against homosexual couples.

 

But your analogy doesn't make sense. Having children (or not) is not a rule or law.

 

If you want to have sex your are going to have to have sex with a woman.

Do we need to go over the birds and the bees here?

 

But Wisconsin law does cater to exceptions.

That is the point.

Wisconsin law specifically requires heterosexual first cousins to prove that they are not fertile before they are allowed to get married.

That is an exception.

Treating same gender couples exactly the same as opposite gender couples would be eliminating exceptions.

 

But the ban is and the justification for the ban is part of the law. As long as the rule is the heterosexual couples procreate then the state is justified.

Exceptions to the rule do not matter anymore than your homegrown pot does.

 

LOL.....oh so you think that if homosexuality is outlawed, gay men will suddenly be sexually attracted to women?

Seriously?

If we want to go for draconian laws to increase fertility we could just require every woman in America to birth at least 3 children or face severe economic fines.

 

Doesn't matter, if the exception is not codified it does not exist. There are codified exceptions in the pot law such as research institutes. You are still not allowed to grow your own pot in your basement.

- - - Updated - - -

Effectiveness does does not matter. All that matters is that the purpose is legal. Most social engineering laws don't work. What is your point?

 

The Supreme Court has never said that you have a right to own, grow or smoke Pot.

The Supreme Court has said we all have an individual right to get married.

In order for a state to prohibit someone from marrying they must provide a convincing reason- denying homosexuals or inmates or infertile couples the right to marry does not further any state interest- and does not increase fertility.

- - - Updated - - -

Except of course- it isn't- and hasn't been since Lawrence.

 

The supreme court has said I have a right to keep and bear arms. They have however said that the government has a justification in limiting what arms I can own. The same logic can be applied to who I can marry if the state can show justification which they already do with relatives.

With our massive pyramid scheme entitlement system the state is more than justified in encouraging heterosexual marriage and prohibiting homosexual marriage.

You have to be careful what you ask for. You cant have the state on one hand free to limit one right for a controlling good and expect the state not to limit another. This is what is happening in Russia right now. The state is trying to get fertility rate up.