🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.
In other words, you have no idea what the law is in WI.

Neither do I. Link, please.

Here is the quote from the Wisconsin same gender marriage case- you can look up the link yourself

:
Neither argument is persuasive. First, amici’s argument that it would be “difficult (if
not impossible)” to attempt to determine a couple’s ability or willingness to procreate is
simply inaccurate. Amici identify no reason that the state could not require applicants for
a marriage license to certify that they have the intent to procreate and are not aware of any
impediments to their doing so.

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

Like defendants’ argument regarding “responsible procreation,” amici’s alternative
argument that “mathematical certainty is not required” is contingent on a rational basis
review, which I have rejected. Further, this rationale is suspicious not just because
Wisconsin has failed to ban infertile couples from marrying or to require intrusive tests to
get a marriage license. Rather, it is suspicious because neither defendants nor amici cite any
instances in which Wisconsin has ever taken any legal action to discourage infertile couples
from marrying.
There is also little to no stigma attached to childless married couples.
Neither defendants nor amici point to any social opprobrium directed at the many millions
of such couples throughout this country’s history, beginning with America’s first family,
George and Martha Washington, who had no biological children of their own.
George Washington - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia (visited June 6, 2014).

The lack of any attempts by the state to dissuade infertile persons from marriage is proof that marriage is
about many things, including love, companionship, sexual intimacy, commitment,
responsibility, stability and procreation and that Wisconsin respects the decisions of its
heterosexual citizens to determine for themselves how to define their marriage
. If Wisconsin
gives opposite-sex couples that autonomy, it must do the same for same-sex couples
 
Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

We've done this dance. They've been denied the right to marry the person they wish. And they've been denied for no particular reason, and in the service of no state interest. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their rights, you're going to need a very good reason. The State's don't have one.

Which might explain why 50 federal court rulings have struck down such denials for no particular reason.
Theyve been denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just like a heterosexual would also be denied. Just like a married man would also be denied. They were denied for a very good reason: the laws of the state forbade it. Those laws were implemented by the state legislatures acting for the people. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. Homosexual marriages will not.
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

I like how you both deny there is such a law.

And then tell me to take it up with the legislators in Wisconsin.

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”).

Feel free to prove that this is an aberration.

Show me laws which require marriage couples to be able to have children- or express an intent to have children?

Or laws which forbid divorce if a couple has children.
 
Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

We've done this dance. They've been denied the right to marry the person they wish. And they've been denied for no particular reason, and in the service of no state interest. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their rights, you're going to need a very good reason. The State's don't have one.

Which might explain why 50 federal court rulings have struck down such denials for no particular reason.
Theyve been denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just like a heterosexual would also be denied. Just like a married man would also be denied. They were denied for a very good reason: the laws of the state forbade it. Those laws were implemented by the state legislatures acting for the people. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. Homosexual marriages will not.
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

I like how you both deny there is such a law.

And then tell me to take it up with the legislators in Wisconsin.

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”).

Feel free to prove that this is an aberration.

Show me laws which require marriage couples to be able to have children- or express an intent to have children?

Or laws which forbid divorce if a couple has children.

Excellent find. Unfortunately now you get to endure the Rabbi's denialist act.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

LOL, the Rabtard steps in another pile of it. Ask for wellies for Christmas, dumbass.
 
Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

We've done this dance. They've been denied the right to marry the person they wish. And they've been denied for no particular reason, and in the service of no state interest. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their rights, you're going to need a very good reason. The State's don't have one.

Which might explain why 50 federal court rulings have struck down such denials for no particular reason.
Theyve been denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just like a heterosexual would also be denied. Just like a married man would also be denied. They were denied for a very good reason: the laws of the state forbade it. Those laws were implemented by the state legislatures acting for the people. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. Homosexual marriages will not.
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

I like how you both deny there is such a law.

And then tell me to take it up with the legislators in Wisconsin.

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”).

Feel free to prove that this is an aberration.

Show me laws which require marriage couples to be able to have children- or express an intent to have children?

Or laws which forbid divorce if a couple has children.
There are no such laws because there is no need for such laws.
Looks like your point failed again.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

LOL, the Rabtard steps in another pile of it. Ask for wellies for Christmas, dumbass.
Havent you proven your stupidity enough for one lifetime? You couldn't argue with a cheese sandwich, much less any poster here.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
Looks like you lost that argument too.
 
Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

We've done this dance. They've been denied the right to marry the person they wish. And they've been denied for no particular reason, and in the service of no state interest. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their rights, you're going to need a very good reason. The State's don't have one.

Which might explain why 50 federal court rulings have struck down such denials for no particular reason.
Theyve been denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just like a heterosexual would also be denied. Just like a married man would also be denied. They were denied for a very good reason: the laws of the state forbade it. Those laws were implemented by the state legislatures acting for the people. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. Homosexual marriages will not.
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

I like how you both deny there is such a law.

And then tell me to take it up with the legislators in Wisconsin.

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”).

Feel free to prove that this is an aberration.

Show me laws which require marriage couples to be able to have children- or express an intent to have children?

Or laws which forbid divorce if a couple has children.
There are no such laws because there is no need for such laws.
Looks like your point failed again.

