"Supreme Court should act on gay marriage"

Was what quoted as the legislative intent? I was pointing to what is NOT the legislative intent, not what was the legislative intent. And before the 80s there was no need to express the intent of limiting marriage to heterosexual couples. Just as there was no need to express the intent behind limiting the paternity statute above to just men and women. Its obvious from the content of the statute. Only women give birth and only men cause them to do so.

Much like what is within the UN Declaration of Human Rights to marriage, makes clear why marriage is limited to "men and women"

Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
•(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
•(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

The "family", men and women becoming husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children is the "fundamental group unit of society ". Its nothing against the two gay guys with the adopted Chinese orphan, but that arrangement just isn't the fundamental group unit of society.

 

The problem is you have no evidence that the prohibition in marriage licensure anywhere is connected to that paternity language. There is no serious claim that the fundamental purpose of marriage licensure is to prove paternity, but only that it may out of happenstance serve that purpose in a specific subset of court cases. There is no effort to deprive any other group from marriage because of lack of potential to procreate thus subsequently making paternity questions irrelevant. Nobody is denying any elderly or infertile couple of a marriage license because there will not be a paternity question answered by that license. That is because nobody cares when there isn't animus and bias against the class. In no state are such questions even asked or hinted at before a license is issued. Such questions are now really academic secondary to DNA testing anyway.

While we do not decide our due process claims using UN language, your article 16 is not breached by extending civil rights protection to same sex marriage. Matter of fact, being as gays and lesbians are normally men and women of full age when they decide to marry someone of the same gender, and nothing quoted above precludes them from becoming a family, I'd say you have proved squat.

 

Its right there in the statute. "married to the mother" and "during the marriage". Its describing one of the legal effects of marriage. Up until about 30 years ago it was how most children's paternity was determined.

?????I was only demonstrating the fundamental purpose of marriages limitation to men and women and said nothing about the fundamental purpose of marriage. And would you argue, that from the dawn of civilization, until they discovered paternity testing a few decades ago, that one of the purposes was not establishing paternity?

From BC Roman Law

"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")

From the US Supreme Court

"We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

or speaking as to the right of marriage

"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."

 

It was a legal effect, but not remotely viewed as exclusionary, because plenty of people who could not reasonably expect to procreate and thus require paternity establishment were married without question. google elderly newlyweds, and ask how many of them did county clerks reasonably expect to procreate and thus need legally presumptive paternity, yet they, by virtue of their class as heteros, were allowed to marry.

 

??? "Men AND women" as opposed to men OR women.

Much like California statute in 1867

"Any unmarried male of the age of 18 years or upward and any unmarried female of the age of 15 years old or upward are capable of consenting to and consummating marriage... "

"Male... AND.... female" as opposed to male or female. And while maybe today a woman licking another womans genitals is considered consummating the relationship, in 1867 the term meant contact between a penis and vagina.

 

Yes both men and women have a fundamental right to marry. Not one gender or the other gender gets the right, but both. there is nothing suggesting to what gender they must be coupled when they do marry.

Once again your quote is not sufficient. And yet again it does not prove a compelling interest in the genders of the parties, simply to prove that is what was expected or traditional.

 

Married couples not procreating is of no concern. The only concern is unmarried couples doing so. That's only an issue among heterosexual couples. Just as cities require all dogs to be licensed and vaccinated because of their tendency to bite, even though probably less than 10% of dogs ever bite anybody, government has also encouraged all heterosexual couples to marry, because of their tendency to procreate.

 

Can you type that with a straight face? Do you actually think they state "Men and women" in 1948 to make clear that marriage wasn't only for men or only for women?


Article 1.
•All human beings.....
Article 2.
•Everyone is entitled.....
Article 3.
•Everyone has....
Article 4.
•No one shall...
Article 5.
•No one shall be.....
Article 6.
•Everyone has ....
Article 7.
•All are equal .....
Article 8.
•Everyone has ...
Article 9.
•No one shall ...
Article 10.
•Everyone is entitled ....
Article 11.
•(1) Everyone...
•(2) No one shall ....
Article 12.
•No one shall ...
Article 13.
•(1) Everyone has .....
•(2) Everyone has...
Article 14.
•(1) Everyone has ...
Article 15.
•(1) Everyone has ...
•(2) No one shall ....
Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

Do you REALLY think that in article 16, instead of saying "Everyone" "of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family", they instead of "everyone" they used "Men and Women" to make clear that marriage wasn't just for men to marry each other or women to marry each other? What a beautiful demonstration of the tortured logic and twisting of facts required to justify gay marriage.
The European Union Commission of Human Rights recently faced a challenge to marriages limitation to "men and women" and using the exact same provision determined that the language does NOT state a right to same sex marriage. "Men and women" in fact means, men and women.

