(June 11, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Cato Wrote: . The quantity/quality argument doesn't work. I call my adult children on a regular basis because I love them. Your idea would be the same as trying to evaluate which of my adult children I love more or better based on an aggregate of how many minutes I've spent on the phone with each of them.
Ha ha. I like this analogy
I would say yes. Since it is the nature of people to minimize or not do what they are averse to doing it is likely that people who contact their children will contact the children they like at a great rate than the ones they do not like and will further spend more time per contact with children they like as opposed to children they do not. To say otherwise is to say that we engage in activity we do not love with the same rate and duration of activity we do not love, such that our love or lack there of is indistinguishable from our actions.(June 11, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Cato Wrote: The Respondent must argue this if the procreative centric state interest is to have any merit. The only problem with this argument is that it flies in the face of what I think a majority of people's ideas are regarding the purpose of marriage. I think there are a substantial number of people that get married for reasons other than the promise of child rearing. People that get married with no intention of procreation don't sit down and say "I know that marriage as recognized by the state is procreative centric, but we can pull a fast one on them and get married regardless of our intent or ability to have children". Nor do they get married because the state dignifies marriage, but it's not beyond reason that many get married because of the legal benefits that attend the dignity of the state recognition of marriage. The benefits expressly denied same sex couples. Hell, I'd wager the Respondents don't truly buy the narrative they're spinning; a hazard of the profession in some cases evidenced by the quote you ended your comments with.
Do not forget the state sanctions based on its interest. Not on the parties interest. The state does not care why people want to get married. For love of his money or for love of his person. To get into her pants or to share ones life with her. None of that matters to the state. The state is concerned with its legitimate interest to population and whether the parties meet the conditions outline by the state: 2 persons, of opposite genders, of the state recognize consenting age, who are of sound mind and body to enter into a contract.
Legal benefits are not dignities. Legal benefits are incentives to satisfy state interests whether those interest are dignified or not. Ethics is not morality. If ethical that does not make it moral.
Under rational basis they do not have to truly by the narrative they are spinning. All they have to show is that the discrimination is reasonably (if tenuously) related to a legitimate state interest. Like I said before. The relation does not even have to be something the legislature considered when it made the law. If the court can find any (and I do mean any) reasonable tenuous relationship of the discrimination to the legitimate interest the law passes rational basis scrutiny.
(June 11, 2015 at 2:47 pm)Cato Wrote: Objection; irrelevant
Seriously though, I have attempted to play fair by limiting the discussion to the legal merits of the case. I feel betrayed with your assertion that abortion is a form of infanticide. You can't support this using well established legal definitions. Sir Thomas would be greatly disappointed.
Overruled, speaks to the nature of the act
As infanticide is the intentional killing of a child under the age of 12.
