UK set for same-sex marriage battle...

[_Darth J]

<insert more here>

so you begin with the substantive and defer to the rational basis at the end, when it is convenient.
You just seem to not get it....so mired in the tree there is no forest for you.

I can't wait for you to show me where that substantive due process argument is, particularly since you think that acknowledging the undisputed fact that a given group is discriminated against necessarily means an assertion that said group is a protected class of persons.

Your "incest" rebuttal is weak at best...for you fail to recognize that a father can still not marry his daughter even if both of them are sterile and unable to reproduce.

It's true that not even sterile parents can marry their children. So can you think of a reason why a sterile father should not be able to marry his sterile daughter? Or, why should it be a crime if a sterile adult father---without purporting to marry his daughter---has sexual intercourse with his sterile adult daughter, when they both consent to it and produce no children?

Incest is not merely about inbreeding, either. A father having sex with his daughter at all is a felony, whether or not offspring are produced.

Do you think there are maybe other valid rational bases for society not officially sanctioning a father having sex with his daughter? Here's a hint: if the father is charged with incest, as an affirmative defense he can show a mistake of fact indicating that he did not know that the female he had sex with was his daughter (assuming that she is over the age of consent). This would be a complete defense to the charge of incest. Why should that be? Why shouldn't it be strict liability?

And on a note related to this thread, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that homosexuals have a substantive due process right to privacy in having sexual relations with each other. Your personal sexual taboos aren't going to work as a rational basis: saying gay people can't get married because then they'll have gay married sex.

According to your position, in the eyes of the law sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.

No, not necessarily love. There's no law somewhere that says married parties have to "love" each other.

If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other?
it cannot.

You're again assuming a legal element that does not exist. There's nothing in law that says you have to "love" the person you are marrying.

With polygamy, the state can limit how many people can be partners in a marriage, and there is a rational basis for doing so. It dilutes inheritance rights, property rights, tax benefits, and other rights and duties that come with marriage by allocating them between too many people. That's not relevant to two partners of the same sex, though.

On the other hand, there's no reason the state could not sanction polygamy if it chose to. Thanks for bringing it up, though. It's just so ironic to have a Mormon arguing that it is wrong to go to the courts in attempt to "redefine" marriage.

With the brother and sister, you tell me: is there any rational basis besides having inbred children that would justify prohibiting a brother and sister from marrying each other? Or having sex with each other irrespective of a putative marriage? I'm not making that argument, but since you are, have fun with it.

All you're doing by bringing all this up is begging the question. Dallin H. Oaks isn't producing any children with his current wife. He's not raising the children he isn't having. Why must the state recognize his marriage with his current wife simply because they love one another?

The whole of your new argument of "show me where the law says you have to procreate in marriage" is nothing more than the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. (and your contrapositon is well of its mark)

No, it isn't. It is not very hard to determine whether any given U.S. jurisdiction requires procreation as a legal element of marriage. The absence of proof is also exactly what is required in an equal protection claim: proving the lack of a rational basis for discriminating against a given group.

The burden of proof is not on me my friend but on you...your persistent attempt to shift that burden unto me is simply another glaring example of the inadequacy in your arguments.

When you've made a prima facie case, the burden shifts. As positive law currently exists, there isn't a single substantive element of marriage in law that depends on the parties being of the opposite sex. I've already shown that. You've done nothing but refer to a circular definition ("marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman"). That's not substantive.

I'll pick Utah as an example. Here's Title 30, Chapter 1 of the Utah Code: http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/30_01.htm

There's not a single thing in there, other than the circular definition you're relying on, that is dependent on the parties being of the opposite sex.

Here's Title 30, Chapter 2, concerning the rights and duties of married persons: http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE30/30_02.htm

Again, nothing that depends on the parties being of the opposite sex.

states have, in varying degrees, have restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children.

Then it should be no problem for you to demonstrate that. I'm sure your analysis will include an informed discussion about what makes a marriage void versus what makes a marriage voidable.

