The Mn court did not say genesis was the reason. It said marriage is AS OLD AS Genesis. Undoubtedly true, even for those who hold God is a fiction, it still provides an ancient record in one culture’s belief in marriage.
And you ignore that Genesis commands “go forth and multiply.”
Now, perhaps you will note that in telling stories, literature often presents us with CONFLICTS which it later resolves. That is what makes stories interesting. In this case, Abram was to be the father of not just one but two great nations. In order for this to happen “according to God’s plan” it was necessary for Sarai to hold off in child bearing because Abram would have no reason to also take Hagar to wife (and thus only one nation born), and this is the conflict of the story–Sarai appears barren and that conflicts with Abram’s duty to “go forth and multiply.”
The bible proves the opposite of what you say, for in the end, even if all before is wrong, Sarai had a child, so God did not make her permanently barren, just barren long enough for Abram to begat two nations rather than one.
No, you will notice that I never responded to these posts I am now. I missed them as the page flipped on my own post and I didn’t realize the posts were there. So I am answering them so that there is no impression I do not have an answer.
Either you or Brayn got the whole Genesis thing started, it should have ended with pointing out the court did not cite the bible as an authority, rather, merely noted that marriage dates back to biblical times. You of course try to score points with this side track while hoping I say something to help you build a strawman that I am claiming God says so, because that is what you think really motivates you, since it is*** impossible*** to reason other than you do.
I have offered cites–Baker, Skinner, Loving.
I have cited authority against your biblical claims, and I have cited against yoru claim that no culture has ever required reproduction in marriage.
Baker, Skinner, Loving.
You didn’t have a time restriction when you argued that marriage and procreation have never been mandated. So imposing one now is called moving the goalposts.
New Data? You still don’t understand the old data, and keep bringing it up. I have actually been compiling a shitload of links to counter your claim that procreation has never been historically important in marriage. Despite the many varied ways marriage has happened over time, the evidence suggests that the ONLY truly consistent things are two–it involves at least one man and one woman, and it was closely related to procreation.
No. This distraction was caused by you and your refusal to be reasonable with court cases. The MN court did NOT claim “God said so” and you are desperately trying to amke this debate go anywhere other than your admission you are wrong several ways. That’s what happens when your argument is result oriented. I didn’t start at my result. If you’d stop starting with your conclusion, there would be a LOT fewer distractions.
Your lack of ability to understand the language of courts and what their opinions mean does not amount to my failure to cite.
Oh? what did you really mean to say? Surely you didn’t try to manipulate a reader into having images of Santorum pop into their heads every time they read one of my posts, an inflammatory tactic with no value to a person who reasons.
But of course, you don’t understand things like that, being the author of the “illogical basis” level of review in EP cases.
Baker said the feds had no involvement in marriage, how would that support your federal restriction on the states rights to set their own marriage laws
Skinner established that marriage was a right, it did not qualify that right
Loving misread Skinner and is Obiter Dicta and not binding and is also suspect under more recent dicta involving prefatory clauses in Heller.
I have never claimed “no culture has ever required reproduction in marriage”
I have claimed you have provided no cites that it is part of OUR rights and law and that I have found no reason to believe in our system the right of marriage was restricted in subornation to the “right of procreation”"
You are compiling quotes to satisfy your red-herring attack, not my claims
OK if the MN court did not invoke the bible as an authority where did they get the authority from?
Well, if that happens, I’ll consider it a lucky fringe benefit. In any case, whether you realize it or not, many (if not most) of your analogies are offensive. You seriously want to draw an analogy between someone wanting to get married and someone wanting to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre? Wanting to get married is being compared to recklessly seeking to create panic, trampling and injury? The notion that gay marriage will victimize “normal people” must be a tempting one, since it comes up a lot.
You will never succeed in getting a rise out of me, especially by repeating such a blatantly disingenuous misinterpretation of what I wrote.
I didn’t claim the MN citation for the age of marriage is meaningless, only that one of the oldest references to marriage is found there.
The O.P. is broader than DOMA, it also includes the possible repercussions of this case, which many other posters have speculated on. You are trying to prove me wrong by making the O.P. only allow direct discussion of DOMA.
I am not a fan of DOMA and agree with the court here.
I agree with the principle that this is a matter for the states, one reason I am dead-set against the federal government imposing gay marriage on all 50 states.
I uphold the states’ rights to enact gay marriage or not and would rather see it in some states rather than none, as obviously half the country wants it, and their desires are an important issue. Therefore it is worth looking into.
But being worth looking into does not amount to an unrestrained desire to throw caution to the wind and believe there couldn’t possibly be any harm. I think it’s plausible a civil war could erupt over this. Not that I really think it would, but the country is becoming so polarized it seems a tinder box waiting for a match.
Since the claim no harm can come from it is unproven, and can’t be proven, I am cautious.
A few studies with bad methodology do not convince me of much except that a study can be manipulated any way one wants.
I see no reason not to be cautious.
I do not find Marion Berry necessarily credible here, but I do know that there are plenty of nuts who might actually try it.
blatantly disingenuous misinterpretation of what I wrote? By point is not to show how similar gays and someone shouting fire are; my point was about the way rights work. See? The failure to mandate free speech does not have an effect of loosening restrictions on free speech.
But of course to paint me as someone who is arguing that mayhem will result is pretty false. But just so you can be reassured that there are nuts out in the world, I provided you with a news story about how some people are claiming disasters will result. That’s not me, I just think we might wind up with more children in need of care.
But who knows what nuts will do, eh?
I guess you could admit that “rational basis” means the reason does have to be logical, but it’s more important to you to deny every single thing soemone you disagree with says.
Looking at the case more closely, it turns out that Holmes was offering a bullshit rationalization to support a blatantly nonsensical but politically desired outcome (upholding the arrest and imprisonment of the defendant for the “crime” of publishing anti-conscription literature, despite the obvious fact that this is precisely the sort of activity the First Amendment was written to protect).
Then again, the fact that it’s a bullshit rationalization does make it a perfectly apropos analogy for the anti-gay-marriage argument…
My analogy had nothing to do with showing gay marriage and a man shouting Fire are similar, other than showing that restrictions on rights are not curtailed by mandated exercise of the right, as some have seemed to claim. That’s the only thing I say they obviously have in common.
Well, we’ll see if this particular restriction can survive scrutiny, wot?
I think you’re painting yourself nicely already.
They could scare some weak-willed people into writing or supporting bad law? I daresay the various states that have taken steps to outlaw gay marriage show a rather stark lack of character among many of their residents.
I disagree with them when they’re wrong. You’re still, in any case, burying the distinction between what a lay person might think is logical and what a judge accepts as logical. At this late stage, bringing it up over and over speaks to desperation, a cheap attempt to spark an angry response. Not gonna happen.
Sure. Of course the idea that actual civil war will erupt (or that anyone should take Marion Barry seriously) is laughable. If you want to cite random lunacy and call it evidence, be my guest.
Nonsense; if that were so, a single case of procreation resulting from adultery would establish an absolute right to either polygamy or unilateral divorce (or homicide) of an unwanted spouse (those being the only ways the parents could possibly marry).
No. Tracing where a right flows from does not mean I claim there cannot be any restrictions on a right. There are, as you establish.
Ana ct of procreation with one’s daughter does not lead to the right to marry, for instance, nor does it lead to a right to polygamy. And adultery is still illegal in about half the states.
Well you’re the one who built the strawman of me claiming gay marriage will cause mayhem and violence. But since you did, and even though it’s not my claim, I thought you’d like reminded that there are nuts out there.
If someone would have predicted Helter Skelter in advance, I doubt anyone would have taken it seriously.
Yet it happened. There is no telling what nuts will do.
Abraham Lincoln time and again said if he could preserve the union in another way, he would not fight the civil war, including not freeing the slaves, even though he was an abolitionist. If it did mean a civil war, would you still be in favor of federally mandated gay marriage in all 50 states? Like Lincoln, if I had to eliminate it in the states that have gay marriage to save the country from a war like that, I would, even though I favor seeing what happens.
I’m not just going to handwave threats like this away cause a crackhead nut said it. Very bad stuff like that has happened before, and the fact a nut is promoting it doesn’t give me much confidence the nut won’t act on it.
No, just that you compared it to causing mayhem and violence. But I guess it doesn’t matter, since I think you’ve said twice that no way exists to prove that it won’t cause mayhem and violence (or anything else bad), as though you were wise for being cautious and we were foolish for saying there was no threat whatsoever. Meantime, Massachusetts and Canada, 8 and 7 years post-SSM, continue to sail on with no indication of any of the dire consequences you allege might happen.
I’m prepared to drop the “fire!” matter, though. It was a pointless analogy on your part and doesn’t require further analysis. Thing is, you don’t get to accuse us of building strawmen while cranking them out by the truckload.
And the rest, invoking Charles Manson and Abe Lincoln, is fear-mongering and I decline to indulge it.
I would bet that ovum/ovum fertilization could be accomplished with mammal ova today, or at least in the next few years. Alas, mammalian sperm/sperm fertilization is a lot trickier, as there isn’t any “there there.” No reservoir of cell material for cell division. You’d have to do a three-way, two sperm and an egg. Not impossible, and it may happen some day.
I was astonished to learn this. I Googled, and found the recent case of someone in New York being charged with criminal adultery. It seems to be quite rare, and a lot of people think it is absurd. For my part, I’d rather it be handled as a civil case – the old-fashioned “alienation of affections” and so on – rather than wasting the courts’ time with a criminal prosecution.
(I could see a criminal case against someone who gave their spouse an STD from an affair, but not for simply being unfaithful.)
Anyway, as an argument, it doesn’t carry any weight with me. I’d change those laws, and change the laws against SSM. All you’ve done is educated me about another case of legislative injustice that needs to be remedied.
So you do not belief in the right to exclusive intercourse with your spouse? Or just the criminal end of it? I definitely see it as a crime along the lines of trespass. A person’s right to sleep with who one chooses is bargained away in exchange for the right being given up by the partner. Really marriage is becoming nothing more than getting some federal goodies. Thed onlya dultery I wouldn’t prosecute is when a married person deceives a single person, I’d not prosecute the single one.
There was another recent case in Arizona. There weren’t any for many many years. One of my former bosses said he’d been watching the matter for 30 years and hadn’t found a single instance in 20, and this was in the mid 90’s. I’ve been watching closely too, remembering what he said.
It might mean that prosecutors are starting to battle a declining marriage rate with force, and I’m glad.
I would not only bring back heartbalms, I would eliminate no-fault divorce, prosecute adultery, end the nonsensical part of domestic violence prosecutions and find ways to encourage large families. I would modify child support laws and practices; I cannot believe a cause of action exists that if you plead there has been no adequate support for the child it doesn’t have to be true; the courts just want to make sure. if you actually were taking care of your kid, they’ll say it was a gift, (as though you could pay through the courts before there is a case, maybe you’re supposed to sue yourself?) and make you pay it again. Here is a cause of action in which it is impossible to do right. A cause of action that can almost automatically result in a judgment for the exercise of a fundamental right, even if you do every last blasted thing the government says it wants parents to do. neither of the attorneys I worked for ever told me to brief the Ks Supreme Court on this, I sure wanted to.
One last thing I’d do is, in any marriage where they agree from the outset on a religion and be governed by it, I would require the district courts to obey the ecclesiastical rules. Many people see marriage as a religious matter, and I believe the government establishes “no religion” to govern any dissolution. if the married couple feel religion is important to their marriage, no court should be able to strip them of those religious principles.
I’m against “covenant” amrriages, but appreciate the sentiment behind them. it just creates two classes of unions again and undoubtedly we’d be going through this same crap again with “second-class” marriages.
Not really related, but dealing with sex issues–as long as I’m on the soapbox–I find it ludicrous that it is legal in some jurisdictions to have sex with a teenager as young as fourteen, sixteen in the majority of states, BUT taking a picture is a crime if she’s a day younger than eighteen.