Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

It was an analogy. Never mind as it seems to have only confused you.

 

New argument???? Ive stuck with the same arguments throughout. In fact many have complained because I am again restating the same argument. As if they would have expected to change with the topic remaining the same.

 

"Procreation is why marriage has been limited"

"Procreation is irrelevant to individual marriages"

So in GENERAL it's true...but if you get SPECIFIC it's not true.

Oh, no...it's not just rationalization and excuse-making....that's clearly logical, isn't it?

 

I see you don't keep up. The SCOTUS has given the government the power to seize property for the sole reason of generating tax revenue. Keep up with your SCOTUS decisions.

This creates the precedence that the government can trample any right explicit or implicit to generate tax revenue.

Can you prove that? One could show very easily that when there was more of a social stigma more gays married women and had children while living their homosexual life in secret. And that is still true today although to a far lesser extent.


Saying that not you cant make someone ungay doesn't mean that social stigma and prohibition wont force gays to marry and have kids. Social stigma and prohibition forced gays to marry and have kids for centuries. And it still does although to a far lesser extent than in the past. There are still plenty of gays who are married with children because of social stigma.

Much of the governments social engineering is really reaching. That has never stopped them. What is your point.

 

I think the courts have become illogical and fallacious and were much less so in the recent past. Some of what you find illogical and fallacious from the Supreme Court in 1978


Long ago, in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id., at 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress," id., at 211. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause, id., at 399, and in Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, supra, marriage was described as "fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race," 316 U.S., at 541 . ...
It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. As the facts of this case illustrate, it would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society. ...
Surely, a decision to marry and raise the child in a traditional family setting must receive equivalent protection. And, if appellee's right to procreate means anything at all, it must imply some right to enter the only relationship in which the State of Wisconsin allows sexual relations legally to take place.

 

We've had this discussion before Jeff. One man one woman Marriage was listed as a right by the supreme court. You cannot expand marriage as a right then turn around and limit it to only adult homosexuals and still claim its a right.

 

If that's true, then no, I was not aware. It doesn't matter much though, because in every case so far, the courts do not agree with this reasoning in regard to same-sex marriage. In other words, it's another fallacious and irrelevant argument.

Even if that were shown to be true, it is still irrelevant. It's just the same procreation argument in a different wrapper.

My point is that the arguments against same-sex marriage continue to get more convoluted, yet still no closer to being logical or valid.

 

considering there have been same gender marriages in this country for a few years now, there is no way to invalidate all those existing marriages, thus traditional marriage includes them now, they are a part of the marriage tradition in this country

 

Two different topics Im sure you could not distinguish between. Its a classification of people. The laws are full of them. Usually chosen for ease in identification and not neccessarily precision. For instance a Social Security law assumed that any biological child of the deceased who was living with the deceased before he died, was in fact dependent upon the deceased for support and therefore eligible for his SS benefits. Any other child in the home had to prove they were dependent upon the deceased. Sure some biological children who were not dependent will get the benefits. The statute is overinclusive like marriage laws could be argued to be. But the Supreme Court held that for "administrative conveinence" the government could use such a classification without violating the constitution. Or more specifically in the case of gay marriage.

 

I dont follow. It can be shown that social stigma and prohibition encourages gays to marry and procreate.

The argument isn't convoluted at all take the Russian argument. We are in a fertility crisis, we need all physical able people procreating including gays, banning homosexuality and apply social stigma to it will encourage gays to procreate.

Its not convoluted at all. Its basic math. The more gays you can get to have kids the better it is for the state. I would argue that the Russian state in other words Putin doesn't really care at all if a citizen is gay as long as he is married and having children.

 

Even polygamy was limited to marriages between men and women. A fact the court seem not to grasp. The principle of BC Roman law
"Mater semper certa est" ("The mother is always certain")
"pater semper incertus est" ("The father is always uncertain")
"pater est, quem nuptiae demonstrant" ("father is to whom marriage points")...

Works whether the man has one wife or 50.

 

Not the same as my argument. Marriage INHIBITS procreation. Government didnt create the institution of marriage and make it a crime for a man to have sexual relations with a woman he is not married to, in order to encourage procreation and in fact it was to stop it from occuring unless the requirementsa of marriage were met.
A father with a sexually active with several men, 18 yr old daughter doesnt hope for her to instead pick one man to marry, because he wants to encourage her to procreate. He does so because he fears she is going to procreate without a marriage in place.
And of course with his sexually active with several men, homosexual son, such matters arent a concern.

 

What is your argument.

Before you said marriage is to reduce the number of single mothers with absent fathers.

Now you say marriage exists to inhibit procreation.

What is the purpose of marriage Dixon?

 

We have indeed.

You still have yet to show me where the Supreme Court refers to 'one man, one woman Marriage' anywhere.