Because a marriage between two unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. marriage laws ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.
and yes, these restrictions are not absolute so spare us all your inevitable stretch of both imagination and reasoning.

There is no basis whatsoever in law for this assertion. All married couples get the same rights and duties toward each other, regardless of how many children they do or do not have. And tax benefits for supporting a child are not contingent on being married to the child's other parent.

Utah allows single people who are not cohabitating with another adult to adopt a child. That single adoptive parent gets certain tax and other benefits for raising the child he or she adopts. So this must mean that the state has a compelling interest in promoting single parenthood.

There is no evidence or argument that supports LGBT marriages for there is no compelling reason that they would serve any of the state interests - this is a burden that has not been met.

So you think that in an equal protection claim, the plaintiff has the burden of showing a compelling reason of why they can carry out the state's interest.

You should probably re-read that Wikipedia entry.

You seriously fail to acknowledge that the state does have an interest in the fertility of its citizens...this is echoed in Skinner and countless state laws and constitutions (though you refuse to admit it)

It's such a nice surprise when you post things, because I keep thinking it can't get any stupider, yet I am continually proven wrong on that expectation.

Skinner was not about the government's interests. Skinner was about a private citizen's personal rights. It's not that the state had a compelling interest in ensuring that its people screw and make babies. It's that the petitioner in Skinner had a substantive due process right to have children. The government lost in Skinner.

People also have a substantive due process right to choose not to have children, as a great many Supreme Court and lower court cases have determined. All of these privacy rights about sex are not about the state's interests. They are limitations on the state's interests.

Anyway, I'm still ready to see the laws about having children that you simultaneously assert are there and admit are not there.

and then he revises, retracts, and revises his erroneous position of trying to apply "equal protection" to the cause of same-sex marriage.

Seriously, you need to read Wikipedia more carefully when you're trying to understand constitutional law. You can keep calling me someone who tries to pose as a "legal eagle" all you want, but it is obvious to anyone who understands constitutional law that you really don't know what you're talking about.

an ill-fated course of argument for him, in my opinion.

Just ask Kristin Perry, who as we have seen has failed miserably with that equal protection thing.

Isn't that what happened?

[_subgenius]

insert amusing arrogance, yet only opinion, here

Ok...forgive me, for i assumed that you actually had a working knowledge of this issue, at least prior to the obvious data that exists about the best known, currently, environment for children to be raised in.

(by the way i stated "sexual love" not "love"...a distinction your rebuttal conveniently omitted).
Laws against father/daughter relationship or consanguinity are in fact representative of a society's virtue, correct?

So,
Consummation and the issues of nullity are applicable to the validity of a lawful marriage in many states, correct? (understood that marriage, when otherwise legal, is complete without consummation in some states)
however-

Sexual activity can render the "contract" of marriage to be invalid or violated, correct?
Where the parties jointly regard some other act (usually a religious ceremony) as necessary before consummation, refusal to participate in this other act will be regarded as refusal to consummate.
(see also Ford v Ford 1987)
A willful refusal to consummate a marriage, regardless of the sexual activity before the marriage, is grounds for nullity...so, what are we saying about marriage? That there has been, and still exists, a requirement for sexual activity to occur in order for a marriage to be legitimate.
Is this expectation based on a fundamental desire to receive pleasure? does society desire for its members to be in states of ecstasy and thus they encourage marriage as a means to that end?....no, not at all.
This is actually simple stuff, is it not?

Do you agree that in some states it may be considered that sexual intercourse in required to "consummate" a marriage - as in complete the marriage contract? and that in many states the willful refusal of sexual intercourse is legal grounds for annulment or divorce?
That being said, was there a legal decision that defined this consummation as
[i]"Consummation of a marriage requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse"?
(and yes, i have not stated specifically whether it be same sex or opposite sex intercourse...but i am trying to go slowly for you).

