6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Syriusly]

...Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?

It makes no sense.

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.l.

Yet there are no laws that actually incentivize or reward that.

No law requires parents to marry.
No law requires married couples to have- or attempt to have children.
No law requires married parents to remain married.

Instead, marriage law has no expectation that a married couple will ever have children.

Marriage law allows 80 year old couples to marry, and in at least one state actually requires a couple to prove that they are unable to marry in order to be allowed to marry.

IF states are involved in marriage only because 'blood parents'....why would marriage law allow marriage between a couple that are required not to be able to have children? The state could simply prohibit that marriage.

Instead the state allows the marriage- but demands no children from the marriage.

Which delinks the whole 'marriage is for children' argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

And it looks like Comyically and his sock Spyrochete have crashed and burned on the simple task of stating my argument. Note I didnt ask anyone to support it. Merely to demonstrate they udnerstood it.

 

[Syriusly]

Yep- just a white person was allowed to marry anyone they wanted- as long as they were white. That worked so well for you in court 50 years ago.

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

Seriously? Did you flunk Bio 101?

I understand biology fine- and I can read scientific papers- and once again:

Your quote:
The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

Sorry. Maybe you can get a refund on your education.

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my concern.

 

[The Rabbi]

...Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?

It makes no sense.

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.l.

Yet there are no laws that actually incentivize or reward that.

No law requires parents to marry.
No law requires married couples to have- or attempt to have children.
No law requires married parents to remain married.

Instead, marriage law has no expectation that a married couple will ever have children.

Marriage law allows 80 year old couples to marry, and in at least one state actually requires a couple to prove that they are unable to marry in order to be allowed to marry.

IF states are involved in marriage only because 'blood parents'....why would marriage law allow marriage between a couple that are required not to be able to have children? The state could simply prohibit that marriage.

Instead the state allows the marriage- but demands no children from the marriage.

Which delinks the whole 'marriage is for children' argument.

You continue to demonstrate lack of understanding in myriad ways.

 

[The Rabbi]

The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

Seriously? Did you flunk Bio 101?

I understand biology fine- and I can read scientific papers- and once again:

Your quote:
The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

Sorry. Maybe you can get a refund on your education.

Your lack of reading comprehension is not my concern.

Your lack of biologic knowledge makes for hilarity.
Your lack of ability to understand my argument reveals your innate stupidity.

 

[Syriusly]

And it looks like Comyically and his sock Spyrochete have crashed and burned on the simple task of stating my argument. Note I didnt ask anyone to support it. Merely to demonstrate they udnerstood it.

LOL...you can't even state your own argument.

 

[Silhouette]

I understand biology fine- and I can read scientific papers- and once again:

Your quote:
The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

There is science that shows blood parent of a child are the best environment for that child. As such, the only qualifiers for that arrangement for children (man/woman) are the ones incentivized to wind up in that child's home as parents. Sterile couples who are man/woman do not mar the brass ring, so they are allowed. All other arrangements such as single parenthood, polygamy and gay couples serve to dilute that child's two-parent blood relation benefit/focus of reptilian devotion.

...Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?
It makes no sense.

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.

In a gay "marriage" there will be a lack of one blood parent 100% of the time with any children who find themselves in that unfortunate situation. The states DO NOT want to incentivize any other arrangement where a child is missing one or both of its blood parents 100% of the time. This applies to single parenthood too.

If you make the argument that children caught up in gay lifestyles "need the benefits of marriage", then you're arguing that single parent's kids also need the benefits of marriage. Otherwise, the state has an interest in incentivizing NEITHER because the state knows and believes that a child's best and highest shot at becoming a well-rounded productive and mentally balanced citizen of that state is with both blood parents in the home.

This is the brass ring. Childless hetero couples don't tarnish the shine of that brass, nor the size and shape of the ring since they do not mar the standard male/female incentivized arrangement. States aren't involved in determining if couples CAN have children, only that the arrangement of two adults in that home must be of the type that COULD have blood children under normal circumstances.. That is a state's right to protect its children in marriage. Otherwise states have no earthly reason whatsoever to be involved in incentivizing marriage at all.

The child's best shot at a well rounded formative experience is with the instinctive blood relationship of the two parents in his or her home. It is a deep, reptilian urge to protect that no other arrangement has. It's not merely about "love" of the child. All other arrangements are unfortunate and not worthy of the brass ring. If two people who happen to qualify as "potential blood parents" turn out to be sterile, that circumstance doesn't dismantle the qualifications of "man/woman", so they are allowed.

All other arrangements including single parenthood, polygamy or gay marriage are not incentivized because of the potential they have of depriving the child of two singular devoted blood parents.