Because marriage has no expectation- or requirement of children- marriage is not about providing children with stable homes with biological parents- IF that was the case why would the State allow those biological parents to marry?

IF it was the case why wouldn't the State require those couples to marry?

Why would 5 states have laws allowing marriage only when the couple couldn't procreate?

Why would states allow 2 80 year old's marry- but only if they are opposite gender?
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

LOL, the Rabtard steps in another pile of it. Ask for wellies for Christmas, dumbass.
Havent you proven your stupidity enough for one lifetime? You couldn't argue with a cheese sandwich, much less any poster here.

Name one state that prohibits opposite sex marriage between a man and a woman if one or both are infertile.

NAME ONE.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
.

Well demonstrate your wisdom on how states are using marriage to encourage 'procreating couples'?

Why would the state allow these couples to marry at all if the point of marriage was procreation?
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
Looks like you lost that argument too.

Name one state that prohibits marriage between non-reproductive opposite sex couples.

One. Name one.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
.

Well demonstrate your wisdom on how states are using marriage to encourage 'procreating couples'?

Why would the state allow these couples to marry at all if the point of marriage was procreation?

What he is blissfully ignorant of is the fact that you don't have to marry to reproduce. You'd think he'd know that.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
.

Well demonstrate your wisdom on how states are using marriage to encourage 'procreating couples'?

Why would the state allow these couples to marry at all if the point of marriage was procreation?
The point of marriage is not procreation, As usual you misunderstand the argument.

States have an interest in fostering stable families with children, typically associated with marriage. That's why they recognize some unions as marriages but not others.
 
[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
Looks like you lost that argument too.

Name one state that prohibits marriage between non-reproductive opposite sex couples.

One. Name one.
There isnt one.
What was your point again?
 
Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
Looks like you lost that argument too.

Name one state that prohibits marriage between non-reproductive opposite sex couples.

One. Name one.
There isnt one.
What was your point again?

Which means that non-reproductive couples have the same marriage rights as reproductive couples, so there cannot be any specific intent to encourage child bearing thru the marriage laws,

which ends the argument as to whether or not non-reproductive same sex couples should be denied the right to marry under the law.
 
Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
.

Well demonstrate your wisdom on how states are using marriage to encourage 'procreating couples'?

Why would the state allow these couples to marry at all if the point of marriage was procreation?
The point of marriage is not procreation, As usual you misunderstand the argument.

States have an interest in fostering stable families with children, typically associated with marriage. That's why they recognize some unions as marriages but not others.

Marriages between 80 year old first cousins that will never have children, but not two women already raising adoptive children?

The interest seems entirely focused on preventing same gender couples from marrying, and doesn't seem to have relationship to fostering stable homes at all.

Again- where are the laws which require parents to marry? Where are the laws which prevent divorce between parents with children?
 
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
Looks like you lost that argument too.

Name one state that prohibits marriage between non-reproductive opposite sex couples.

One. Name one.
There isnt one.
What was your point again?

Which means that non-reproductive couples have the same marriage rights as reproductive couples, so there cannot be any specific intent to encourage child bearing thru the marriage laws,

which ends the argument as to whether or not non-reproductive same sex couples should be denied the right to marry under the law.
Thats so filled with fallacies it's hard to know where to begin.
 
Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
.

Well demonstrate your wisdom on how states are using marriage to encourage 'procreating couples'?

Why would the state allow these couples to marry at all if the point of marriage was procreation?
The point of marriage is not procreation, As usual you misunderstand the argument.

States have an interest in fostering stable families with children, typically associated with marriage. That's why they recognize some unions as marriages but not others.

Why do they give benefits such as dependent claims, tax deductions, etc., to unmarried couples with children, if they're trying to encourage marriage?
 
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

Google is an amazing thing.

States which allow First cousin marriages under specific circumstances:

Arizona- if both are 65 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Illinois- if both are 50 or older, or one is unable to reproduce.

Indiana- if both are at least 65.

Maine- if couple obtains a physician's certificate of genetic counseling.

Utah- if both are 65 or older, or if both are 55 or older and one is unable to reproduce.

Wisconsin- if the woman is 55 or older, or one is unable to reproduce

So we have 5 states which allow marriage between couples- but only if they are unable to reproduce.

Yep- marriage is all about procreation.

Sure.
One aberrant case isnt proof of anything. The statutes are specifically there to prevent procreation among people considered consanguineous. Which proves that outside of that states want to encourage procreating couples/
.

Well demonstrate your wisdom on how states are using marriage to encourage 'procreating couples'?

Why would the state allow these couples to marry at all if the point of marriage was procreation?
The point of marriage is not procreation, As usual you misunderstand the argument.

States have an interest in fostering stable families with children, typically associated with marriage. That's why they recognize some unions as marriages but not others.

Marriages between 80 year old first cousins that will never have children, but not two women already raising adoptive children?

The interest seems entirely focused on preventing same gender couples from marrying, and doesn't seem to have relationship to fostering stable homes at all.

Again- where are the laws which require parents to marry? Where are the laws which prevent divorce between parents with children?
How many 80 yr old first cousins want to get married, vs unrelated men and women in their 20s?
Yeah, point proven again.
You're failing very badly here.
 

Forum List

Back
Top