[_Darth J]

insert amusing arrogance, yet only opinion, here

Ok...forgive me, for i assumed that you actually had a working knowledge of this issue, at least prior to the obvious data that exists about the best known, currently, environment for children to be raised in.

So what you're saying is that you acknowledge that nowhere in the U.S. is having children a legal element of marriage, but it still really is, but the reason not to let gay people marry each other is because of all this claimed evidence that heterosexual parents are better, but married people don't have to have kids anyway so arguments about parenting are non-responsive, but law is for general rules in society, but there are always exceptions to the rule, but the state has a compelling interest in its citizens procreating, but all of the constitutional law about reproductive rights is about limiting the state's power to interfere with the sexual activity of individuals, but the law is on your side, but it irrefutably is not, but this is all based on extra-legal considerations anyway.

Yes, that is certainly a persuasive argument.

(by the way i stated "sexual love" not "love"...a distinction your rebuttal conveniently omitted).

Nope. There's no legal requirement for "sexual love." Just sex (in some jurisdictions). People don't have to love each other to have sex. People don't even have to feel lust or attraction to have sex. They just have to do it, if they are in a jurisdiction where consummation is an element of marriage.

Laws against father/daughter relationship or consanguinity are in fact representative of a society's virtue, correct?

Sure it is. Although I'm pretty sure there are not very many laws against consanguinity between a father and his daughter.

And a federal constitutional provision against depriving people of equal protection of law is also representative of society's virtue.

So,
Consummation and the issues of nullity are applicable to the validity of a lawful marriage in many states, correct? (understood that marriage, when otherwise legal, is complete without consummation in some states)
however-

Sexual activity can render the "contract" of marriage to be invalid or violated, correct?

Sure. That's not relevant to procreation, though, because the consummation does not have to result in pregnancy for the act to be a valid consummation.

Where the parties jointly regard some other act (usually a religious ceremony) as necessary before consummation, refusal to participate in this other act will be regarded as refusal to consummate.
(see also Ford v Ford 1987)

See this right here? This is more of that proof you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what the tells are that show you don't know what you're talking about.

You don't cite cases by only giving a name and a year. You're missing the jurisdiction, the court, and what reporter this case is found in. I cited a couple of cases in this thread only by name, but I also linked to them.

It's very obvious that you're just Googling terms and repeating things that you don't understand, but which appear to you to support what you're trying to say. As it turns out, the case you're referring to is from the United Kingdom, which is irrelevant to equal protection under state law in the United States. Here's the website you cut and pasted your quote from: http://www.lawteacher.net/family-law-re ... rriage.php

A willful refusal to consummate a marriage, regardless of the sexual activity before the marriage, is grounds for nullity...so, what are we saying about marriage?

What you're saying is that you're talking about people in the U.K., since that's whose law you're referring to. But even under that law, the standard is willful refusal. An involuntary failure to consummate is not grounds for annulment.

And while the OP is about marriage in the U.K., you've been trying to argue about marriage in the U.S.

That there has been, and still exists, a requirement for sexual activity to occur in order for a marriage to be legitimate.
Is this expectation based on a fundamental desire to receive pleasure? does society desire for its members to be in states of ecstasy and thus they encourage marriage as a means to that end?....no, not at all.
This is actually simple stuff, is it not?

Nope. It's not simple stuff. You're only adding another rational basis problem, because in jurisdictions where consummation is an element of marriage, the sexual act only has to happen once, and it does not have to cause a pregnancy. So both on its face and as applied, these laws are in fact about just having sex.

You don't have to get married to have sex, by the way.

And people of the same gender can have sexual relations, too. I'd post links to prove that, but the moderators probably would not let that stay in the Celestial Forum.

Do you agree that in some states it may be considered that sexual intercourse in required to "consummate" a marriage - as in complete the marriage contract? and that in many states the willful refusal of sexual intercourse is legal grounds for annulment or divorce?

