# Predict how the Supreme Court will Decide the Same Sex Marriage Cases **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2013, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936 "2013-03-25T18:12:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 26
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/501 "2013-04-04T15:37:31Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > LOL. So marriage is either for love or pregnacy. Maybe both. Don’t let things like history or facts get in that narrow view or you might be disappointed. But once again you won’t answer the question. Would you marry, on the assumption you are straight and have a pregnant girlfriend you didn’t feel you sufficiently loved? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/502 "2013-04-04T15:42:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Same-sex couples are capable of rearing children, and presently do so. Through surrogacy and artificial insemination, they can even cause new children to be born. > > So, I must ask, how does permitting same-sex marriage sever marriage from procreation? You could ask the gays, since they are the ones saying it. I’d be more in favor of SSM if this message wasn’t bandied about, but they need it, it appears, probably because most heterosexual unions don’t need help and no gay couple ever procreates within their union alone, a huge glaring difference that has been used many times to justify denial of SSM because they are not similarly situated in regard. Since the courts have said it so many times, I’m figuring they want to overrule that. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/503 "2013-04-04T15:53:20Z")
> [@David42](#): > > But once again you won’t answer the question. And once again, you missed the point. > [@David42](#): > > Would you marry, on the assumption you are straight and have a pregnant girlfriend you didn’t feel you sufficiently loved? That’s an extremely personal question and since it’s reflective of an individual’s standing, mores, and a whole host of other factors, my answer wouldn’t glean _anything_ relevant to the discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/504 "2013-04-04T15:58:41Z")
> [@David42](#): > > If any of you find yourselves half of a pregnant couple, but felt there wasn’t “love” (the alternative for what marriage is about and its purpose) and you say that there is no connection between marriage and procreation, would you marry merely because of the pregnancy? Why, or why not? I would do whatever I thought was best for the child. A loveless marriage of necessity, marked by resentment and bitterness, isn’t automatically the best environment for a child to grow up in, just because the child’s parents are legally married. If the two people can make a real go of it, then they should try. If not, then they shouldn’t. My brother is currently in a relationship with a woman who has a young girl from a previous relationship. Apparently this fellow struggled with drugs, and was an irresponsible louse. He has since passed away. My brother is kind and patient with this little girl, and she adores him. She would not have been better off had her father married her mother out of obligation (and had he remained alive). > [@David42](#): > > Ok I do see your point better. > > I’m not trying to say that other factors might not also be at play, but a bare analysis by race in lieu of a full study doesn’t warrant your conclusion as firmly as you make it. > > Some sociologists agree this idea is worth studying and are looking into it. For final results, I’m going to wait on the experts. Surely there’s some evidence you can provide? These aren’t brand-new issues, after all. > [@David42](#): > > You could ask the gays, since they are the ones saying it. I’d be more in favor of SSM if this message wasn’t bandied about, but they need it, it appears, probably because most heterosexual unions don’t need help and no gay couple ever procreates within their union alone, a huge glaring difference that has been used many times to justify denial of SSM because they are not similarly situated in regard. > > Since the courts have said it so many times, I’m figuring they want to overrule that. I haven’t read every brief in these cases, but isn’t the arguement more that marriage is already distinct from procreation, in that infertile couples marry, some married couples choose not to have children, and procreation already happens without marriage? That is, same-sex marriage doesn’t require some new ‘severing’ of marriage and procreation, as they were never joined as fully as inequality advocates like to pretend. What is the “huge, glaring difference” between a straight couple that needs to use a surrogate and a same-sex couple that does? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/505 "2013-04-04T15:59:26Z")
