You have problems following instructions, don’t you? are you just being contrary any possible way?
Just freaking read the thread already. #58 has no mention of Griswold.
#97 lays out the relevant posts.
So do infertile hetero couples (in fact, they started it), but there’s no argument I’m aware of that this has or should have any legal effect whatsoever on the status of marriage or the resulting child.
As an incidental note, I speculated in another thread about a potential future president who, it’ll turn out, was conceived with the aid of fertility treatments and whether or not this would ignite partisan “natural born citizen” debates. I suppose that thread will be a lively one.
So? Take out professional football, and the nation still survives. This doesn’t form the basis of an argument to ban professional football.
My Supreme Court already tackled the issue. Your Supreme Court will, sooner or later. But in any case, for whatever reason legal marriage was created in the U.S. in the first place, where in any current legal definition is fertility mentioned as a requirement? This doesn’t strike me as a particularly difficult or irrelevant question.
No it lays out claims by you with no real evidence
E.G.
Did you even read either of these decisions
From Loving
The fact that it may result in children is why it is one of the “Basic civil rights of man,” but in no way to they claim it is a requirement or even a need of marriage.
This is why it is useless to go back to your previous cites, I have read them and found them lacking in both case law and validity as arguments.
Making it look like you are sending me to go view grand arguments you have already presented does nothing to move the debate forward.
First of all, my claim is that the right to marriage flows from the right to procreate as a matter of law.
To change that to the prupose of marriage is edging into strawman territory, please try to restrict yourself to what I do claim precisely. If you want, I’ll accept “pupose of marriage” as your way of saying the same thing, as long as you don’t later use it to move the goalposts like you tend to by bringing up ancient purposes of marriage.
I am claiming a matter of law under the supreme court’s rulings, only. I hope you understand that.
Now I would ask you to demonstrate, as Loving cites Skinner, what the citation to Skinner is for. The issues in Skinner is NOT marriage, it is procreation. Anything about marriage in Skinner is incidental dicta, not useful to actually deciding the question presented in Skinner.
I would ask you in what way is marriage fundamental to the survival and existence of the human race, if we eliminate procreation? Is there any other possible way to logically say that marriage is fundamental, if we eliminate procreation from it? And do not forget that we have the right BECAUSE it is fundamental.
ERGO, remove the fundamental aspect of marriage and no right to it devolves.
Of course, I may have missed something, so please do show me what it is if so.
I said we could ask them before issuing a certificate. We wouldn’t hold them to it, recognizing that other factors get in the way, but we could ask if their intention is to have children, and if not, refuse to issue the license.
That would be more narrowly tailored than the current scheme, and we don’t do it.
So you have two cases that do not prove your claim that marriage is “the right to marriage flows from the right to procreate as a matter of law” yet you refuse to provide that case law.
I am not going to play your mental game in that last part, you are cherry picking and ignoring cases like Grizwold.
Just provide cites that show that marriage was created as a civil institution, which is recent, due to procreation.
I have provided documentation that as a civil institution it was more about inheritance and prevention of fraud, if what you claim is not true it should be trivial for you to provide documentation to falsify it.
I asked for a cite.
Neither block of text says anything in support of your claim. To this day, in fact, by Roman Catholic Canon Law, matrimony is a sacrament that the two partners confer upon each other, and the presence of a priest is simply as a witness – just as your last cite suggests. But that is a requirement of form, not of substance.
Your last quote deals with why Hardwicke’s Marriage Act was passed in the 1700s. Since marriages were being tracked much prior to that, and for a variety of different reasons, it’s unclear to me what you believe a cite from a mid-1700s case supports your claim that marriages were “originally” tracked for this purpose.
You were no specific with your cite request, I had to guess.
I should have worked that better, the reason states and churches imposed control over the marriage process was due a few causes the main being parents wishing to control who their offspring married and to prevent illicit marriages.
The Catholic church did track earlier in order to ensure one did not marry twice, but they exerted little control over the process and it was not even officially documented as a sacrament in the church until Council of Trent in 1547.
Marriage was for most of the Church’s early history, done in the Judaic tradition without clergy and according to local customs.
Wouldn’t that violate the idea of the freedom of privacy in ones associations as decided in Griswold v. Connecticut?
No. Privacy in one’s associations does not translate into a freedom to marry whom you please. You cannot marry your first cousin in Maine, regardless of any language in Griswold.
You cannot deal with the question of what makes marriage fundamental to the survival of the race if it’s not procreation.
This is because answering the question forces you into a position that shows you you are wrong.
The result is denial that Skinner and Loving give us precedent that gives us insight as to the modern construct of marriage.
Claims that the important thing about marriage is REALLY so we can more easily solve inheritance issues is sophomoric.
If there are no children to begin with, there is no inheritance issue.
Your cite does more to prove why we keep marriage records, not why we have marriage itself.
I doubt you could brief the supreme court very effectively with that crap.
Procreation is indeed fundamental to the survival of the race.
But procreation and marriage are not the same. A couple could engage in both, either, or neither, perfectly legally.
Why? Procreation happens quite easily outside of marriage nor does marriage require children.
Grizwold documents how marriage is related to the freedom of association, as a contractual obligation it is still quite capable of being an equally valuable institution without divination from the mechanical action of reproduction.
As to why marriage exists in all of history, that is a red herring, you can’t even demonstrate your “concept” of marriage is codified in law, nor that it is historical.
And we are back to the ad hominem attacks with zero debate content.
Good day sir.
So besides DOMA what federal restrictions are there on marriage?
Do they deny survivor benefits or health insurance to someone from Utah who is married to their first cousin?
And what does a restriction on marriage in Maine have to do with a thread on a federal law?
Fair point - my bad.
Not quite true. The Leonine Sacramentary has a ritual for a wedding mass. In 1012, the Synod of Rouen ruled that marriage vows exchanged in the presence of a priest were sacramental. The Council of Trent formally named all seven sacraments, yes, but it was undeniable well before that event that marriage was a sacrament, no matter how many other sacraments there might be or what form they would take.
Who knows? I was answering david42’s claim that we could not more narrowly tailor the marriage law with a hypothetical requirement that would more narrowly tailor the marriage law, in an effort to show him that he was wrong when he said same-sex marriage restrictions would survive even strict scrutiny.
My example was asking people if they intended to procreate. You asked me if sucha question would violate Griswold. I said it wouldn’t.
Then you ask the questions above. I have no idea how they relate.
Shouldn’t further narrowly tailoring have an actual effect? The result of what you propose is going to have a result that everyone says yes even though some do not mean it. It is useless to restrict marriage to those who are going to have kids unless we enforce it.
Can you give a cite to a precedent that an unenforcable narrowing is required to survive review? Or does it have to be an actual practical narrow tailoring? I don’t see the point of narrow tailoring if it’s just to satisfy some polite fiction.
Something along the lines of: “This law could be more narrowly tailored, and althought that further narrowing is frivolous and serves no purpose since it can be enforced, the important thing here is appearances and formalities rather than the fundamental nature of the issues presented in (X). Because this law does not cater to appearances over substance, it must be struck down to preserve the important prerogatives of appearances without substance.”
Okay, Bricker, now try explaining David’s legal theory that fertility treatments turn marriages into threesomes.