Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Anima]

It may further be argued that our apprehension to children contracting into marriage (even after it is determined to be a fundamental right and recognition or security centric as petitioners desire) is due to our inability to separate the concept of marriage from implicit agreement to sexual activity. Which would be to say we do not accept that marriage is not procreation centric implicitly even if we say it is not explicitly.

It may be, but you and I both would laugh that person out of the room...since sexual activity does not equal procreation centric...nor does our law have any trouble distinguishing in this instance (where the slope is claimed to be so slippery).  It is illegal to have sexual relationships with minors regardless of whether or not one procreates with minors.  

-Every argument offered is indirect.....  It's almost as if they wish to say "well, sure, it's unfortunate that were discriminating against your group, but if we didn't -other- things would get ugly...so we're going to continue to do that."

 

"Give blacks the vote you say?  My goodness, whats next, donkeys and cattle in the voting booths!  We don't want that...move to dismiss."

Remember the petitioners are pushing for marriage to have no relation to sexual intimacy. Marriage as they wish to define it is about recognition of relationships and security. So why are we opposed to adult/child relationships being recognized and the child being granted extra security. DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN!!!

Actually there are various pushes to have animal recognized as citizens of the state (they generally argue that the animal is equivalent to an infant). I believe the last one was in New York District Court regarding a chimp. The Judge ruled that citizenship constitutes a combination of civic right and duties. Because the chimp cannot be trusted to perform or adhere to its civic duties (such as obeying the law) it is not to be granted civic rights.

---

I don't believe there is any agreement to sexual activity in marriage. Please correct me if I'm wrong. How would that even work? If people want to say "nudge nudge wink wink course there is" then fine, but I'm talking about legal obligations.

When and how would this obligation be "cashed in"? People can refuse to have sexual activity, even with their partner, whenever they don't want to.

Now, anyway. Good things laws change, huh?

Legally there was and still is. Like I said, married couples may sue for loss of consortium!! You can sue for loss of yum-yum bouncy-bouncy if that loss was caused by someone not in the marriage. Only married couples may sue for loss of consortium.

At common law spouses could not legally refuse sexual activity with their partners. The laws on this have changed such that while general sexual consent is still granted upon marriage particular legal consent is not given such that any particular engagement in sexual activity need a present expression of consent or (you are going to love this) a perceived expression of consent. That is right it is not rape if the person believes you consent even when you did not.