subgenius wrote:Darth J wrote:It's not a requirement for a marriage license at all. If it were, it would mean you have to have sex before you can get married.
not really, it could mean that a marriage contract could be annulled if sex did not occur....oh wait...in many states that is what it means.
So, yes while the "license" could be granted the marriage could not be valid without sexual activity. Though not used any more we saw this play out when a blood test was REQUIRED for a marriage license...being due to the expectation that marriage was linked to sexual activity and the blood test was to prevent the spread of diseases and defects (arguably Molok's parents found a loophole in that requirement).
I see. It is everyone else in the world's fault that you cannot articulate a coherent thought. Meanwhile, please explain why a marriage is not void if the act of consummation fails to produce a baby.
So, again...what possible rational or reasonable legal position can be presented that would justify linking sexual activity, of any kind, to a marriage contract?? And what would be the State's interests in such a link? Why would the state care one way or another?...oh yea...Skinner v Oklahoma..
" We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race" (emphasis mine)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/g ... &invol=535Yes, a case about forced sterilization, but a powerful point being made by Supreme Court in order to support the decision.
See: not even wrong.See also: search.php?keywords=skinner&terms=all&author=darth+j&sc=1&sf=all&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&st=0&ch=300&t=0&submit=SearchAnother great reference from another case about reproductive rights:
"...the law does all that is needed when it does all that it can, indicates a policy, applies it to all within the lines, and seeks to bring within the lines all similarly situated so far and so fast as its means allow" - Buck v. Bell
"similarly situated"?...interesting
Buck v. Bell held that the government can forcibly sterilize people because of then in-vogue ideas about eugenics. That isn't about "reproductive rights." It is about the government's interest in PREVENTING someone from having a baby trumping his or her right to procreate. By referring to both this and
Skinner (for reasons not even God understands), you are simultaneously asserting that reproduction both is and is not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution.
By the way, neither of the persons whose forced sterilization was at issue in these cases was married. You don't appear to be aware of that.
not at all was my intention to use any case law in support of what was obviously not associated with a "legal" position per se. What was obvious was my opinion that force was the incorrect word and that encourage was more appropriate.
You ability to discern "intention" leaves a lot to be desired.
Again, stick to what is stated...clearly my intention was for those references to be used with what followed, not with what preceded....considering that my grammar is often the subject of criticism it is interesting how you can "infer" so much from what i have written as opposed to just addressing what has actually been written.
It must be tough going through life with every other person who speaks English coming away with an obvious meaning of what you said, but which you never intended. Now that you are conceding that the government in the United States cannot force married people to have children, you need to explain why there is any reason to recognize marriages between childless people if the purpose of marriage is procreation.
subgenius wrote:Darth J wrote:Yes, they are off point in substance, and THEY ARE NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES.
wow, like i was ever unfamiliar with Griswold v. Connecticut or Eisenstadt v. Baird (especially since i have posted them before).
I can't even guess why you thought that was responsive to what I said. And both of these cases held that both married and unmarried persons have a right to use birth control. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, and the Supreme Court supposedly determined that in
Skinner v. Oklahoma (which it didn't), then how can a married couple possibly have a constitutional right to prevent pregnancy?
a moment of criticism - i think you are distracted to often by your pep squad.
Sorry, I have to rely on other people who actually exist. Not all of us have been blessed with copious voices in our heads, subgenius.
What possible legal rationale can be provided which would support linking sexual activity to marriage if the state never had an expectation of children.
Sure, you want to argue the exception instead of the rule...but clearly we have seen legal opinion from Supreme Court that (as usual) proves you as being ill-informed as seen in Skinner v. Oklahoma where we read that the ability to reproduce is vital to our survival...and this was based on the "compelling state interest test".
You have this completely backward. The asserted compelling state interest in
Skinner was PREVENTING criminals from reproducing. Under current First and Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence, you have the right to reproduce if you choose (Skinner) and also to prevent reproduction if you choose (
Griswold,
Planned Parenthood v. Casey). The government does not get to intervene in these private life decisions. You are garbling this beyond recognition.
And there is no "exception to the rule." The rule is the same for everyone: a marriage between a sterile man and woman is just as legally valid as a man and woman who have 10 kids. Period. And going with your argument about consummation is wrong, because you don't understand the difference between "void" and "voidable." What you're asserting is that in a marriage between a woman who has her tubes tied and a man who has had a vasectomy, they have to have sex to validate their marriage, even though there is no possibility for them to get pregnant, because of the supposed "compelling interest" the State has in recognizing that marriage is about reproduction. (A compelling state interest would mean that the State CAN force married people to have children, but you have already conceded that it can't.)
Oddly enough this strict scrutiny test will be tough, and necessary, for the LGBT, in as much as they are hardly a suspect class...as being LGBT has not been proven to be immutable....or as Supreme Court has defined it, being LGBT would need to be "obvious, immutable, or distinguishing characteristics" and be "a minority of "politically powerless..." - at best the appeals court has held LGBT as "quasi-suspect" - an obvious political decision and likely to be overturned or abandoned as being a legitimate classification....that type of post-mortem loophole creating is an example of the corruption with which the LGBT is willing to create for their self-involved crusade.
That must be why
Romer v. Evans was decided under strict scrutiny. Right, subgenius?
Fortunately, "religion" already qualifies as a legitimate "suspect class".
But why should it, since religion is not biologically immutable?
So, yes, there is no specific legal requirement for a married couple to have children, merely because it is obviously absurd and burdensome to enforce.
Why would that be anymore absurd or burdensome to enforce then your mistaken assertion that non-consummation makes a marriage void in the U.S.? (It actually makes it voidable, not void.)
However, there is no denial that there is legislation from the government on the matter of having a right to procreate and that procreation is in the state's interest.
Funny how single parents who have never been married get the same tax benefits for having a child as a married person does.
After all, there is no legal requirement for LGBT to be qualified for marriage solely based on their sexual preference.
WTF?
If sexual preference and sexual activity is not applicable to a marriage contract then polygamy and incest are allowable...and the only requirements..ehem...qualifications would be that the contract be entered into by consenting adults....you know...a civil union.
Subgenius, maybe you should have the birds and the bees talk with a trusted adult. You know, someone who can explain to you that sex is not the same as reproduction.
There is no inevitable link between these cases. There were reasonable bases other than "keep the Sabbath day holy" in
McGowan. There are no such reasonable bases in same-sex marriage. You have yet to articulate a reason to deny same-sex marriage other than the ancient Hebrews claiming that their tribal god decided that homosexual conduct was a sin, along with eating shellfish and wearing cotton and linen together.
Roth, whose test is no longer good law, has nothing to do with family law.