No, I would not agree, and that's because I am familiar with family law and I understand the difference between annulment and divorce. I tried to drop a hint to you about "void" versus "voidable," but you don't know what you're talking about, so you didn't pick it up. It is irrelevant to a rational basis analysis what makes a marriage voidable. The issue is what makes a marriage void, because that concerns what the legal elements of marriage are.

Besides your impressive reference to the U.K. case of Ford v. Ford as representative of state law in the U.S., you're also missing the standard: "willful refusal." Involuntary refusal isn't ground for annulment. People who can't have sexual intercourse through no fault of their own can still have a valid marriage.

That being said, was there a legal decision that defined this consummation as
[i]"Consummation of a marriage requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse"?
(and yes, i have not stated specifically whether it be same sex or opposite sex intercourse...but i am trying to go slowly for you).

"Look! I can Google things! That means I know all about family law and constitutional law!"

Here's the editorial you took that language from:

http://www.wnd.com/2010/09/206489/

The legal record is clear on this: Consummation of a marriage requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse, including erection and penetration between a man and a woman, regardless of whether the husband might be sterile or the woman might be barren, according to Dr. Stephen Lushington, a 19th century attorney, judge, member of Parliament and an opponent of slavery and capital punishment, in a famous court precedent in 1845.

This is what happens when cranks babble on and on about pseudolaw, and naïve people looking for someone to tell them what they want to hear fall for it.

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say that a case from England in 1845 is not binding precedent in the United States in 2012. Pretty sure that vertical stare decisis does not require courts in the U.S. to be bound by a case from a different country 167 years ago. I'm also pretty sure there have been some developments in the law since then, including the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

The crank who wrote this gibberish also contradicts himself.

"Marriage has always been an institution centered around procreation and the raising of children."

But

"Consummation of a marriage requires 'ordinary and complete' rather than 'partial and imperfect' sexual intercourse, including erection and penetration between a man and a woman, regardless of whether the husband might be sterile or the woman might be barren"

And here's the subtitle to his editorial:

Exclusive: Joseph Farah warns of grave ramifications of perverting what God ordained

Clearly this is someone who intends to make a well-reasoned and informed argument based on positive law.

[_Morley]

This thread is a 'must read': thoroughly informative and entertaining.

[_subgenius]

So what you're saying is...

once again, you parade around "what i must really mean" rather than actually responding directly...it must be so comforting for you being under that rock. What is so difficult about reading the lines that you insist on saying that something must surely be between them?

what i have clearly, and early on, stated is that life is not purely by legislation.
Your insistence to slowly limit and narrow the focus of the argument in order that is affirms your position is actually amusing, but also sad. If only "things" were as you wish, that would be so simple....and so fascist.

Nope. There's no legal requirement for "sexual love." Just sex (in some jurisdictions).

ok, you concede this point.....good.....so, what is the legal basis for this requirement?

People don't have to love each other to have sex. People don't even have to feel lust or attraction to have sex.

as i am sure many of your partners may likely confirm?........(zing)

Laws against father/daughter relationship or consanguinity are in fact representative of a society's virtue, correct?

Sure it is.

So, a virtue evident in society is a valid foundation for law?

And a federal constitutional provision against depriving people of equal protection of law is also representative of society's virtue.

again you raise the equal protection argument in this issue, but you can not argue that...unless you are claiming that LGBT is a suspect class, or are you, conveniently, now claiming that?

Sure. That's not relevant to procreation, though, because the consummation does not have to result in pregnancy for the act to be a valid consummation.

i did not ask about the relevance to procreation, just if sexual activity had legal implications.

Where the parties jointly regard some other act (usually a religious ceremony) as necessary before consummation, refusal to participate in this other act will be regarded as refusal to consummate.
(see also Ford v Ford 1987)

See this right here? This is more of that proof you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what the tells are that show you don't know what you're talking about.