> [@David42](#): > > You could ask the gays, since they are the ones saying it.. Seriously? This is a sentence? Do you actually think groups speak in unison based on sexual orientation or any other class? > [@David42](#): > > I’d be more in favor of SSM if this message wasn’t bandied about. Opinion has been trumped by perceived propaganda. That doesn’t speak well of the opiner. > [@David42](#): > > but they need it, it appears, probably because most heterosexual unions don’t need help. Hmm… > [@David42](#): > > and no gay couple ever procreates within their union alone And some straight people have step children. Whoop-dee-do. > [@David42](#): > > a huge glaring difference that has been used many times to justify denial of SSM because they are not similarly situated in regard. Is it the difference or is it justified by perceived propaganda too. Because that apparently works for some people too. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/506 "2013-04-04T16:13:07Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Well, my citation says it is true. No it doesn’t. Nothing in the Wikipedia cite (_snort_ Wikipedia? Really? For legal information?) says anything close to your conclusions. In fact, it specifically says what I said: “The authority supports the proposition directly because it is not qualified with a signal.” The proposition in Loving was that there is fundamental right to marry, and that was supported by the quote I provided from Skinner. Nowhere does it say what you pretended it said, that a citation means that it accepts the entirety of the case cited. That simply is not true. You could start [here](http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/index.htm) in your education, but I would suggest a good legal writing class at a law school to help you out. > [@David42](#): > > An attempt to get me to toot my own horn? I’m a paralegal and I have been to law school. And which professor taught you that citing to a case means you accept the case in its entirety rather than just being support for your proposition? I’d love to have a chat with him or her. > [@David42](#): > > That of course doesn’t prove I am right here. But you might have more respect for others. Perhaps the fact is merely that I think in a way you cannot understand. I don’t have much respect for people who spout misinformation about legal issues. In your case, you’ve offered nothing but misinformation on Equal Protection, Due Process, and now, the meaning of legal citations. I find it very hard to respect people who give out misinformation. > [@David42](#): > > My state AG shut me down for “unauthorize practice of law,” You don’t say. … > [@David42](#): > > How loud does your own horn toot, my friend? Care to detail your own superior qualifications that make your opinion more correct than mine? Not particularly, unless it’s vitally important to you. I’m not a fan of tooting my own horn. Although I haven’t been shut down for the unauthorized practice of law, so you do have that on me. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/507 "2013-04-04T16:43:31Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Beats a “what me worry?” approach which is even more tenuous yet. Actually, it does not. Your fellow citizens are being treated unfairly under they law, and your reasoning that this is justifiable is based on the loose pseudoscience, misdirected concerns, and I guess the belief that correlation proves causation. Affecting “what me worry?” indifference would be an _improvement_. > [@](#): > > Claiming absolutely NO ill effects is the sort of absolutism that is nearly always wrong, and in a sociological context is simply taking advantage of the fact that there is no precise certainty in cause and effect in sociology. Then prove SOME ill effects. Heck, prove a mechanism for _potential_ ill effects that you could provably link to gay marriage. So you claim marriage is on a decline, with children being born out of wedlock? Your own argument has this starting decades ago. > [@](#): > > Gay suicide went up in Holland after gay marriage passed. Seems counterintuitive, and its nearly impossible to tell specifcially why people kill themselves. There could be a connection to gay marriage, should we try to find out, or do all the same things holland did while saying “You can’t prove that!” The murder rate in Chicago has dropped while gay marriage is under national debate. Therefore, in order to save the lives of more Chicago residents, the U.S. should continue to pursue gay marriage. Do you not care about the residents of Chicago? > [@](#): > > Maybe we are wrong and there is something deep seated involving emotional trouble with homosexuality that is not caused by societal disapproval–Holland is great to test that theory because disapproval of gays is virtually non-existent in Holland. Perhaps the absence of animus leaves a gay still depressed but unable to blame something other than himself? Thus more gays feel it is hopeless and off themselves than in a country featuring easy-to-blame Westboro Baptist Church which actually gives them strength to fight? That would be irony of the highest order–“Westboro–Keeping gays from committing suicide since 1991!” > > It could be, and sound explanations for the rise in gay suicide haven’t been proven. Assuming such a Holland rise actually exists, is there a comparable rise in Canada? Canada is culturally far closer to the U.S. and a better indicator of potential U.S. effects, is it not? Does the U.S. even keep records on gay suicide rates? If a rise was happening, would you even know it, let alone why it was occurring, let alone that it was attributable (in whole or in part) to gay marriage? Is the gist of such an argument that citizens be denied equal treatment under the law not out of demonstrable concerns, but of vague fears? Holland, also, has set the world’s record for the increased rate of out-of-wedlock births–in the seventies in was at 4% and today that number has risen over 100%The graphs showing the upward curve pretty closely match the graphs for acceptance of homosexuality rising. It’s so close a match that nearly anyone ought to think it is at least worth looking into the correlation, which sometimes IS related to cause and effect. > [@](#): > > “Not with the times” is a logical fallacy and is not used in sound debate. On this issue, every day the U.S. lags behind Canada is another day you fail to live up to your ideals. > [@](#): > > A Pro-Jewish advocate in Nazi Germany would have been not with the times, but that doesn’t make anti-Jewish sentiment right or good. > > If times in fact are bad, I would be glad to not be with the times… Within 12 years (i.e. from 1933 to 1945), Nazi Germany was consigned to the dustbin of history. Being a pro-Jewish advocate in Germany during this time would certainly have been dangerous, but your suggest that it might not be have been the right or good thing to do is baffling. Also irrelevant, unless you’re making an extremely inapt comparison between anti-SSM Americans and Nazis, and current American politics (i.e. “the times”) being as “bad” as 1930s Germany. You have nothing, and your posts are repeated variations of nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/508 "2013-04-04T19:15:01Z")
