UK set for same-sex marriage battle...

[_Darth J]

You have been repeatedly saying that Skinner v. Oklahoma defines the legal meaning of marriage. Nobody but you thinks this.

i have not been saying that. read for comprehension.

No. It is not my fault that you cannot articulate a coherent thought. You have explicitly said that Skinner v. Oklahoma is precedent for the idea that marriage is about procreation. So either you are changing your mind, or you don't understand what stare decisis is. It also means you don't understand the cases and controversies clause, which prohibits a federal court from ruling on issues not before it. You also don't understand the 10th Amendment, which prohibits the federal judiciary from defining state law. In this thread, you said:

"the Supreme Court made a pretty good link when it wrote the decision for Skinner v. Oklahoma, a pretty darn good legal precedent for many subsequent decisions, especially based on that clear notion." viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22898&p=565366&hilit=skinner#p565366

The meaning of those words is that, according to you, Skinner v. Oklahoma is case law establishing what the requirements of marriage are. That's what precedent means.

In another thread, you said this, in reference to Skinner: "but the citation that 'marriage and procreation are fundamental' has been used in the decisions that followed. That little gem is what you seem to be intentionally looking over." viewtopic.php?f=1&t=22054&p=546669&hilit=skinner#p546669

The meaning of those words is that, according to you, Skinner v. Oklahoma is case law establishing what the requirements of marriage are.

In another thread, in response to my stating that the 14th Amendment preempts state law, you said this: "Understood, however LGBT issues are hardly in violation of the 14th (obviously)....keyword: immutable, see also Baker v. Nelson, supreme court 1972, and take notice of "for want of a substantial federal question" (see also that case's use in creation of DOMA). 1st, 8th, 9th, and 14th amendments - score! See also Skinner v. Oklahoma, just for kicks." viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20238&p=499740&hilit=skinner#p499740

To the extent that this random babbling is even asserting anything, it is asserting that, according to you, Skinner v. Oklahoma is case law establishing what the requirements of marriage are.

If the legal definition does not actually exist, then the legal "support" (your own scare quotes) does not actually exist.

At the time of Baker, the legal definition did exist in Minnesota and it was supported in Baker by Skinner.

No, it did not. Minnesota law did not and does not say that a married couple has to produce and raise children. You are also contradicting yourself. If, as you have suddenly decided, Skinner is not case law that defines marriage (which is what "precedent" means), then Baker is not supported by it, because Skinner is not precedent on that issue. I already explained that Baker cited Skinner for the same reason it cited Genesis. It's not because either of them is legal precedent defining marriage.

Notwithstanding any subsequent appeals, or rulings outside of that jurisdiction, the fact remains that marriage was defined and it was buttressed by Skinner.

The only way this supposed definition of marriage (that you are not showing) would be "buttressed by Skinner" is if Skinner were binding precedent defining what marriage is. You don't think you are contradicting yourself, but you are, and that's because you don't understand how case law works. That's not simply name-calling. You are consistently demonstrating that you don't understand what you're arguing.

You attempts to re-write history post-mortem does not change the fact that you put up a challenge, the challenge was met, and you lost that point. This is clearly evidenced by your immediate rebuttal with decisions that happened after Baker.

I'm trying to think of a stupider thing to say about case law than, "Well, that might be the law now, but it used to be different!" But I can't think of anything stupider than that.

Using similar logic, perhaps you would like to explain how, by posting things on the internet, I am conceding that typewriters are better than computers.

Even the appeal of Baker was not based on the definition of marriage but rather due process
"The district court failed to conduct an appropriate analysis under the Minnesota Constitution" - the appeals court decision does not contradict the definition of marriage.

This is pretty stupid, too. "Uh, well, the dismissal based on Baker got reversed, but that's only because the ban on same-sex marriage might be unconstitutional."

The reason why there are legitimate issues over equal protection and due process is that this supposed definition of marriage does not exist, and the limitation on marriage to heterosexuals does not exist for a legitimate purpose.

Nevertheless, there are a majority of other states that have "defined" marriage, which again proves another of your assertions wrong...as in there is no legal definition of marriage being opposite sex required.
see the following:

There is nothing about the legal parameters of marriage that requires opposite-sex partners.

.....<insert states that have something about those exact legal parameters here>......

None of those states require married couples to have reproductive sex that produces children.
.....
Tell me one specific right or duty of a marriage any of those states that requires opposite-sex partners in order for that right or duty to be carried out.