You don't cite cases by only giving a name and a year. You're missing the jurisdiction, the court, and what reporter this case is found in. I cited a couple of cases in this thread only by name, but I also linked to them.

so rather than address the issue you would revert to "grammar nazi"...an obvious debate fallacy, which you rely on when you have no rebuttal or dare not concede...the personal attack does not make you "right".
All i notice is that you refused to refute the point, because you can not.

the standard is willful refusal. An involuntary failure to consummate is not grounds for annulment.

thanks for restating the obvious....i imagined that was why the word "willful" was used initially....but thanks for being redundant.

And while the OP is about marriage in the U.K., you've been trying to argue about marriage in the U.S.

actually you are trying to argue that.

That there has been, and still exists, a requirement for sexual activity to occur in order for a marriage to be legitimate.
Is this expectation based on a fundamental desire to receive pleasure? does society desire for its members to be in states of ecstasy and thus they encourage marriage as a means to that end?....no, not at all.
This is actually simple stuff, is it not?

these laws are in fact about just having sex.

interesting....and why is that?

You don't have to get married to have sex, by the way.

umm...not all of us have to pay for it.

And people of the same gender can have sexual relations, too.

congratulations, but that is irrelevant.

Do you agree that in some states it may be considered that sexual intercourse in required to "consummate" a marriage - as in complete the marriage contract? and that in many states the willful refusal of sexual intercourse is legal grounds for annulment or divorce?

The issue is what makes a marriage void, because that concerns what the legal elements of marriage are.

so, is sexual activity one of these elements in any jurisdiction?

People who can't have sexual intercourse through no fault of their own can still have a valid marriage.

so?
the willful refusal merely reinforces the point. If you can, and do not, then of course it invalidates the contract...why is that?

That being said, was there a legal decision that defined this consummation as
[i]"Consummation of a marriage requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse"?
(and yes, i have not stated specifically whether it be same sex or opposite sex intercourse...but i am trying to go slowly for you).

"Look! I can Google things!

Holy cow! you can't even Google well...
The reference was from Dr. Stephen Lushington, just because someone else uses the reference does not detract from its meaning...though i understand why you would rather go after that guy in lieu of the actual issue.
But once again we see you attack the messenger and not the message.

The sweet and soapy smell of inadequacy seems to rising up from the fascism now....did you bathe?

[_Darth J]

So what you're saying is...

once again, you parade around "what i must really mean" rather than actually responding directly...it must be so comforting for you being under that rock. What is so difficult about reading the lines that you insist on saying that something must surely be between them?

what i have clearly, and early on, stated is that life is not purely by legislation.
Your insistence to slowly limit and narrow the focus of the argument in order that is affirms your position is actually amusing, but also sad.

In other words, you want legal issues to be decided on something other than legal grounds. What's funny, in a sad way, is that you are incapable of seeing same-sex marriage as anything other than a political or ideological issue. That's clearly all it is with you, because you're explicitly saying that legal issues should be decided on something other than law. But that's what fascism is. You just want your cherished beliefs to be imposed on other people. To some extent, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not gay, and I don't have any relatives or close friends who are gay. But to another extent, I do have a dog in this fight, and that is the rule of law, versus this amalgam of religious dogma and sexual taboos being touted in favor of this fantasy of "traditional marriage."

If only "things" were as you wish, that would be so simple....and so fascist.

You bet. It's very clear from what I have been saying that I think law should be rational, consistent, and applied equally to everyone.

I mean, that's pretty much the definition of a fascist.

Nope. There's no legal requirement for "sexual love." Just sex (in some jurisdictions).

ok, you concede this point.....good.....so, what is the legal basis for this requirement?

No. You conceded my point. You are attributing to me the position that marriage requires nothing more than sexual love between two people. I said that nowhere in law is "love," sexual or otherwise, required between married partners. You're now agreeing with that.

People don't have to love each other to have sex. People don't even have to feel lust or attraction to have sex.

as i am sure many of your partners may likely confirm?........(zing)

For the purposes of marital validity, it would not matter.