Loving v Virginia
"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."
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190 (188, the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life," id. at 125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"
In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678(1977)
"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur
"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Zablocki
The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.


Feel free to show me where I missed the Supreme Court listed those rulings as only applying to one man and one woman- even though they refer to marriage as an individual right.

 

Use of the word marriage does that.

n1 Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1966) p. 1384 gives this primary meaning to marriage: "1 a: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife." Black, Law Dictionary (4 ed.) p. 1123 states this definition: "Marriage * * * is the civil status, condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life, for the discharge to each other and the community of the duties legally incumbent on those whose association is founded on the distinction of sex."....
The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis

 

??? Do you see some conflict between marriage limited to a man and a woman as an individual right?

 

Good quote of the Washington Supreme Court.

However federal judges have ruled quite differently

As Zablocki indicated- the State cannot interfere with an exercise of a fundamental right without a sufficiently important state interest:

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

The Federal Judge in the Wisconsin case agreed that the plaintiff's situation was similar to that of Skinner, Loving, Zablocki and Windsor- and that it is unconstitutional for the State to deny same gender couples the same rights of marriage as opposite gender couples.

- - - Updated - - -

You still have yet to show me where the Supreme Court refers to 'one man, one woman Marriage' anywhere..

- - - Updated - - -

I and the courts do.

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

 

One in the same. Inhibits procreation outside of marriage. Blacks in the US have a LOWER marriage rate and HIGHER birth rate than whites, with most black children now born to single mothers. Without marriage, men and women procreate just fine.

 

So still trying to get a handle on what you think the purpose of marriage is- and why that purpose excludes homosexuals.

So the purpose of marriage is inhibit procreation outside of marriage.

That seems rather circular.

 

MAYNARD v. HILL
'marriage, in the sense in which it is dealt with by a decree of divorce, is not a contract, but one of the domestic relations. In strictness, though formed by contract, it signifies the relation of husband and wife, deriving both its rights and duties from a source higher than any contract of which the parties are capable, and, as to these, uncontrollable by any contract which they can make.

"Husband and wife" singular form of the word. But Im sure if you can convince yourself that Californias marriage law in 1872 using the terms "male...and... female" meant male and female or a male and a male or a female and female, you could convince yourself the "HUSBAND AND WIFE" could mean wife and wife or husband and husband.

 

No you are not. You do everything you can to avoid it. Birth of a child obligates only two people in the world to provide and care for that child. The woman who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. Encouraging marriage increases the number of children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them and reduces the number of children with only their mother, with an absent or unknown father. Encouraging couples of the same sex, platonic couples or closely related couples does not.
What part don't you understand after all this time?

 

Obviously you find that a comforting thought; but there is no basis for it in reality, which is presumably why you're fraudulently trying to pass it off as essentially a self-evident truth.

Yes, I suppose it can be said that I have failed to force you to open your eyes - except, of course, that I never tried, since that isn't my job.

I believe I'll reserve any elaboration along those lines until you show some capacity to comprehend it.

That's a myth. You're welcome.

Since that's precisely what I'm doing, I daresay the question is contemptibly idiotic - though I am quite aware of your sad compulsion to so derogate ideas with which you are unable to find substantive fault.

Please, even setting aside the abject credulity required to accept these researchers as paragons of objectivity, I defy you to cite a study which even purports to have observed the parent/child interaction over a solid week, 24/7, to say nothing of any demonstration of the researcher's competence in interpreting such data.

There is no such thing. No parent who has love would presume to rear a child in such a twisted environment.

Nobody can. All anybody can "notice" who doesn't live around such "families" is the claims to that effect of perverts and their advocates in academia and the media.

Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that you practically slobber all over yourself at the thought, as rabidly determined as you clearly are to project your bigotry onto others. Fortunately for me, I'm not nearly dumb enough to fall for that.

 

By God!

I am stunned!

Truly I am.

Dixon actually provided a real fact.

I applaud you sir. I never thought to see this day.

Yes in that case, the Supreme Court did refer to what I will agree is an acceptable version of 'one man/one woman'.

 

Okay I will try to parse it down so I can be sure we are in agreement of what you are saying.

This is a statement about birth and obligations:
Birth of a child obligates only two people in the world to provide and care for that child. -The woman who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so.

This I assume is you believe the purpose for marriage to be:
Encouraging marriage increases the number of children born into homes with both their mother and father present to provide and care for them and reduces the number of children with only their mother, with an absent or unknown father

So- the purpose of marriage is to promote children being born into homes where their father and mother will take care of them- i.e. procreation within marriage.

Associated with that you say the purpose of marriage is to reduce the children born outside of marriage.

I am just trying to get agreement on what your bottom line argument as to what marriage is- and why homosexuals must be excluded.