Another day, another judge unilaterally throws out a state's ban on same sex marriage

You cite a case from 1935 that has nothing to do with the procreation being a condition of marriage. You take a judges comments out of context in way that obscures the fact that the issue was the RIGHT to procreate all in a patently dishonest attempt to make your point. You have no integrity whatsoever!

 

Completely destroyed it

 

Congratulations on invoking Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies within the opening post. Last I checked we still had a House of Representatives, a Senate, a President, state legislatures, and state courts. Seems the 'seizure of power' by federal judges is far from 'complete'.

The U.S. is a constitutional republic with democratic representation. It has never been a pure democracy where the "will of the people" trumps all existing law. Our constitution invests the judicial power in the courts, and outlines the extent of those powers. Federal courts are exercising the power the Constitution gives them to interpret the law, and they do so within the greater context of how those laws fit (or fail to fit) the existing body of law and Constitution.

So what I see here is a lot of bluster because you aren't getting your way. I don't always agree with the courts, either. But that doesn't mean I'm going to go on a ridiculous rant with BS about how the courts have completely seized power. Rational discussion is certainly possible, but when a thread opens with such a total mischaracterization of the situation, I have serious doubts about just how possible it's going to be.

 

No one claimed it was a condition of marriage. You kicked the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of that strawman. You can let it go now if you can.

 

We will see whether the court considers anything in the dicta to be precedent-setting. I think they won't. Windsor reinforces that the federal government doesn't have the power to selectively recognize the marriages dignified by the state. It does not settle the question of whether individual state bans are constitutional, as this was not the question brought before the court in that case. The Loving decision informs us that state restrictions on marriage are not sacrosanct.

I would not venture to guess which way the court will rule, but Windsor is not entirely friendly to maintaining the bans if you look at what it says about the federal ban in DOMA beyond the issue of federalism.

 

Didn't even contradict it.

 

Completely destroyed it

 

Then what exactly was your reason for citing that irrelevant case and using the excerpt that you cherry picked from it?

 

The current OK court claimed the procreation argument wasnt logical when it was the US Supreme Court in an Oklahoma case that declared "marriage and procreation" to be a fundamental right. It was again logical in 1979 for the supreme court to again recognize the inherent link between marriage and procreation.

What has been logical for thousands of years of human civilization suddenly "isn't logical" by judicial proclamation.

 

The SCOTUS has affirmed “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause. “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause

Both of these cases are among them but neither case has to do with same sex marriage. In all of these cases the courts seem to be stating that both marriage and having a family are rights.

In Oklahoma, the Judge said, protecting the sanctity of marriage wasn't a valid reason for the ban, given Oklahoma's high divorce rate of opposite-sex couples, and encouraging procreation wasn't logical either since opposite-sex couples aren't required to say they'll produce offspring in order to get a marriage license.

You're playing games as usual. There is no conflict or inconsistency . What is you point now?

 

Only a couple made up of a man and woman "beget" a child.

 

False! Gay folks have children and the courts have been pretty consistent in holding that procreation, or the inability to do it in a way that some people think that it should be done is not a valid reason to exclude gays from marriage. You might want to look at this: http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=339726

 

Full Definition of BEGET
1
: to procreate as the father :

I said gay COUPLES dont beget children. Gay folks frequently beget children with someone of the opposite sex. Most gay couples with children, are children from a previous heterosexual relationship

 

So what? What is the point with regard to same sex marriage? Why does it matter what an antiquated word means when we're talking about civil rights? As soon as you run out of inane logical fallacies you throw another curve ball to change the subject and confuse the issue. Why don't you take a minute to summarize exactly what you believe and why. It seems to be rather fuzzy and in flux.

 

The quote was from the Supreme Court, not I. The same court you selectively quoted.

 

What quote? What are you talking about? I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you actually believe and why, and to address the issue raised in the OP regarding the decision of the judge without all of the extraneous and diversionary bull . Can't do it can you?

 

You seem to be woefully ignorant of the constitution

The recent federal appeals court decision, finding the Defense of Marriage Act in conflict with the equal protection of the laws, guaranteed to all persons in the United States by the Fourteenth Amendment, broke new ground when the two-judge majority determined that a legal standard called “heightened scrutiny” should be applied to its review. Windsor v. United States of America is the first case where any federal court has taken this step.

http://www.examiner.com/article/how-heightened-should-judicial-scrutiny-be-for-gay-marriage-cases

And , the will of the people is not applicable in matters of civil rights. Our system of government is based on the rule of law....look it up

 

..............

 

Supreme court decision that did not apply heightened scrutiny or the 14th Amendment in Windsor eliminates any precedential value the federal appeals decision had.

 

Keep trying, your procreation argument has been destroyed a thousand times already.

The OK decision further refutes it stating that marriage encompasses far more than procreation.

But keep trying that broken argument. Beat that dead horse some more.

 

No you people have merely claimed it has been destroyed 1000 times.

 

Marriage and procreation are two separate rights existing independently from each other. Procreation is irrelevant to who can marry

- - - Updated - - -

Only Martians live on mars.

Just as relevant as your post.

 

Nope. It's been destroyed. And the courts keep telling you it's irrelevant.

 

Not according to the Supreme Court of the United States. Youll always have the silly thoughts that bounce around in that head of yours to tell you otherwise.

 

Actually yes according to them. You even quoted them stating so, lol

No I have reality and the very case you cited, lol

Don't you get tired of looking ridiculous?