So, a virtue evident in society is a valid foundation for law?

No, and it is horrifically poor thinking to make that statement (in the form of a leading question). The purpose of the Bill of Rights, and similar provisions in state constitutions, is to protect individual liberties. Personal rights are a counterweight to democracy's potential for tyranny of the majority---the fascism you are ironically, and obliviously, attributing to me.

In certain areas, the majority (or at least of plurality) of society thinks that Mormonism is a cult and the Book of Mormon is Satanic. So in the name of the virtues of society, you would have no problem with a given county or city banning LDS churches or prohibiting the possession of a copy of the Book of Mormon. Right?

If there is any one thing that is special or unique or virtuous about American society, it is this constitutional balance between the rule of law and individual rights. Things like the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment, and judicial doctrines like the rational basis test, are designed to preserve that balance. But that's not very convenient when it means that some people have the right to do things that conflict with your cherished beliefs----thus your assertion that "life is not purely by legislation." But you're hopelessly oblivious to the fact that this is exactly why Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional in the trial court and the appellate court levels.

Same-sex marriage is not a new right, or a special right, for gay people. It is giving everyone the same rights. There is nothing about the substance of marriage in law that is contingent on the partners being of opposing genders.

And a federal constitutional provision against depriving people of equal protection of law is also representative of society's virtue.

again you raise the equal protection argument in this issue, but you can not argue that...unless you are claiming that LGBT is a suspect class, or are you, conveniently, now claiming that?

You know, it takes a special kind of uninformed stupidity to assert that a group has to be part of a suspect class in order for an equal protection argument to be raised in that group's favor.

Equal protection is the argument you make about a group that is not a suspect class. You don't talk about a rational basis test for discrimination that is not based on a suspect classification.

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996)

The Fourteenth Amendment's promise that no person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws must coexist with the practical necessity that most legislation classifies for one purpose or another, with resulting disadvantage to various groups or persons. Personnel Administrator of Mass. v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 271-272 (1979); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (1920). We have attempted to reconcile the principle with the reality by stating that, if a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end. See, e. g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319-320 (1993).

It could not possibly be more obvious that I don't think, nor do I claim, that homosexuality is a suspect classification.

And you don't know why I cut and pasted the above language. That's because you don't have the slightest idea how case law works.

Seriously, the things you are saying about law are like the kinds of things said by people who are convinced that space aliens built the pyramids in Egypt. It's that level of ludicrousness.

Sure. That's not relevant to procreation, though, because the consummation does not have to result in pregnancy for the act to be a valid consummation.

i did not ask about the relevance to procreation, just if sexual activity had legal implications.

But that's where you're going with it. In a jurisdiction where consummation is required, two completely infertile people can have one instance of sexual intercourse one time ever in their lives, and that's enough to validate their marriage. Two partners of the same sex can do that, too, so this sideshow about consummation is not responsive to the issue.

Where the parties jointly regard some other act (usually a religious ceremony) as necessary before consummation, refusal to participate in this other act will be regarded as refusal to consummate.
(see also Ford v Ford 1987)

See this right here? This is more of that proof you don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what the tells are that show you don't know what you're talking about.

No, it isn't. The parameters of consummation under U.K. law have absolutely nothing to do with a 14th Amendment review of American state law.

You don't cite cases by only giving a name and a year. You're missing the jurisdiction, the court, and what reporter this case is found in. I cited a couple of cases in this thread only by name, but I also linked to them.

so rather than address the issue you would revert to "grammar nazi"...an obvious debate fallacy, which you rely on when you have no rebuttal or dare not concede...the personal attack does not make you "right".
All i notice is that you refused to refute the point, because you can not.

Explaining how you are showing that you don't understand substantive law and don't understand how case law works is not "grammar." It's not form over substance. You don't understand either the form or the substance. You did not have a point, so there is nothing to refute.