The state wants to encourage just that situation and no other..

 

[The Rabbi]

And it looks like Comyically and his sock Spyrochete have crashed and burned on the simple task of stating my argument. Note I didnt ask anyone to support it. Merely to demonstrate they udnerstood it.

LOL...you can't even state your own argument.

I've stated my argument here numerous times.
Your inability to meet my challenge is noted.

 

[Syriusly]

...Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?

It makes no sense.

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.l.

Yet there are no laws that actually incentivize or reward that.

No law requires parents to marry.
No law requires married couples to have- or attempt to have children.
No law requires married parents to remain married.

Instead, marriage law has no expectation that a married couple will ever have children.

Marriage law allows 80 year old couples to marry, and in at least one state actually requires a couple to prove that they are unable to marry in order to be allowed to marry.

IF states are involved in marriage only because 'blood parents'....why would marriage law allow marriage between a couple that are required not to be able to have children? The state could simply prohibit that marriage.

Instead the state allows the marriage- but demands no children from the marriage.

Which delinks the whole 'marriage is for children' argument.

You continue to demonstrate lack of understanding in myriad ways.

See the thing is- your lack of understanding, and your bigotry really doesn't matter in the end.

This is what really matters:

Justice Kennedy

There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[The Rabbi]

...Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?

It makes no sense.

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.l.

Yet there are no laws that actually incentivize or reward that.

No law requires parents to marry.
No law requires married couples to have- or attempt to have children.
No law requires married parents to remain married.

Instead, marriage law has no expectation that a married couple will ever have children.

Marriage law allows 80 year old couples to marry, and in at least one state actually requires a couple to prove that they are unable to marry in order to be allowed to marry.

IF states are involved in marriage only because 'blood parents'....why would marriage law allow marriage between a couple that are required not to be able to have children? The state could simply prohibit that marriage.

Instead the state allows the marriage- but demands no children from the marriage.

Which delinks the whole 'marriage is for children' argument.

You continue to demonstrate lack of understanding in myriad ways.

See the thing is- your lack of understanding, and your bigotry really doesn't matter in the end.

This is what really matters:

Justice Kennedy

There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

failure to meet my challenge noted. Again.

 

[Syriusly]

I understand biology fine- and I can read scientific papers- and once again:

Your quote:
The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

There is science that shows blood parent of a child are the best environment for that child. .

Well feel free to provide that.

Meanwhile- gays and lesbians are having children in exactly the same manner as millions of heterosexuals- by artificial insemination and by adoption.

Since this is acceptable for heterosexual couples, once again you are left with arguing in favor of discrimination against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

...Having established that children or the ability to have children aren't necessary to have a valid marriage.....why would we ban gays or lesbians based on their inability to have kids? The criteria you're using to exclude gays.....doesn't apply to anyone. Why then would it apply to gays, and then apply ONLY to gays?

It makes no sense.

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.l.

Yet there are no laws that actually incentivize or reward that.

No law requires parents to marry.
No law requires married couples to have- or attempt to have children.
No law requires married parents to remain married.

Instead, marriage law has no expectation that a married couple will ever have children.

Marriage law allows 80 year old couples to marry, and in at least one state actually requires a couple to prove that they are unable to marry in order to be allowed to marry.

IF states are involved in marriage only because 'blood parents'....why would marriage law allow marriage between a couple that are required not to be able to have children? The state could simply prohibit that marriage.

Instead the state allows the marriage- but demands no children from the marriage.

Which delinks the whole 'marriage is for children' argument.

You continue to demonstrate lack of understanding in myriad ways.

See the thing is- your lack of understanding, and your bigotry really doesn't matter in the end.

This is what really matters:

Justice Kennedy

There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

failure to meet my challenge noted. Again.

Failure to provide a challenge again- typical.

 

[The Rabbi]

I understand biology fine- and I can read scientific papers- and once again:

Your quote:
The color of your skin isn't an obstacle to procreation or raising well adjusted children. A "couple" with only one kind of genitalia is.

There is no science to support your purely homophobic assertion.

There is science that shows blood parent of a child are the best environment for that child. .

Well feel free to provide that.

Meanwhile- gays and lesbians are having children in exactly the same manner as millions of heterosexuals- by artificial insemination and by adoption.

Since this is acceptable for heterosexual couples, once again you are left with arguing in favor of discrimination against homosexuals.

Failure to grasp the argument noted.

 

[The Rabbi]

That's wrong and a strawman. This isn't the reason states are involved in marriage. They are involved because where children come from [men having sex with women] they want to incentive both blood parents to stay together in marriage for the benefit of what happens when men and women have sex.l.

Yet there are no laws that actually incentivize or reward that.

