New Jersey Gay Marriage: State Senate Passes Bill Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Emotion and hormones?

For your assertion to be true (procreation has somethng to do with marraige), anyone who is unable to have kids (for whatever reason), would be unable to marry. This is not the case.

This isn't 'Emotion and hormones', this is basic logic. Try it sometime.

 

The post I was responding to spoke of "Marriage" in general and made no reference to current law. As well I provided current Stautes and case law that have everything to do with current law.

 

Ignorant, foolish logic. As opposed to Constitutional law.

 

You should wait till gay marriage cases hit the SCOTUS before trouting out state decisions, one of which is over 40 years old

Supreme Court Faces Affirmative Action and Gay Marriage

In the mean time, procreation is not a prerequisite for marriage.

 

Baker v Nelson is THE ONLY US Supreme Court Precedent on gay marriage. The fact that its been unchallenged for 40 years only bolsters its precedential value. And of course the other decision was recent.

No one has claimed it is. Thats the strawman you people cant seem to let go of.

 

1000s of year of human civilization disagrees with you. your state court decisions are meaningless. FEDERAL courts disagree with you. but you will always have your bigotry on your side.

 

Can you name any federal decision that supports your argument in the past 5 years?

that means you're losing.

 

your point has been destroyed. you can keep playing your pathetic equivocation game, but destroyed it remains.

 

you provided BC roman law regarding matrimonium. having nothing at all to do with marriage.

no, you provided 30+ year old state court decisions that are meaningless outside their respective states.

 

Yeah, we want to eliminate marriage by allowing gays to get married.

 

that isn't constitutional law. those are 30+ year old state court decisions which are meaningless outside their states. your argument continues to lose in federal court.

 

baker v nelson isn't supreme court precedent.

it's your strawman. your entire argument hinges entirely upon a requirement of procreation. otherwise, you have no justification for denying marriage to a couple who is incapable of procreating, while granting it to another couple who also is incapable of procreating.

 

If you dont drink soda why would you care if someone wants to drink 16 oz of it? Its none of your business.

 

Both use US Constitutional law and one is from 41 years ago, the other 6 years ago. The Constitutional law on the issue remained consistant throughout.

 

No one is stopping them from drinking the soda. We just dont give them tax breaks and governmental entitlements for doing so.

 

The plaintiffs appealed, and on October 10, 1972, the United States Supreme Court dismissed the appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." Because the case came to the federal Supreme Court through mandatory appellate review (not certiorari), the summary dismissal constituted a decision on the merits and established Baker v. Nelson as a precedent,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson