Federal Judge To Wisconsin: You Know 'Traditional' Marriage Was Polygamy, Right?

How again do you imagine that prohibiting homosexual marriage increases the fertility rate?

 

That state has to show adequate justification for the law. If we end up in a Russia like situation you might not like the result.

- - - Updated - - -

Does not matter. All that matters is if the state is justified in trying to increase the fertility rate. Most social engineering programs dont work.

 

No- no more than the State could justify banning your handgun ownership in order to increase fertility.

No- no more than the State could justify banning your handgun ownership in order to increase fertility.

 

Aaaand there's where the argument takes a dive. Again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Thus, using that reason as a justification for denying same-sex marriage is fallacious and invalid.

 

Yes yes you can continue to pretend that adoption doesnt exist or artificial insemination or surrogacy.

You can try all you like. It doesnt change the reality that gays are forming families and raising kids. They are situated exactly the same way as heterosexuals.

And that's why marriage equality will be the reality in every state before the end of the decade.

- - - Updated - - -

You can't stand that you've already lost this argument can you?

 

Never heard of the rational basis test? Its what the supreme court uses to decide the majority of its cases involving minorities.

Oh and look at that...so far the majority of cases that have gone before the courts and used the rational basis test....have ended with gay marriage being legalized.

Imagine that.

- - - Updated - - -

Keep trying to label marriage equality as "special treatment" all you like.

No one is buying it and the courts certainly don't see it that way either.

That's why you've lost.

- - - Updated - - -

Banning gay marriage doesn't increase the fertility rate.

Why? Because regardless of gays being banned from marrying...they are still in fact gay.

 

That is not a valid argument. The overwhelming majority of married couples do procreate. Exceptions to the rule to not invalidate laws.

- - - Updated - - -

So??? You aren't the first poster here who has tried to argue this. It does not matter. Effectiveness is immaterial. Most social engineering programs dont work dont work but they are still legal because the reason was justified.

 

But exceptions to the rule can show that the laws violate the equal protection clause.

 

So now we're saying that since half the kids born in the US are born within a marriage, therefore marriages that cannot produce children should be prohibited (except for all the exceptions, of course, of which there are many)? When half the kids are born outside of a marriage, and a large percentage of marriages are childless, the tie between marriage and procreation fails in practice as well as being irrelevant in principle and in law. This is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

And you argue this immediately after arguing that procreation is EFFECTIVELY a function of marriage. Besides the fact that it's false, that statement directly contradicts your new argument, that effectiveness doesn't matter. Except when it does, I guess.

Marriage is not a social engineering program.

And once again, we have the implication that we don't want some people to be allowed to marry because we want more marriages! I guess consistency is irrelevant to the True Bigot.

 

Passing laws that encourage childbirth by discouraging homosexuality which is what Russia is doing right now is social engineering.

 

Sure sucks to be Russia right now doesn't it.

But Russia doesn't have our Consitution, or our rule of law.

What happens in Russia is immaterial to marriage laws in the U.S.

 

What Russia is doing is legal under our rule of law. The state only needs show proper justification. Which is what you said in this thread early on and are now back tracking from.

I'm telling you to be careful what you wish for. A fertility crisis is coming and you dont want such a low bar on limiting freedoms.

 

Homosexuality cannot be "discouraged" by passing laws, anymore than the sun will rise in the afternoon by passing laws. This is nonsense. Do you think homosexuals denied marriage will run out and breed outside of marriage, and that "encourages childbirth"? Wierd, man.

I have no idea what the Russians are doing or what they think they're doing. The fact remains that marriage is not social engineering. The laws are not intended to "discourage homosexuality", they are intended to discriminate against a minority. If reducing discrimination and granting equality under the law is social engineering, so be it.

 

I frankly haven't been able to figure out what you are saying.

What 'low bar' to limiting freedoms'?

The courts have very specifically set a very high bar.

Just like the courts have set a high bar on restricting your rights to own guns.

 

No they haven't. My gun ownership is highly regulated for the common good. If the government can regulate the capacity of my magazine for the common good why can they not regulate who you can marry for the common good?

 

You sure about that? I'd argue that in 1950s America far more closeted homosexuals conformed and had wives and kids.

 

Not for the common good- for an express and purpose.

The Courts have made it clear that States cannot restrict the right to marriage for arbitrary claims of 'for the common good' - that is why the courts have said that mixed race couples have a right to marriage, and that even prisoners have a right to marriage.

The Supreme Court has struck down gun laws that were deemed excessive- because the state has failed to meet the high bar.

- - - Updated - - -

So far you would argue that the Sun is blue in order to argue.

 

So? When I was a child, I was forced to learn to write with my right hand. But this did not make me right handed.

Social pressure to pretend to be something you are not probably isn't healthy.

 

And ALL 14 Judges who have found that the equal protection clause makes laws banning same sex marriage unconstitutional are all libuuural activist ones?? Or maybe, just maybe, your judgement of the situation is incorrect? Nah, can't be that, everyone knows we gots to keep the queers down at all costs.

 

But see- you choose to live a right handed life style after being punished enough to make that voluntary choice.....

 

Except for the fact that this argument against gay marriage has already failed in court.

So again...keep trying.

 

The People do not have the authority to ban it. No matter how popular it may be. Sorry..

 

Is that what it is? The only homosexual I know well would say he was not a homosexual from birth to 52 when he got married and had 3 kids, and became homosexual after he got a divorce and had a drunken encounter with a smooth skinned boy half his age. And would say that now he is a homosexual in that he prefers men over women. Says he never in his life, single or married has had as much sex as he does now as a homosexual. As a single heterosexual man when he was young or as a heterosexual man after his divorce says he was no where near as successful at finding willing sexual partners, as he is now as a homosexual. He has a fondness for younger sexual partners and says he wouldn't have a chance with women half his age but does so with ease as a homosexual with men half his age. One day down at the beach I saw him starring lustfully at the same 20 or 30 something hot babe in a bikini I was starring at lustfully, I asked him if he was as successful with women like that as he is with young men, would he still be a homosexual, and he admitted he probably would not.

 

I believe that story as much as I believe the one about you being a lawyer.

 

I think now with this most recent flurry since the Windsor case, more Federal judges have created this right to "gay marriage" than state courts have.
And for the life of me I haven't understood where he gets these ideas on the subject. He is the originator of their silly theory they are using to create gay marriage. I often wonder if they would have thought of it on their own without his endorsement. .