Tell me exactly what the stare decisis effect of Ford v. Ford is in the United States.

the standard is willful refusal. An involuntary failure to consummate is not grounds for annulment.

thanks for restating the obvious....i imagined that was why the word "willful" was used initially....but thanks for being redundant.

That isn't redundant. It's central to the issue. If one of the parties to a marriage is involuntarily incapable of having sexual intercourse, the marriage is still legally valid. In jurisdictions where that is the rule, it means that marriage isn't even necessarily about sex, let alone procreation.

Here's how this plays out in same-sex marriage: since women do not have penises, two females who marry each other cannot have penetrative sexual intercourse. That is not a voluntarily refusal to consummate. It is involuntary; they were born without the capacity to have intercourse. So in a jurisdiction where the rule is applicable, their involuntary failure to consummate their marriage would not invalidate their marriage, because the law is that involuntary failure to consummate is not grounds for annulment.

You have still not shown one single thing about the legal substance of marriage that is contingent on biological differences between the sexes.

these laws are in fact about just having sex.

interesting....and why is that?

Because in law, marriage is a domestic partnership between two people. In a few jurisdictions, one single act of sexual intercourse is part of the consideration for formation of that relationship. That's it. That's all marriage is.

I am aware that you don't want to hear this, because it conflicts with your wonderful mythology about God instituting marriage between Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. But the issue about same-sex marriage discussed in the OP, and in this thread, in Perry v. Brown, and in general, is law, not religious dogma.

You don't have to get married to have sex, by the way.

umm...not all of us have to pay for it.

In jurisdictions that require consummation, a single occurrence of sex is how you pay for your marriage.

And people of the same gender can have sexual relations, too.

congratulations, but that is irrelevant.

Then there was no reason for you to start babbling about consummation, which rubes and cranks mistakenly think is some insurmountable obstacle to same-sex marriage.

The issue is what makes a marriage void, because that concerns what the legal elements of marriage are.

so, is sexual activity one of these elements in any jurisdiction?

Yes. But two men can have sexual intercourse with each other, and two women can have sexual activity. Two women can't have penetrative intercourse, but the reasons they can't are not voluntary. So this is immaterial to same-sex marriage.

People who can't have sexual intercourse through no fault of their own can still have a valid marriage.

so?
the willful refusal merely reinforces the point. If you can, and do not, then of course it invalidates the contract...why is that?

Because it's consideration provided for entering a domestic partnership under the laws of some states.

But marriage is also an equitable relationship, and judging from your hopelessly ignorant commentary about equal protection and what you think "precedent" is, I'm not going to entertain the idea that you understand the difference between, or the interrelationship of, law and equity. The reasoning behind a marriage remaining valid even if one of the parties involuntarily can't have sex is equitable.

That being said, was there a legal decision that defined this consummation as
[i]"Consummation of a marriage requires “ordinary and complete” rather than “partial and imperfect” sexual intercourse"?
(and yes, i have not stated specifically whether it be same sex or opposite sex intercourse...but i am trying to go slowly for you).

"Look! I can Google things!

Holy cow! you can't even Google well...
The reference was from Dr. Stephen Lushington, just because someone else uses the reference does not detract from its meaning...though i understand why you would rather go after that guy in lieu of the actual issue.
But once again we see you attack the messenger and not the message.

The sweet and soapy smell of inadequacy seems to rising up from the fascism now....did you bathe?

No, the reference was from the crank writing the editorial partially quoting Stephen Lushington (by the way, nobody in the legal field cares who Stephen Lushington was). And I did Google quite well, because I found the article where your verbatim reference to Lushington came from. I did not simply attack the messenger for some irrelevant personal quality. I attacked him for not knowing what he is talking about. Cranks also frequently rely on illegitimate appeals to authority, and rubes are invariably impressed by it. Your reliance on the ludicrous gibberish that is this guy's editorial demonstrates this truism.

