I’ll tell you, it’s a tough slog. You are all over the board, jumping from one thought to the next, with no coherence to your points, or seemingly any understanding of one points relevance to the next. This makes it very frustrating to try and pin you down to one point, especially when you continue to misstate our opinions.
I am not saying that procreation has nothing to do with marriage. What I am saying, and have said, is that marriage is a fundamental right. The fact that control over your own procreation is also a fundamental right does absolutely nothing to disprove that marriage is a fundamental right. And the fact that Loving cites Skinner does nothing to disprove it either.
You simply ignore the entirety of the holding of Loving, as well as the language I cited (and bolded) twice for you. Here it is again: “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” Nothing about procreation, childbearing, or Skinner.
You simply overlook that, just as you do the entirety of the holding of Loving, the difference between the Equal Protection and Due Process discussions in the ruling, as well as the citation to the other cases (Maynard v. Hill), and the other cases I cited (Zablocki and Turner).
You take one sentence and one half of the citations of that sentence in one ruling and pretend it speaks for the entirety of the discussion. That’s simply not how one should do constitutional analysis. And it’s certainly not how you should debate.
How does this have any relevance to anything we’ve been discussing? We’ve been discussing same sex civil marriage, not what people think of when they hear the word “marriage”. Could you try and draw your ideas together with something even vaguely resembling coherence? The lack or existence of “love” in a marriage has nothing to do with whether sexual orientation should be a suspect class (thanks for giving up on your position on that one, though), whether marriage is a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause, or whether or not Prop 8 violates the Constitution.
For the moment, it amuses me to play with someone who Gish-gallops on a horse with barely sufficient blood in its amphetamine stream. Such a beast can perform truly marvelous leaps, such as the miraculous separation of a statement from its inescapable logical corrolary, as in the above quote.
Nonsense. There are many people whose sterility can be readily ascertained without invasion of privacy (e.g. some people will talk about their impotence, vasectomy, hysterectomy, or whatever as freely as they talk about the weather or the Chicago Cubs’ pennant prospects), but who are nevertheless free to marry; it takes but one such to utterly dismiss this argument as irrelevant.
More to David42’s point, lemme requote that phrase from Loving v Virginia that he’s harping on about:
You keep fixating on Skinner but ignoring Meyer v Nebraska. You claim it’s because Skinner is all about the procreation, right and thus marriage must have procreation? But this falls apart because then marriage has everything to do with a common English language if we’re holding that to be true. *Meyer v Nebraska *mentions marriage once. Actually, it really doesn’t even do that, it just says “marry”. In fact, here’s the text:
Now please fight your way out of the wet paper bag and explain how Warren’s two cited cases make sense in your one asinine point.
So–to clarify–with not “even a thread” connecting “marriage and procreation” and Skinner having nothing to do with marriage, the mention of marriage would be mere dicta?
If so, are you claiming that Loving cites Skinner for its dicta? Maybe Warren overlooked that he was citing dicta with no precedential value?
If this is not so, it still goes unexplained why a case that says procreation is a fundamental right supports a case that marriage is a fundamental right? Why bring up procreation when not “even a thread” connects procreation to marriage?
You also forgot my other question, which you must satisfactorily answer as well to fight my ignorance:
In what way is marriage fundamental to our very existence and survival, if not being bound with the right to procreate?
Please explain how the human race would go extinct if we did not have love, or companionship, or any of the other purported purposes of marriage other than procreation? Would we fail to survive if we were all single? No, we would procreate and replenish the race regardless, with or without love, with or without commitment, with or without companionship.
You are reading “fundamental to our very existence and survival” absurdly literally. Spoken language is fundamental to our existence and survival but we wouldn’t all die without it.
I do not appreciate the implication that my reasoning involves the use of drugs. Kind of a personal insult, it seems.
It appears you do not understand the difference between a state forcing information out of someone and someone volunteering it. Simply because couple A talks about their fertility does not mean couple B wants to. it is an area the state cannot pry into, see Griswold v. Connecticut.
Once again, a denial of privacy for straights, but I suspect you would make a big deal of privacy for homosexuals re Lawrence.
Do you also argue that the state can force confessions from criminals, on the grounds that some criminals have volunteered confessions?
He is citing two cases for the proposition that marriage is a fuindamental right. One shows a connection to procreation, the other does not, having no need to.
Are you suggesting that the case with less information about marriage is more relevant to the purpose of marriage than the one with more?
I don’t understand the principle of law you’re expounding. Are you saying that Meyer somehow makes Skinner of no or lesser value? On the grounds that Meyer and *Skinner *don’t say exactly the same thing?
And here I thought that the purpose of SMDB was to fight ignorance, which, if that is what you think you are doing, means you should care whether your expalnations are satisfactory to someone who cannot see your point.
I notice you are STILL avoiding, as everyone else, to point to a purpose in marriage that makes it fundamental to our very existence and survival, and dancing around instead saying “MAYBE” the answer is in Meyer.
IN.A.NUTSHELL. what of marriage’s purposes, what makes marriage “fundamental to our very existence and survival?”
We survive without love, we survive without companionship, we survive without the dignity of homosexuals, even though society may be better with those things. They are simply not survival of the race matters. Procreation is.
ANSWER and quit dancing around with distractions about “MAYBE” the answer is somewhere else…
I didn’t say "maybe the answer is in Meyer. I said “Maybe if you look back to Maynard, you’ll get your explanation”. If you can’t read and comprehend, your ignorance is just going to be exhausting. Now go back to my questions. Oh, you can’t? Didn’t think so. In case you missed it: **Why is Maynard a case about property and not about procreation? Could it be that marriage is not binary solely about procreation or not? **
As half of a married couple (marriage valid in all 50 states) a bit over a week short of our 38th wedding anniversary, who has never sired children of my loins, but fostered the throwaways of others, may I say that procreation is neither necessary nor sufficient for marriage, but the desire to commit one’s life intimately to another willing person of one’s choice is, that we hope before we die to see our GLBT brothers and sisters achieve full marital equality, and that some people have no concept of the meanings of marriage, religion, Chrost’s commandments, constitutional law, justice, or mercy?
