“love” isn’t required, per se, but in some cases there are questions about whether you and your spouse really like each other; if you and your foreign spouse can’t establish that you had a “legitimate” reason to get married, then your green card marriage is illegal.
Sure, I can buy that a marriage to a non-citizen can come under scrutiny, especially when the non-citizen seeks residency.
I said:
Your answer is:
You see the debate here involves what marriage OUGHT TO BE. No-one here really needs too much help with understanding what it IS. I am asking you what the PURPOSE/SOURCE OF THE RIGHT is. This is because when I say it is procreation, you claim I am wrong, therefore you must know what it really is. So if it is about “a lot” of things, then why can’t you name one?
You are squirming and avoiding answering. You know you will have to face that you are unfair in attempting to defeat my argument with a requirement that you would not require for your own views.
Now, I also had said:
to which you answered:
I already showed you three citations to the effect that the primary purpose of marriage is procreation, in the eyes of the courts, including the U.S. Supreme court. Do you suppose, if you were briefing them, that they’d be persuaded to back off that view by your reciting what some state requires for marriage to exist? Do you think they’d say, “Oh how silly of me, that’s what marriage’s purpose really is?” Form the viewpoint of gay activists, I can presume they are thankful you’re NOT briefing the court.
You ARE “testing.” The test you have devised for MY statements on the purpose/source of the right is to measure against the requirements to form a marriage. Of course, you do not explain how we could have a requirement for procreation in light of Griswold (a major reason we do not require procreation at any given time). We desire for parents to choose the best time to have children, not a time when the law says so, so that the children brought into the world have solid homes. Are gays obtaining children on the basis of when the law says they must?
Can you cite an authority for the proposition that any purpose of marriage must be found in its threshhold requirements?
And if course you have never cited to the authority that the state’s purpose in allowing marriage for anyone must be found in the requirements for marriage. Please do cite a court that takes this approach, or even a mere law review where a student takes that approach, that the purpose of marriage is defined by the requirements.
But instead of that, if your past responses are indicative, you will take it off in another direction instead of answering with a cite.
I want an answer as to what the state’s purpose may be in having marriage: What makes marriage such a thing that the state desires people within the requirements to engage in it? Citation please.
You see, a court that agrees with your conclusion, that gay marriage is/should be legal, is the supreme court of Vermont, wherein it said that the purpose of marriage is companionship and love. Do you agree with the vermont supreme court? If not why not? Hey come to your result after all, so keep in mind, you’re working against your allies to say they are wrong.
Now if you agree, with the Vermont court, I want you to show me how love and companionship are required in the elements you posted above.
Once again, what is marriage all about? Why does society need it?
I said:
to which you answered:
All dopers should undoubtedly admire you into their graves for this bit of fighting ignorance.
Obama wasn’t referring to biology when he said his views on marriage were evolving. You must have thought his ears seemed a little bigger when he said he favors gay marriage, I guess.
Lemme see here, any biological points about sex are irrelevant here; what we really need to be looking at is the ear. Silly me, I don’t know why I didn’t think about that!
Anyway, the fact that ears may have evolved from balancing mechanisms does not become defeated or compromised by hearing being developed. Another way of putting it, the concept of balance did not have to be abandoned to develop hearing. Lousy analogy. You have convinced me of nothing.
Can you suggest what tests the courts have to determine whether a “green card marriage” is legitimate or not?
Better yet, do the courts ever consider a fruitful green card marriage (fruitful menaing one where a child is born to the couple) to be a sham marriage?
Are claims of love taken as proof that a sham green card marriage is valid?
Would a claim of love alone, with all other factors against a green card couple, be taken as proof of a valid marriage? One of companionship?
Can you cite an appellate green card marriage case so we can see how the courts look at it, please?
I’m editing. I didn’t really mean to post it, I was messing around with embedded commands
aong the lines of
][SIZE=?[/SIZE][/sub][/
But I gotta admit Polycarp’s Post gives me an idea.