On review, the paragraph in the above post that starts with “Holland, also” is there as the result of a tagging error. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/509 "2013-04-04T19:25:12Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > On review, the paragraph in the above post that starts with “Holland, also” is there as the result of a tagging error. That’s ok. I’m sure \*\*David42 \*\*doesn’t even know that there’s a difference between Holland and the Netherlands anyways as he hasn’t even cited his weird little tangents there. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/510 "2013-04-04T19:48:43Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > The murder rate in Chicago has dropped while gay marriage is under national debate. Therefore, in order to save the lives of more Chicago residents, the U.S. should continue to pursue gay marriage. Do you not care about the residents of Chicago? Sunspot activity has also decreased. Is there _anything_ that SSM cannot cure? 😉 > [@David42](#): > > Holland, also, has set the world’s record for the increased rate of out-of-wedlock births–in the seventies in was at 4% and today that number has risen over 100%The graphs showing the upward curve pretty closely match the graphs for acceptance of homosexuality rising. Perhaps, but that figure may not equate qualitatively to the US situation as Holland also has one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancy and abortion (somewhere around 1/7th of the US rate), suggesting that their out-of-wedlock figures are a) for older parents than is common in the US and b) may reflect stable non-marriage relationships. (More digging into numbers would be required of course). ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/511 "2013-04-04T20:58:08Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > No it doesn’t. Nothing in the Wikipedia cite (_snort_ Wikipedia? Really? For legal information?) says anything close to your conclusions. In fact, it specifically says what I said: “The authority supports the proposition directly because it is not qualified with a signal.” The proposition in Loving was that there is fundamental right to marry, and that was supported by the quote I provided from Skinner. Nowhere does it say what you pretended it said, that a citation means that it accepts the entirety of the case cited. That simply is not true. You could start [here](http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/index.htm) in your education, but I would suggest a good legal writing class at a law school to help you out. Maybe you should go. If you did, you’d know that you don’t just throw a 266 page document at someone with no-more information than “here” and an insult to their education? Do you think that I’m going to read 266 pages, or that anyone else will, guessing what might be your so-called authority for your claim? And you call that a “cite” meant to teach someone how to “cite?” That’s your idea of citation? “HERE?” But if you clutter the pages with enough bullshit, you might prevent a lurker from catching the points of my argument and winding up agreeing with me. If you amke it convoluted and hard to follow enough, you MIGHT just prevent ignorance form being fought. So what page do you want me to look at? Got a select quote? > [@Hamlet](#): > > And which professor taught you that citing to a case means you accept the case in its entirety rather than just being support for your proposition? I’d love to have a chat with him or her. > [@Hamlet](#): > > I don’t have much respect for people who spout misinformation about legal issues. In your case, you’ve offered nothing but misinformation on Equal Protection, Due Process, and now, the meaning of legal citations. I find it very hard to respect people who give out misinformation. > [@Hamlet](#): > > You don’t say. … I do say. I suppose you do not know of a growing movement to allow paralegals to provide some of the more basic legal services, like drafting documents. Half the time the attorneys I worked for didn’t even read them, they’d tell me “Draft it and file it.” I did this partly for political reasons, too, and made sure the legal community knew I was doing it. They don’t care if the quality of your work is high or low. > [@Hamlet](#): > > Not particularly, unless it’s vitally important to you. I’m not a fan of tooting my own horn. Although I haven’t been shut down for the unauthorized practice of law, so you do have that on me. You probably have never written briefs under an attorney’s umbrella and had your state supreme court agree, either. I do not know why you think reasoned debate is more about the insults you can throw about than staying on point. How about answering those pertinent qwuestions that would fight my ignorance? ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/512 "2013-04-04T21:01:56Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > That’s ok. I’m sure \*\*David42 \*\*doesn’t even know that there’s a difference between Holland and the Netherlands anyways as he hasn’t even cited his weird little tangents there. Oh? And how do you know I meant the entirety of the Netherlands rather than its one geographic region known as Holland? or perhaps you do not know that while the officail name is the Netherlands, much of the world still calls this place Holland? Or maybe, if I speak of Germany, you will be here right on time to criticize me for not calling it Deutschland? You sure know how to keep a thread on point. Meanwhile, do you have anything useful to say about rising-ou-of-wedlock births in Holland, The NEtherlands, Deutschland, or even Bophuthatswana? Something that might help? ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/513 "2013-04-04T21:19:03Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Oh? And how do you know I meant the entirety of the Netherlands rather than its one geographic region known as Holland? > > or perhaps you do not know that while the officail name is the Netherlands, much of the world still calls this place Holland? > > Or maybe, if I speak of Germany, you will be here right on time to criticize me for not calling it Deutschland? > > You sure know how to keep a thread on point. > > Meanwhile, do you have anything useful to say about rising-ou-of-wedlock births in Holland, The NEtherlands, Deutschland, or even Bophuthatswana? Something that might help? My guess is since you haven’t produced a cite for your off-topic claim that this is more of your flotsam and jetsam that’s samusing (that’s sad and amusing mushed together). ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/514 "2013-04-04T21:28:26Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Maybe you should go. If you did, you’d know that you don’t just throw a 266 page document at someone with no-more information than “here” and an insult to their education? Do you think that I’m going to read 266 pages, or that anyone else will, guessing what might be your so-called authority for your claim? And you call that a “cite” meant to teach someone how to “cite?” That’s your idea of citation? “HERE?” You need only a basic education into citations in legal documents to understand what they are and their purpose. They are to show the basis for the proposition; to show prior caselaw (or law reviews or trial records, etc.) that supports their assertion, and how and where to find that supporting document. They are not, as you asserted, to show support for the entirety of a prior case, to adopt the complete reasoning of that prior case, or any of the other baseless assertions you made. You misunderstand the very purpose of citations, the reason that they exist and are used in cases. They aren’t a way for a court to adopt completely a prior case, as you falsely asserted. In this particular case, Loving cited to Skinner not because it fully adopted all the conclusions and rationale from Skinner, but to show a prior case that supported their proposition that marriage was a fundamental right. I thought an introduction to legal citations, with additional learning for you if you so wished to stop being ignorant on the topic, would be of service. Apparently, you have no interest in that. > [@David42](#): > > I did this partly for political reasons, too, and made sure the legal community knew I was doing it. They don’t care if the quality of your work is high or low. You don’t say. Shut down for not being an attorney AND having your lawyers not care about the quality of your work? How so very unsurprising in the least. > [@David42](#): > > I do not know why you think reasoned debate is more about the insults you can throw about than staying on point. The irony of you saying I should stay on point is absolutely overwhelming. > [@David42](#): > > How about answering those pertinent qwuestions that would fight my ignorance? Are these the same questions that have been answered numerous times in this thread by numerous posters, or do you have even more tangential, unorganized questions for us? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/515 "2013-04-04T21:31:05Z")
> [@David42](#): > > I am not sure what you mean by this, perhaps you could rephrase? Are you meaning that because of separate but equal rulings in the past that were mistaken, some other not exactly related ruling is wrong also? Do you mean Warren felt _Skinner_ was a mistake but cited it with approval anyway? That seems rather absurd to me. I am basically saying that the court has made mistakes in the past and I do not think that we should rely on errors of earlier courts when adjudicating law. Marriage is clearly not necessary for the survival of the species. That being the case, appeals to the language of a court case that relied on such an error should not direct any subsequent cases. At any rate, I am not going to pursue this merry-go-round. Language has changed. Society has changed. Same Sex Marriage is a good thing that U.S. society should embrace. I would like to see a very narrow decision from the court, now, so as to allow the legal changes to be undertaken by legislatures and referenda so as to avoid the sort of “_the courts correctly/erroneously said so_” feuds that have accompanied the abortion issue for the last forty years. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/516 "2013-04-04T22:02:28Z")
Since Canada approved gay marriage, the U.S. has not suffered a terrorist attack on its soil. Some gratitude is in order, I would think. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/517 "2013-04-04T22:05:39Z")