No law requires parents to marry.
No law requires married couples to have- or attempt to have children.
No law requires married parents to remain married.

Instead, marriage law has no expectation that a married couple will ever have children.

Marriage law allows 80 year old couples to marry, and in at least one state actually requires a couple to prove that they are unable to marry in order to be allowed to marry.

IF states are involved in marriage only because 'blood parents'....why would marriage law allow marriage between a couple that are required not to be able to have children? The state could simply prohibit that marriage.

Instead the state allows the marriage- but demands no children from the marriage.

Which delinks the whole 'marriage is for children' argument.

You continue to demonstrate lack of understanding in myriad ways.

See the thing is- your lack of understanding, and your bigotry really doesn't matter in the end.

This is what really matters:

Justice Kennedy

There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

failure to meet my challenge noted. Again.

Failure to provide a challenge again- typical.

Are you reading imparied?
Your challenge to is pretend you are me for a minute and state my argument against gay marriage. Since I have stated here many times it wont be hard to figure out.
But you cannot and will not.

 

[Syriusly]

Yet there are no laws that actually incentivize or reward that.

No law requires parents to marry.
No law requires married couples to have- or attempt to have children.
No law requires married parents to remain married.

Instead, marriage law has no expectation that a married couple will ever have children.

Marriage law allows 80 year old couples to marry, and in at least one state actually requires a couple to prove that they are unable to marry in order to be allowed to marry.

IF states are involved in marriage only because 'blood parents'....why would marriage law allow marriage between a couple that are required not to be able to have children? The state could simply prohibit that marriage.

Instead the state allows the marriage- but demands no children from the marriage.

Which delinks the whole 'marriage is for children' argument.

You continue to demonstrate lack of understanding in myriad ways.

See the thing is- your lack of understanding, and your bigotry really doesn't matter in the end.

This is what really matters:

Justice Kennedy

There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

failure to meet my challenge noted. Again.

Failure to provide a challenge again- typical.

Are you reading imparied?
Your challenge to is pretend you are me for a minute and state my argument against gay marriage. Since I have stated here many times it wont be hard to figure out.
But you cannot and will not.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

 

[The Rabbi]

You continue to demonstrate lack of understanding in myriad ways.

See the thing is- your lack of understanding, and your bigotry really doesn't matter in the end.

This is what really matters:

Justice Kennedy

There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

failure to meet my challenge noted. Again.

Failure to provide a challenge again- typical.

Are you reading imparied?
Your challenge to is pretend you are me for a minute and state my argument against gay marriage. Since I have stated here many times it wont be hard to figure out.
But you cannot and will not.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.
Your failure to meet my challenge is noted again.

 

[Syriusly]

See the thing is- your lack of understanding, and your bigotry really doesn't matter in the end.

This is what really matters:

Justice Kennedy

There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

failure to meet my challenge noted. Again.

Failure to provide a challenge again- typical.

Are you reading imparied?
Your challenge to is pretend you are me for a minute and state my argument against gay marriage. Since I have stated here many times it wont be hard to figure out.
But you cannot and will not.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.
Your failure to meet my challenge is noted again.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well[/QUOTE]
I have stated my argument here many times.

 

[The Rabbi]

failure to meet my challenge noted. Again.

Failure to provide a challenge again- typical.

Are you reading imparied?
Your challenge to is pretend you are me for a minute and state my argument against gay marriage. Since I have stated here many times it wont be hard to figure out.
But you cannot and will not.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.
Your failure to meet my challenge is noted again.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.[/QUOTE]
Doubling donw on stupid is a bad strategy.
I have stated my argument many times. Your inability merely to state what it is shows you are too stupid to engage.

 

[Syriusly]

Failure to provide a challenge again- typical.

Are you reading imparied?
Your challenge to is pretend you are me for a minute and state my argument against gay marriage. Since I have stated here many times it wont be hard to figure out.
But you cannot and will not.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.
Your failure to meet my challenge is noted again.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.

Doubling donw on stupid is a bad strategy.
I have stated my argument many times. Your inability merely to state what it is shows you are too stupid to engage.[/QUOTE]

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well[/QUOTE]
I have stated my argument here many times.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you reading imparied?
Your challenge to is pretend you are me for a minute and state my argument against gay marriage. Since I have stated here many times it wont be hard to figure out.
But you cannot and will not.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.
Your failure to meet my challenge is noted again.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.

Doubling donw on stupid is a bad strategy.
I have stated my argument many times. Your inability merely to state what it is shows you are too stupid to engage.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well[/QUOTE]
I have stated my argument here many times.[/QUOTE]
OK now you are simply babbling the same nonsense over and over.
Bye.