Seems unlikely, given that couples of NON-citizens can stay and get green cards by having a so-called “anchor baby” on American soil. This doesn’t actually speak to the legitimacy, or lack thereof, of the marriage.
I pretty much agree if I can change “This doesn’t actually speak to the legitimacy, or lack thereof,…” to “This doesn’t necessarily speak to the legitimacy, or lack thereof,…”
What if you have to compare the actions of different couples, both illegal immigrants:
A) Couple A meets in America, marry, gets pregnant and has a baby on American soil. Immediately after getting green cards, they divorce, both remarry in Mexico, and then try to bring their new spouses in.
B) Couple B meets in America, marries, and likewise has an anchor baby so that they can stay. Couple B stays together and raises the child.
Do you think one of these should be viewed as more suspicious of fraud than the other?
What if couple C has no child and one is a citizen, and evidence is found that the citizen was paid to amrry and divorce the other?
Couple D have a child together and one is a citizen and evidence is found that one partner paid the citizen to marry and divorce?
Would the courts view C and D the same, and if not, which should be more favorably viewed as a legitimate marriage? Which is more likely to be seen as fraudulent?
This couple is clearly engaged in a fraudulent marriage. And given that the sole purpose of their marriage was to procreate, and yet their marriage was clearly fraudulent, this example strongly suggests that procreation is not the government’s main interest in regulating marriage.
Can you cite any court at all or even a mere law review for this proposition?
If it’s fraudulent don’t you mean the sole purpose of the marriage was to get a green card and not to have a child?
it’s called using children for a pawn; the child isn’t the end, it’s a means to an end, namely, getting these two illegals real spouse or fiance into the country where neither could have before. Perhaps the kid is lucky enough that one of them takes care of him/her.
Now, what about couple B? Why is their marriage less fraudulent?
I note that you left this out, but I understand, but of course failing to discuss couple B makes it easier to make your claim above for couple A. But I asked you if you wouldn’t mind comparing the two?
Perhaps one might think that because they raised the kid, then they really meant to procreate for that purpose, and married for that purpose, and therefore a court will see their green cards on the grounds of an anchor baby more favorably?
And C and D?
Here is what you said about that scenario above:
I assumed, given the obviously fishy construction of scenario A), that the question above was rhetorical. Do YOU not think that scenario A) is likely to be considered a fraudulent scenario?
I asked you to compare the two and say which is more fraudulent. You did not pass on couple B, nor say anything about C or D.
All you said was A was fraudulent. You might think B is even more fraudulent for all I know.
Can you finish answering all the questions?
Would you allow then that while marriage does not permit or prevent procreation more than non-marriage there could be an argument that marriage provides a more solid home environment than non-marriage?
If this was reasonable then, and to offer a slightly contrived example, might an unmarried single mother with young children marry an infertile man not to provide an environment in which to procreate (having both done that already, and with no expectation of doing that further) but to provide a more solid home environment for the children?
Are gays getting married – and importantly, able to get married – at a time that the law appears to imply that they should to provide a solid home environment for any children they are bringing into the relationship?
Even leaving aside surrogacy and other less traditional methods of procreation, there will be numerous examples of gay parents with children from previous relationships.
I dispute that marriage does not permit procreation more than non-marriage. There are some instances where procreation is lawful if it’s in marriage but not if the couple are unmarried. For instance, in my state if a 25 year old gets a 15 year old pregnant, he’s in big trouble. But they could be married, and he gets a pass. But I agree with your conclusion that marriage provides a more solid home environment, generally.
Yes, but unless something was majorly wrong, we’d prefer that the children live in their original biological families.
In states that allow that, yes they are.
Yes, there will be. But the implications raised cause questions about whether overall this is worth it. In Holland, for instance, after the public began hearing the gay marriage argument that procreation is not really the heart of marriage, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was about 2%. As the movement gained steam, this began rising over time. As the public approval of gay marriage reached nearly ninety percent, and gay marriage was passed, the rate of out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed and today is about 40%.