These are an example of you moving the goal posts.
1st you say no legal parameters requiring opposite sex partners
then when you were provided with several states' legal parameters that require just that...you say, well no legal parameter requires marriage to have children

Again, you think the goalposts are being moved because you don't know what they are. A logical fallacy does not provide a rational basis for discrimination. The logical fallacy on which you are relying is a circular definition. The issue is not whether all these states define marriage as between a male and a female, but why. It cannot be because of procreation, because in none of those states is procreation relevant to the validity of a marriage. There is nothing about the substance of what marriage is, in any jurisdiction in the U.S., that is contingent on biological sex differences.

"Darth J" = That is not the issue. The issue is whether there is a rational basis for discriminating against same-sex couples...
.....No, because I have never argued a basis for same-sex marriage being recognized that requires homosexuality to be treated as a suspect classification.

Obviously you are conceding the point that there is no rational basis.

You are completely, hopelessly oblivious to what you keep wanting to argue. You seriously think that it is a contradiction in terms to say that homosexuals are not a suspect class, so same-sex marriage should be decided under a rational basis test. I have said it before, and so has Buffalo, but you are a case study in the Dunning-Kruger Effect. You don't know enough to know how much you don't know what you're talking about.

You have not shown a contradiction. Saying that a group is discriminated against does not equate to an assertion that the group deserves to be a suspect classification. If I were claiming that homosexuals were a suspect classification, I would not have said "rational basis." Rational basis is not the standard of review for suspect classifications. The only reason you think this is a misstep is because you don't know what you are talking about.

this entire section is ripe with inadequacy
how is it you propose a constitutional challenge without the rational basis test?
it also applies to both legislative and/or executive action whether those actions be substantive or procedural....so exactly how are you conveniently able to avoid the rational basis test?
Perhaps you should research "rational basis test with bite".

This means so much less than nothing that it does not even rise to the level of stupid babble. This is just like reading a statement along the lines of, "Well, how do you propose to make a birthday cake if the drivetrain in your car isn't hibernating?"

The couples should be granted a chance in District Court to prove that their rights were violated, she concluded.

this does not contradict any "definition" of marriage as you try to imply

No, I am not implying that any definition of marriage is being contradicted. I am saying that this alleged definition of marriage does not exist. "Marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman" is a tautology. It is neither a functional definition nor a rational basis.

"Even if the right to marry is not considered a fundamental right, appellants should have been granted an opportunity to show that MN DOMA is not a reasonable means to its stated objective -- to promote opposite-sex marriages to encourage procreation," Worke wrote.

again does not contradict the definition

Since procreation is irrelevant in Minnesota and everywhere else in the United States to the validity of a marriage, and marriage is nothing more than a domestic partnership, why do the parties need to be of the opposite sex?

You are entitled to all the mythology you want about God initiating marriage in the Garden of Eden. But your religious dogma about marriage as a religious sacrament is not the law anywhere in the United States in 2012.

i have not asserted that there was a religious basis for the definition of marriage. If anything i have consistently promoted that LGBT marriage is a detriment to the virtues of our current culture and should be discouraged due to the obvious abnormalities inherent with the LGBT condition as well as its degenerative qualities. I have also consistently argued about LGBT being likely a genetic disorder or a psychological disorder and thus not to be encouraged.
Promoting any "Biblical" agenda on this topic i have yet to do......your presupposition is showing again.

Let's see: Mormon internet zealot, attempting to argue constitutional law while consistently demonstrating that he does not understand it, continually proven wrong about what the law is, cannot provide a functional definition of marriage that does not depend on circular reasoning......

Yes, I'm sure it is only the wildest of unwarranted speculations to suggest that your position is informed by the dogma of the LDS Church concerning marriage.

I have a great idea. Let's just say that, since they don't have kids and aren't going to, Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson do not have a marriage with the women with whom they currently cohabitate. We'll just call it a domestic partnership. You won't mind that, right?

[_subgenius]

<insert posturing babble here>

ok, like you, i will toss brevity out the window.

clearly, when one reads the history of our little discourse here, you have abandoned your initial argument of "show me where marriage has to be opposite sex" and moved to show me where marriage has to have children (a charge i have responded to then and now - remember your "ultimatum"?).

Having been thoroughly defeated on the former, you move the goal post to the latter.
And just to be sure...you, once again, state what the issue really is:

The issue is not whether all these states define marriage as between a male and a female, but why

Then

There is nothing about the substance of what marriage is, in any jurisdiction in the U.S., that is contingent on biological sex differences.

Then when Baker is used which actually provides the "substance" you dismiss it because of a due process objection in the appeal, not because the substance was found to be invalid, but rather because the court found that the right existed to challenge it.