Subgenius, in 4 million words or less, explain exactly what the stare decisis value is anywhere in the United States in 2012 of an early 19th-century decision in England written by a single jurist.

[_ludwigm]

Again...
I don't care US or UK law (I have enough problem with HU law...)

but to the OP:
Rowan Williams resigns as archbishop of Canterbury

The archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is to resign and return to academia as master of Magdalene College, Cambridge.
Williams, 61, will leave at the end of December in time to start his new role next January.
His time in office has been marked by a slowly growing schism in the worldwide Anglican church, which he has failed to heal. Williams has been attacked by conservatives for his liberal views on homosexuality and by liberals for failing to live up to these principles.

[_subgenius]

...
His time in office has been marked by a slowly growing schism in the worldwide Anglican church, which he has failed to heal.....

[_subgenius]

In other words, you want legal issues to be decided on something other than legal grounds. What's funny, in a sad way, is that you are incapable of seeing same-sex marriage as anything other than a political or ideological issue.....

It is important to remind you that the location of the Equal Protection Clause is after the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Surely you recognize the historical construction, how the phrase “privileges or immunities” was intended to address the substantive rights that received explicit protection.
If the right to a same‐sex marriage were located in the Constitution, then it would be found in the Privileges or Immunities Clause....agreed?
For example, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, Justice McReynolds referred to the rights of parents to guide the education of their children, it is very unlikely that he meant to include parents that are same‐sex couples. In light of these historical realities, one certainly cannot make the constitutional case for same‐sex marriages through the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

The EP Clause emphasizes the word “protection” as much as the word “equal." These were rights given to all persons, a broader class than citizens.
Rights granted to all persons were both fewer and more basic than those given to citizens. For example, Privileges or Immunities protected economic liberties, while Due Process (also extended to all persons) only protected against seizure. Privileges or Immunities gave only citizens the right to acquire property, but Due Process protected the property of all persons.

The primary purpose associated with the Equal Protection Clause was not to deal with class or caste legislation, which would have been covered by Privileges or Immunities if covered by any part of the Fourteenth Amendment at all. Instead, the Equal Protection Clause had the great and noble purpose of addressing an ongoing evil: the perverted enforcement of the criminal law

United States v. Cruikshank
Once the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause is recognized, there is a powerful reason for the clause to remain separate and distinct from issues of same-sex marriage, or any class legislation

It is important to note that Justice Holmes’ dissent in Lochner v. New York, that the rational basis review was intended to insulate modern legislative initiatives from being attacked as impermissible deviations from traditional common law principles. There was never a thought that the test could be turned against statutes that embodied traditional understandings.

First, marriage is not a legal construct with totally malleable contours—not “just a contract.” Otherwise, how could the law get marriage wrong? Rather, some sexual relationships are instances of a distinctive kind of relationship—call it real marriage—that has its own value and structure, whether the state recognizes it or not, and is not changed by laws based on a false conception of it. Like the relationship between parents and their children, or between the parties to an ordinary promise, real marriages are moral realities that create moral privileges and obligations between people, independently of legal enforcement. - http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? ... d=1722155##

Equal Protection can not be legitimately argued until one defines marriage...a definition you are unable to define, and rightly so.
I can maintain that marriage involves: first, a comprehensive union of spouses; second, a special link to children; and third, norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity. All three elements point to the conjugal understanding of marriage (rather than your ill-fated revisionist view).
If you are going to continue with the idea that marriage is useless, then you must concede that any marriage laws are unnecessary.
if marriage is legally redefined, believing what every human society once believed about marriage—namely, that it is a male‐female union—will increasingly be regarded as evidence of moral insanity, malice, prejudice, injustice, and hatred, and the State can proceed accordingly.

[_malkie]

Sorry to sidetrack the sub/darth discussion, but I thought that subgenius' reference to "norms of permanence, monogamy, and exclusivity" was interesting. I wonder what 19th c. LDS leaders would have said about that, BY especially.