Now, gay marriage did not necessarily cause this, but it sure looks like the argument needed to convince the public to support it also convinced the public that marriage is not needed to procreate. Gays have not picked up the slack in adoptions in Holland and the result is more kids needing help. There is no reason to think the same would not happen here or is not happening now.
Plus there is the added problem that some gays are currently closeted within heterosexual families. Legalizing gay marriage gives them incentive to produce more broken homes. Leaving families intact is the better plan.
You suggest the new model family is one that first breaks up a previous family. The model family is the initial family intact.
That’s not what I was debating. I’ve been talking about an expansion of who has access to marriage, which in no way will affect those who currently practice marriage, just as giving women the vote didn’t change what a vote was or how it was used.
Heck, a hetero marriage sealed in the U.S. in 2015 (after a theoretical nationwide legalization of gay marriage) will be legally identical to one sealed in 1995. As far as I’m concerned, what marriage “ought to be” is exactly what it already is - only accessible to more citizens.
No, I’ve been saying all along that I don’t care what the purpose/source of the right is. Unless it’s a mandatory element of modern legal marriage, I don’t see why I should care.
But fine, I cheerfully agree to everything you say about the purpose/source. I can do that because it’s ultimately meaningless. It won’t even matter if the current SCOTUS mentions procreation fifty or a hundred times in some future decision on same-sex marriage. If they don’t declare that procreation is a mandatory element, so what?
Dream on.
I don’t know what this means. As far as I can tell, you insist on dragging in something that is plainly irrelevant, misusing it, and then claiming I’m not giving it fair consideration.
Did any of them say procreation was the sole purpose, or a mandatory purpose? That’s all that matters, really, because if they didn’t, then there’s no barrier to marriage without procreation. Heterosexuals routinely do this. First cousins in Utah can only be married if they won’t procreate. Therefore arguments that homosexual marriages should be blocked on the basis of lack of procreation are flawed and, given modern reproductive technologies, blatantly wrong.
Hey, if I had a chance to discuss this issue with members of SCOTUS, I’d prepare a list of decisions where legal barriers based on gender were gradually struck down, followed by decisions where legal barriers based on sexual orientation were struck down (or likely soon will be) and that gay marriage was a logical next step, well in keeping with the spirit and letter of the 14th amendment.
I like to think that if you had the chance and started lecturing SCOTUS on what you call the “purpose” of marriage, one of the justices would quickly ask you “so, are we to conclude that procreation is a mandatory element of marriage?” I like to think this because I assume SCOTUS is made up of reasonably intelligent people.
I don’t know what you’re driving at - procreation is not a requirement for marriage at any time, so why would I be arguing some chop-logic slap-dash mess like this? Sure, we desire for parents to choose the best time to have children, I guess, but we don’t punish them for deciding not to have children at all - gays (or straights, for that matter) will not be “obtaining children on the basis of when the law says they must” because the law says no such thing.
I’m prepared to be corrected, of course. Show me a law in the U.S. that says a married couple must obtain children.
I don’t care what the purpose of marriage is, or where it is cited. I only care about its current legal requirements.
Same thing - I don’t care what the purpose of marriage is, or where it is cited. I only care about its current legal requirements. Had I to guess from a strictly practical point of view, marriage predates the U.S. by a very long time, and when the U.S. was founded, there was no impetus to get rid of it, so under various inherited common-law interpretations, it persisted, and gradually took on more formal legal significance, coalescing into its current form, which at no point had procreation as a requirement.
Well, the direction you want to take it in is a dead end. Procreation is not a requirement for legal marriage. I’m not sure how many different ways I need to say it, and I gather repetition alone isn’t going to get the significance of this clear and simple fact across to you.
Citizens want it. They want the concept of legal marriage. Getting rid of it serves no purpose. I invite any state legislator to propose a bill abolishing the concept of legal marriage (as has been seriously but short-sightedly proposed a few times on this message board, i.e. “get government out of marriage”) and see where that goes.
Well, if that’s what they said, more power to them, but I doubt they made love and companionship legal requirements of marriage in Vermont. It’s nice that they got all poetic about it, I guess.