All you keep doing is arguing this "new" argument as if you have brought revelation with you in your hip pocket...your cut-n-paste legal opinion(yes, opinion) is simply meant to win by means of ad nausea....as in argumentum ad nauseam - this is all you have actually proven.
just like when you used argumentum ad populum in previous posts by calling on a vote by all the posters here as to what things really are.


But please...let me make it easier for you....just feel in the blank with whatever is convenient
"That is not the issue now...the real issue is______________."

and just to season it, you now resort to insult and condescending text...interesting tactic but all to revealing.
All you have provided is that YOU know what i really mean because what i type is not what i mean, and that YOU suggest exactly what i must be suggesting, because again YOU know what i mean...you read so much between the lines that you seemingly forget to the read the lines at all.
....like i said i smell fascism.

As for a "circular reasoned definition" of marriage...how retarded. I have never defined marriage as being required to procreate...i have illustrated the the Supreme Court "linking" of the two....it is quite legal to do one without the other, obviously.
and i once again reiterate my earlier statement about life being lived by legislation alone...lines you obviously read between but never bothered read.

Bottom line
though you have been fun to poke a stick at the "real" issue is as follows, as i consider it:

You do not believe that there is a legitimate interest for any state in prohibiting two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage relationship.

I consider that each state is able to provide a legitimate interest...one of which is the encouragement of its citizens to procreate and uphold the idea put forth in Skinner that marriage and procreation are fundamental to our existence/survival. Additionally since certain benefits are afforded by the state to those whom adhere to what they consider virtuous the population of that state has an inherent right to determine those virtues. If marriage is to be considered as rooted in the common good and in common sense then it must be considered on such grounds.
Earlier in this thread we saw that the data available illustrates that married biological parents are the best for a child's well-being; this is just one example in support of its "common" nature.
Marriage can not be defined as being between two small businesses just because the owners of those business "think" of their businesses that way.
You are trying to constitute reality by declaration (again, what is that smell?)
The law has a rather limited application in our lives....for example a contract does not determine what is going to be contracted ahead of time...it only describes the relationship...it sets forth obligations and consequences...that is all.
If you want to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, then it is your burden to demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified....and you have not done that.
Common sense prevails and notes that for centuries marriage law has recognized that marriage involves sexual activity that, not always, leads to pregnancy. This has always been a distinct characteristic of marriage.
The question about marriage is a structural one that precedes lawmaking. The argument about the structural identity of marriage is not a legal argument as you hope it would be, but rather it is about how people should be treated within the bonds of that structure.
it is about whether LGBT relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage. Clearly they do not fit this structure.
But what if that structure is changed to accommodate the LGBT? Then clearly the structure becomes simply that marriage is any intimate (perhaps even sexual) bond between 2 people. The Father may marry daughter because there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject that marriage and thus must be allowed. This is but one example to highlight the inadequacy of the argument you are attempting to frame as successful for yourself and others with your like mind.

[_schreech]

clearly, when one reads the history of our little discourse here, you have abandoned your initial argument of "show me where marriage has to be opposite sex" and moved to show me where marriage has to have children (a charge i have responded to then and now - remember your "ultimatum"?).

Having been thoroughly defeated on the former, you move the goal post to the latter.
And just to be sure...you, once again, state what the issue really is:

Before I even attempt to wade through the rest of your nonsensical (you are really living down to that username) wall of text, I will just post Darths first 2 sentences in your " little discourse here":

"All right, then let's apply that argument to our country.

Please tell me which jurisdiction in the United States requires having children, or having the ability to have children, as a condition to a marriage being legally valid."

Can you please direct me to his initial argument of "show me where marriage has to be opposite sex"?

[_Darth J]

<insert posturing babble here>

ok, like you, i will toss brevity out the window.

clearly, when one reads the history of our little discourse here, you have abandoned your initial argument of "show me where marriage has to be opposite sex" and moved to show me where marriage has to have children (a charge i have responded to then and now - remember your "ultimatum"?).

I have never changed my initial argument about the absence of any rights or duties in marriage that are contingent on biological sex differences. The lack of any requirement, anywhere, of having children for a marriage to be valid demonstrates that point.

Nor have you demonstrated that marriage is about having children. Not with your mistaken references to Skinner v. Oklahoma, which you assert both is and is not precedent as to substantively defining marriage. Not with your mistaken references to Baker, which the Minnesota Court of Appeals has held to mean something other than what you assert it means. Not with what you characterize as my "ultimatum," which I do remember and which you refused to answer.