 

That was 1946, they weren't really thinking about gay rights so they were not specific about it. This is now:

 

ACTUALLY the UN Declaration of Human Rights remains effective to this day.

Marrigae limited to men and women isnt discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

 

Brilliant retort! I know that. The fact is that now the UN is specifically expressing concern over gay rights issues

The same bovine excrement we've heard a thousand times. You are back on ignore now. Just thought I would have a little fun with you. Slow morning

 

Marriage isnt a gay right issue under UN law according to the European Commission on Human Rights.

 

Nobody has made a rational argument to show otherwise. "Men and women" as opposed to heterosexual and heterosexual. Its based upon SEX, not sexual orientation.

 

Yes, gender discrimination.

 

Yes, because only women give birth and only men cause them to do so.

 

Marriage has NOTHING to do with procreation now, so that point is irrelevant. You do realize you are losing on all fronts in regards to SSM and your definitions and your arguments are all going down in flames. After June you won't have anything left to say on it.

 

Actually, all 50 states prohibit closely related couples from marrying because of the potential of procreation and possible genetic effects. All 50 states have statutes similar to this,

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Because of the process of procreation. Only women give birth and only men cause them to do so.

They avoid my arguments by dismissing the facts.
And when in your view did marriage stop being about procreation? About the same time gays decided they wanted to be married? The laws have remained the same.

 

Which still in no way limits marriage to opposite sex couples.

But you keep using that argument over and over. Gonna be a sad day for you when the ruling comes out.

 

Actually it does in the 13 or so remaining states with traditional marriage and did so in every state until recently. And then of course, all 50 states prohibit closely related couples from marrying because of the potential of procreation and possible genetic effects. All 50 states have statutes similar to this,

160.204. PRESUMPTION OF PATERNITY. (a) A man is
presumed to be the father of a child if:
(1) he is married to the mother of the child and the
child is born during the marriage;

Because of the process of procreation. Only women give birth and only men cause them to do so.

 

And if people want to change that, they are free to take it up the court chain as Gay Marriage has. However, two INFERTILE heterosexual couples ARE allowed to marry and that has ZERO to do with procreation.

If myself and my wife declare we don't want to have a child, are we (as heterosexuals) denied marriage? Nope.

SSM and closely related couple marriage are TWO separate issues. That is what YOU fail to recognize and why the SCOTUS is hearing arguments about SSM. Hope you enjoy losing.

 

Nobody claimed you were and no one said ANYTHING about you and your wife. MARIAGE, (not your marriage, NOT any individual marriage), has been limited to men and women for 1000s of years because only women give birth and only men cause them to do so.

 

And that reason is a fallacy, appealing to tradition for banning something. You better learn quickly to deal with SSM, it will be a reality and all the rhetoric and idiotic comments from you won't change that. I could care less what you THINK it should be, the reality legally is SSM will be legal soon. Hope your side chokes on THAT!

 

Not the sharpest crayon in the box. I didnt appeal to tradition. 1000s of years of marriage limited to men an women, because only men and women procreate, is evidence that in fact marriage is limited to men and women because only men and women procreate. As opposed to this nonsense put out by the courts that intead the limitation is nothing more than a nefarious plot to exclude homosexuals. To "disparage and injure" homosexuals.

 

And again YOU are not the sharpest. If procreation is the reason than infertile couples would be denied marriage. Sorry you don't like FACTS, but soon it won't matter what you THINK marriage should be. Marriage legally will include also a gay couple wishing to marry one another. Deal with that little fun fact bub.

 

Only if married couples not procreating was the concern. It is not. Their only concern is unmarried couples doing so. Thats why alll heterosexual couples have been encouraged or required to marry. We cant know which couples will procreate. We only know that all who do will be heterosexual couples.
Ive carried state mandated liability insurance for over 30 years, and yet, in over 30 years Ive never been in an auto accident for which I was liable. STILL, the potential of an auto accident for which I would be liable is why I am required to purchase liability insurance.
Just as ALL closely related couples are excluded from marriage because of the potential of procreation. EVEN infertile couples.