So I looked it up (pdf file). Looks to me like the requirements for getting married in Vermont are:
-two people, each at least 18 years old or, if 16 or 17, with parental consent
-they cannot be closely related, though cousins are allowed
-neither party can be already married or in a civil union with someone else
-both parties “be of sound mind”
-they have to supply basic information - names, birthdates, parents’ names, parental birthdates, birth places, etc.
-and they have $45 for the license.
Nothing in there about love or companionship. This doesn’t make SCOV “wrong”, it just means they attached unnecessarily emotional language to their decision.
Well, society obviously wants it, and it doesn’t contradict other wants, so “need” is academic. Society doesn’t “need” professional football, either, but that doesn’t mean I must seek the “purpose” of professional football to justify its existence.
Your question got the answer it deserved. What is marriage “about”? What difference does it make?
And childless marriages do not compromise or defeat child-producing marriages. I haven’t even seen a good hypothesis on how they might do so, confronted instead by alleged concerns about waiting 40+ years to see what might happen.
Well, nothing you’ll admit to, I’m sure, because it would render all your efforts to discuss the “purpose” of marriage moot, and without that you have nothing.
Even with it, actually…
Is it that he got her pregnant, or that he had sex with her? I’d be somewhat surprised if the fact that she got pregnant was in itself illegal - rather, the pregnancy itself would be evidence of statutory rape.
Of course, if they are legally married, the sex is legal, whether it results in a pregnancy or not. I suppose we’d have to look at the code in your particular state to see if your rather eccentric-seeming take was correct. As I said, I’d be surprised, but I accept the possibility.
Heck, prior to this thread, I hadn’t known about Utah’s marriage laws concerning first cousins. Y’know, the law that says they can marry if they don’t procreate?
And now the citation, please for your very strange legal theory that the origin of the right/purpose of marriage is irrelevant, and only the statutory requirements are? it’s strange but I’ve read about 25 cases so far about this issue, or one aspect of it or another, and they all seem to take into account the purpose of marriage. None of them indicate it is flowery poetic surplusage.
How about this one, for example: Standhardt v. Superior Court ex rel County of Maricopa, 77 P.3d 451 (Ariz. App. 2003) review denied (2004).
I note your concession that procreation IS the source of a right to marry, and note your claim that it is irrelevant.
I also note your claim that the state’s interest in marriage is because people want it.
Can you think of something else the state offers an incentive for people to do, just because the people want it, and for no other reason?
If the people want it, why does the state offer benefits to do it? Seems like all they ahev to do is watch and see their interest fulfilled, if it’s nothing more than the people want it.
I also will note that a concession of “people want to” is also pretty much vindication of my claim that the clamor from the gay crowd is pretty much 14th amendment analysis of “Joey has a popsicle, I get one too.”
Uh-huh… and when was a marriage license ever denied on the basis on failing to establish the intent to procreate, lack of love, lack of interest in companionship, etc.
I’d like to leave off issues of marriages to non-citizens, I admit, because immigration law is a whole Twilight Zone unto itself.
That decision upheld the ban on gay marriage. Arizona decided to apply rational basis. They were in their rights to do so as the laws stood in 2003, but I expect SCOTUS will intervene sooner or later.
I admit I haven’t time at the moment to read the state’s response (pdf) in full, but I’ll get to it later and see if any of the justifications were along the lines of “gays can’t reproduce.”
Well, the aforementioned professional football. There is government money and tax credits and loan guarantees and publicly-funded stadium-projects such to attract and retain NFL franchises, and indeed governmental financial support, direct and indirect, for many sports, down to the youth-amateur level. I suppose I could look into it, get some numbers.
Because the people want the state to do so, I gather. If the state gets a benefit in return, well… there’s another argument for legalizing gay marriage, to increase benefit to the state.
I don’t follow your reasoning.
Yeah, those women who wanted the vote and those blacks who wanted the vote were such crybabies…
There was no governmental interest outside of them wanting the vote? Are you sure of that?
still no citation as demanded above.