Having been thoroughly defeated on the former, you move the goal post to the latter.

Not even the state in which it was decided thinks that Baker means what you say it means. But what a crushing defeat for me.

And just to be sure...you, once again, state what the issue really is:
"Darth J" = The issue is not whether all these states define marriage as between a male and a female, but why

Then
"Darth J" = There is nothing about the substance of what marriage is, in any jurisdiction in the U.S., that is contingent on biological sex differences.
Then when Baker is used which actually provides the "substance" you dismiss it because of a due process objection in the appeal, not because the substance was found to be invalid, but rather because the court found that the right existed to challenge it.

The right to challenge the Minnesota DOMA on equal protection grounds exists because the substance you assert to be in Baker is not actually there. It isn't in Minnesota statutory law, either. If, as a matter of law, there was a valid, facially substantive reason to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying, the trial court's dismissal would have been upheld on appeal.

All you keep doing is arguing this "new" argument as if you have brought revelation with you in your hip pocket...your cut-n-paste legal opinion(yes, opinion) is simply meant to win by means of ad nausea....as in argumentum ad nauseam - this is all you have actually proven.
just like when you used argumentum ad populum in previous posts by calling on a vote by all the posters here as to what things really are.

I wonder where I am cutting and pasting this from. As to this being a "new" argument, here's something I said in November 2010: "Oh, you mean like campaigning for gay people not to have equal protection of the law when neither having children nor having the ability to have children is part of the legal definition of marriage anywhere in the United States?" viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15392&p=377552 But yeah, I'm probably just now making it up as an ad hoc response to your devastating misuse of a single line in a U.S. Supreme Court case.

But please...let me make it easier for you....just feel in the blank with whatever is convenient
"That is not the issue now...the real issue is______________."

and just to season it, you now resort to insult and condescending text...interesting tactic but all to revealing.
All you have provided is that YOU know what i really mean because what i type is not what i mean, and that YOU suggest exactly what i must be suggesting, because again YOU know what i mean...you read so much between the lines that you seemingly forget to the read the lines at all.
....like i said i smell fascism.

"You keep saying that apples are a kind of fruit, but you also say apples grow on trees and have seeds in them! That means you're saying that apples are mammals! You're changing your argument!"

As for a "circular reasoned definition" of marriage...how retarded. I have never defined marriage as being required to procreate...i have illustrated the the Supreme Court "linking" of the two....it is quite legal to do one without the other, obviously.
and i once again reiterate my earlier statement about life being lived by legislation alone...lines you obviously read between but never bothered read.

In summary, there is nothing about the legal substance of marriage that requires a biological difference of the sexes.

Bottom line
though you have been fun to poke a stick at the "real" issue is as follows, as i consider it:

You do not believe that there is a legitimate interest for any state in prohibiting two persons of the same sex from entering into a marriage relationship.

I consider that each state is able to provide a legitimate interest...one of which is the encouragement of its citizens to procreate and uphold the idea put forth in Skinner that marriage and procreation are fundamental to our existence/survival.

But you're acknowledging that Skinner v. Oklahoma did not substantively define marriage. Remember?

Marriage was not the issue in Skinner. Procreation was. The Oklahoma statute did not say convicted criminals could not get married. It said they would be castrated so they could not reproduce. And Eisenstadt held that equal protection requires unmarried people to have the same right of privacy in reproductive choices as married people. There is no basis in Supreme Court precedent for the claim that "Skinner; therefore marriage is about reproduction."

Additionally since certain benefits are afforded by the state to those whom adhere to what they consider virtuous the population of that state has an inherent right to determine those virtues. If marriage is to be considered as rooted in the common good and in common sense then it must be considered on such grounds.

There's no state in this country that makes reproduction a condition precedent to marriage, so that platitude is irrelevant to equal protection.

Earlier in this thread we saw that the data available illustrates that married biological parents are the best for a child's well-being; this is just one example in support of its "common" nature.

Since you concede that having children is not legally required for marriage, that's irrelevant. Even assuming for the sake of argument that that's true, which couples make better parents has nothing to do with why the childless, geriatric cohabitation practiced by Dallin H. Oaks and Russell M. Nelson should be called a "marriage."

A married person is also by default an heir of the other spouse's estate. Since this is possible in a marriage (even though survivorship rights can be conferred by a will irrespective of marriage), that must mean that the purpose of marriage is to die.

Marriage can not be defined as being between two small businesses just because the owners of those business "think" of their businesses that way.