> [@David42](#): > > But if you clutter the pages with enough bullshit, you might prevent a lurker from catching the points of my argument and winding up agreeing with me. If you amke it convoluted and hard to follow enough, you MIGHT just prevent ignorance form being fought. Irony meter go boom. ---
**Author:** ![David42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5f9b8f/32.png) [@David42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David42)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/518 "2013-04-04T22:18:23Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > You need only a basic education into citations in legal documents to understand what they are and their purpose. They are to show the basis for the proposition; to show prior caselaw (or law reviews or trial records, etc.) that supports their assertion, and how and where to find that supporting document. They are not, as you asserted, to show support for the entirety of a prior case, to adopt the complete reasoning of that prior case, or any of the other baseless assertions you made. Actually, citations can show a number of ways that a court treats a case. Perhaps you believe that the NY court of Appeals (the equivalent of most states’ Supreme Courts) also is in need of your help in educating themselves about how to read cites and what it means to cite an authority? "**In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right “fundamental to our very existence and survival” (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation.** It reasoned: “To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes . . . is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law” (id.). Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a “choice,” it did not articulate the broad “right to marry the spouse of one’s choice” suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that “[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations” (id. [emphasis added]).[FN2] Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the{\*\*7 NY3d at 372} values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union,[FN3] **it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation.**"_Hernandez v. Robles_ 2006 NY Slip Op 05239 [7 NY3d 338] (2006). (Emphasis supplied.) [http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006\_05239.htm](http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2006/2006_05239.htm) I bet they are wrong, too, because they do not have an education in what citations mean? > [@Hamlet](#): > > You misunderstand the very purpose of citations, the reason that they exist and are used in cases. They aren’t a way for a court to adopt completely a prior case, as you falsely asserted. In this particular case, Loving cited to Skinner not because it fully adopted all the conclusions and rationale from Skinner, but to show a prior case that supported their proposition that marriage was a fundamental right. They directly cited _Skinner_ without qualification because there is nothing there that goes against their ruling. Complete agreement. > [@Hamlet](#): > > I thought an introduction to legal citations, with additional learning for you if you so wished to stop being ignorant on the topic, would be of service. Apparently, you have no interest in that. I’ll tell you what. Take your enlightening views and 266 pages of expert citation knowledge, which I am sure you have memorized, and send it to the NY Court of Appeals explaining their education is lacking and you wanna help fight their ignorance. If any one of them indicates anything other than the idea that you are a sophomoric crackpot, I will donate $100 to your favorite charity, or Bricker’s least favorite, your choice. > [@Hamlet](#): > > You don’t say. Shut down for not being an attorney AND having your lawyers not care about the quality of your work? How so very unsurprising in the least. It is the AG who does not care whether or not the work is good, they shut you down for competing with a lawyer for his yacht payment. My employers cared, but trusted me. Nice way to meld the two together, quite falsely and obviously deliberately. > [@Hamlet](#): > > The irony of you saying I should stay on point is absolutely overwhelming. Are these the same questions that have been answered numerous times in this thread by numerous posters, or do you have even more tangential, unorganized questions for us? They haven’t been satisfactorily answered. The attempts at answering range pretty much from “You’re wrong” with no explanation, to putting words in the court’s mouth it did not say. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/519 "2013-04-04T22:36:29Z")
> [@David42](#): > > Meanwhile, do you have anything useful to say about rising-ou-of-wedlock births in Holland, The NEtherlands, Deutschland, or even Bophuthatswana? Something that might help? Well, (the former) Bophuthatswana has both legal same-sex marriage and a very high level of out-of-wedlock births, though the two things probably aren’t correlated. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2013, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936/520 "2013-04-04T22:37:40Z")
I don’t want to discourage anyone from pursuing this discussion, but I think it’s worth pointing out that this thread has followed the same pattern as several other gay marriage-themed discussions **David42** has posted in. The same arguments, the same cites, the same results. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936.md?page=25) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/predict-how-the-supreme-court-will-decide-the-same-sex-marriage-cases/653936.md?page=27)