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?
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.
And once again, you missed the point.
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.
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).
Surely there’s some evidence you can provide? These aren’t brand-new issues, after all.
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?
Seriously? This is a sentence? Do you actually think groups speak in unison based on sexual orientation or any other class?
Opinion has been trumped by perceived propaganda. That doesn’t speak well of the opiner.
Hmm…
And some straight people have step children. Whoop-dee-do.
Is it the difference or is it justified by perceived propaganda too. Because that apparently works for some people too.
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 in your education, but I would suggest a good legal writing class at a law school to help you out.
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.
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.
You don’t say. …
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
On this issue, every day the U.S. lags behind Canada is another day you fail to live up to your ideals.
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.
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.
Sunspot activity has also decreased. Is there anything that SSM cannot cure? 
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).
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?
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Irony meter go boom.
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
I bet they are wrong, too, because they do not have an education in what citations mean?
They directly cited Skinner without qualification because there is nothing there that goes against their ruling. Complete agreement.
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.
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.
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.
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. 
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.