Marriage cannot be defined between two triangles just because some geometry students think of it that way, either. What that or what you just said has to do with anything, God only knows.

You are trying to constitute reality by declaration (again, what is that smell?)

Declarations like, "Marriage is between a man and a woman because marriage is between a man and a woman."

The law has a rather limited application in our lives....for example a contract does not determine what is going to be contracted ahead of time...it only describes the relationship...it sets forth obligations and consequences...that is all.

Of course a contract determines what is going to be contracted ahead of time. Options and futures are both enforceable types of contracts for future events. Performance can also be conditioned on the happening of a future event (a condition precedent). Installment contracts are based on contracting for performance (payment) ahead of time. Insurance is contracting about indemnification for possible future events. Covenants not to compete And so on. It's routine for contracts, and covenants within contracts, to anticipate future events.

And if none of those obligations or consequences are contingent on the contracting parties being of the opposite sex, then there is no rational basis to limit the ability to contract to opposite-sex parties.

If you want to argue that two people who have not in the past been recognized as marriage partners should now be recognized as marriage partners, then it is your burden to demonstrate that marriage law (not civil rights law) has overlooked or misidentified something that it should not have overlooked or misidentified....and you have not done that.

Yes, I have: by the absence of any marriage law that requires having children, or any other feature of marriage that is contingent on biological sex differences.

Common sense prevails and notes that for centuries marriage law has recognized that marriage involves sexual activity that, not always, leads to pregnancy. This has always been a distinct characteristic of marriage.

No, that has always been a distinct characteristic of heterosexual intercourse.

The question about marriage is a structural one that precedes lawmaking. The argument about the structural identity of marriage is not a legal argument as you hope it would be, but rather it is about how people should be treated within the bonds of that structure.

Since you want the parameters of marriage to be delineated by your cherished beliefs instead of law, perhaps marriage should not be legally recognized at all, but regarded as simply a religious ritual.

it is about whether LGBT relationships should be identified as having the structure of marriage, and only after that can civil rights considerations emerge about how citizens should be treated fairly with respect to marriage. Clearly they do not fit this structure.

But you are arguing that defining what marriage is does not constitute a legal question. That means that marriage is not a legal relationship, which makes all of this a moot point. If defining marriage and applying equal protection to that definition are not justiciable questions, then marriage is no more of a legally enforceable ritual than a baptism.

But what if that structure is changed to accommodate the LGBT? Then clearly the structure becomes simply that marriage is any intimate (perhaps even sexual) bond between 2 people.

That's already pretty much what it is.

The Father may marry daughter because there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject that marriage and thus must be allowed. This is but one example to highlight the inadequacy of the argument you are attempting to frame as successful for yourself and others with your like mind.

No. In that case, there is the possibility of producing inbred children, which is a rational basis for prohibiting close relatives from marrying each other. However, incest is a crime even if the close relatives are not purporting to be married, so there is nothing unique to marriage about that concern. And as repeatedly pointed out, I know of at least one state (Utah) where what would otherwise be incest can become a valid marriage if there is a finding that at least one of the parties cannot reproduce. If some types of marriage cannot be valid unless the parties are incapable of reproducing, then marriage as is obviously not about reproduction. The fact that reproduction can happen within a marriage is not determinative of what the purpose of marriage is.

[_subgenius]

<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.

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


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

[_Drifting]

*rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic*

Gay marriage as a Civil Ceremony is coming worldwide.
It's inevitable.

[_subgenius]

*rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic*

Gay marriage as a Civil Ceremony is coming worldwide.
It's inevitable.

nice argument. got any citations?

[_subgenius]

"All right, then let's apply that argument to our country.

Please tell me which jurisdiction in the United States requires having children, or having the ability to have children, as a condition to a marriage being legally valid."

i have never claimed that it was a legal requirement of being married or being licensed for marriage.
I have claimed that it is the

Can you please direct me to his initial argument of "show me where marriage has to be opposite sex"?

i believe it began here:(Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 1:15 pm)

There is nothing about the legal parameters of marriage that requires opposite-sex partners.

and then he revises, retracts, and revises his erroneous position of trying to apply "equal protection" to the cause of same-sex marriage. an ill-fated course of argument for him, in my opinion.


p.s.
do you still need a ride home?

[_Drifting]

Gay marriage as a Civil Ceremony is coming worldwide.
It's inevitable.

nice argument. got any citations?

I've been cited several times...does that count?

[_subgenius]

nice argument. got any citations?

I've been cited several times...does that count?

You know it does!!