For our constitutional scholars, Droopy and subgenius

[_Darth J]

See, talking about the specific problems with subgenius' reasoning is sort of like talking about which molecule of water causes the damage in a tsunami. But in his U.K. CASE LAW THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE UNITED STATES, subgenius is undermining what he thinks his point is. These cases demonstrate that sex is not in fact a necessary element of marriage (subgenius is conflating sexual intercourse with procreation). These cases show that in the U.K., WHICH IS NOT THE UNITED STATES, willful refusal to consummate a marriage makes the marriage void. However, failure to consummate when the failure is not willful does not make the marriage void. That means that in the U.K., a couple can be legally married even though they are not capable of having sexual intercourse because of conditions that are not the fault of one or both parties. If marriage IN THE U.K., WHICH IS NOT THE UNITED STATES were for the purpose of procreation, then it would make no sense to recognize any marriage in which one or both parties cannot have sexual intercourse.

Subgenius' misplaced obsession with consummation would also mean that:

1. a couple could have sexual intercourse but never have a baby, yet still have a legally valid marriage; and
2. a couple could use artificial insemination to have a baby, but never actually have sexual intercourse, and their marriage would be void because they never consummated it;

both of which further refute subgenius' notion that marriage as a legal relationship is about procreation.

[_Molok]

Despite Subgenius' assertion that these cases show that the government does "encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege," these cases do nothing of the sort. Subby is out to luch, as usual.

Yes, they are off point in substance, and THEY ARE NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES.

I didn't even notice that they were foreign cases. Wtf Subgenius?

[_lulu]

I do not think "force" is an appropriate term...but the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege.


Please, note :
D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039
Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J

Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
H and W married, and found W was physically unable to consummate the marriage. W underwent surgery and they tried again, but were prevented by W's emotional state. H then declined to try further and W petitioned for annulment on the grounds of H's wilful refusal. The judge dismissed the petition and W's appeal also failed: H's refusal was the result of his loss of sexual ardour rather than a deliberate decision.


A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J
H and W were of Indian ancestry and took part in an arranged civil marriage, which was to be followed by a religious ceremony some four months later. Between the two ceremonies they spent only a few days together because of H's work in the USA. Shortly before the religious ceremony (which it was accepted was a prerequisite to consummation), W refused to go ahead with it, giving as her reason H's apparently uncaring and unloving attitude towards her. H apologised and said he had supposed a formal relationship would be appropriate until they were "properly married", but W refused to accept this apology and maintained her refusal to go through with the religious ceremony. H was granted a decree of nullity for W's wilful refusal to consummate the marriage.

Despite Subgenius' assertion that these cases show that the government does "encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege," these cases do nothing of the sort. Subby is out to luch, as usual

They're all about sex, not procreation.

If they were about procreation wouldn't one party have to first proof that he/she was able to reproduce. Reproduction is secondary or non-existant. The primary issue in the absence of such proof is could/would the partner alledgedly at fault provide PIV sexual pleasure to the other.

NYS, any divorce case.

One or both parties sterile. One party refuses sex to the other over the period of one year. Grounds for a divorce. Because one party is declining to reproduce?

cf civil damages for loss of consortium. Reproduction has nothing to do with it. Just the banging.

[_subgenius]

Despite Subgenius' assertion that these cases show that the government does "encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege," these cases do nothing of the sort. Subby is out to luch, as usual

Here we have a great example of what many posters, such as yourself, suffer from...the inability to actually read.

I never asserted anything about those cases...i simply noted them.

But, as usual, you post as if you "really know" what is being written...or what someone "really means" when they state something.
It may seem weird to you, but you should actually try to read and respond...your presuppositions, assumptions, and rushing-to-conclusion keeps making you look inept...as in not even "out to lunch" because you don't even have a job.

[_Molok]

Here we have a great example of what many posters, such as yourself, suffer from...the inability to actually read.

I never asserted anything about those cases...i simply noted them.

But, as usual, you post as if you "really know" what is being written...or what someone "really means" when they state something.
It may seem weird to you, but you should actually try to read and respond...your presuppositions, assumptions, and rushing-to-conclusion keeps making you look inept...as in not even "out to lunch" because you don't even have a job.

You're right, I did misread you. When you said

I do not think "force" is an appropriate term...but the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege.


Please, note :
D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039
Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J

I assumed you were actually trying to make a point relevant to the OP, I see now that you were simply going on another of your many rabbit trails. My bad.

[_Darth J]

I never asserted anything about those cases...

Yes, you did.

"the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege"

followed by "note" and your foreign case law.

This means that you intended those cases to support your assertion.

[_subgenius]

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).

a moment of criticism - i think you are distracted to often by your pep squad.

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".
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.

Fortunately, "religion" already qualifies as a legitimate "suspect class".

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.
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.
After all, there is no legal requirement for LGBT to be qualified for marriage solely based on their sexual preference. 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.


Personally, i have been shocked that you have not realized the inevitable link to McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961).
(maybe sprinkled with a little Roth v. United States)

[_Darth J]

Keeping in mind that the OP is about government in the UNITED STATES.....

but the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege.


Please, note :
D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039
Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J

Here, let me try doing that:

"Modern American science fiction movies often are based on familiar space opera tropes.

Please note:
8 1/2, Federico Fellini
Life is Beautiful, Roberto Benigni
La Dolce Vita, Federico Fellini"

[_subgenius]

I never asserted anything about those cases...

Yes, you did.

"the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege"

followed by "note" and your foreign case law.

This means that you intended those cases to support your assertion.

No, i did not. (to be picky, it was "Please, note") - 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.

[_subgenius]

Keeping in mind that the OP is about government in the UNITED STATES.....

but the government certainly does encourage, subsidize, and promote procreation through reward, benefit, and privilege.


Please, note :
D v A (1845) 163 ER 1039
Potter v Potter (1975) 5 Fam Law 161, CA
A v J (Nullity) [1989] 1 FLR 110, Anthony Lincoln J

Here, let me try doing that:

"Modern American science fiction movies often are based on familiar space opera tropes.

Please note:
8 1/2, Federico Fellini
Life is Beautiful, Roberto Benigni
La Dolce Vita, Federico Fellini"

please, keep your eye on the ball.