In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[The Rabbi]

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?

What tax deductions do they give to unmarried couples with children?

 

[Skylar]

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.

Oh, SNAP!

Turns out Rabbi didn't know shit about shit in Wisconsin law, did he?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Oh, SNAP!

Turns out Rabbi didn't know shit about shit in Wisconsin law, did he?

More than you know about logic.
That point was a failure. Why you'd want to point out that you lost the argument is beyond me. Masochism?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Same-sex couples marrying is traditional marriage, no different than the contract law available to opposite-sex couples.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

How many gay couples want to get married vs unrelated men and women in their 20's?

You seem to think if you throw any nonsense out there that I am failing.

What I am pointing out are the States failing logic in every case so far- and why the courts have rejected the failed attempts you have made.

You have failed to make any of your arguments.

I have countered every one with examples of how the state does not use marriage to 'encourage stable families'

You were wrong about Wisconsin State law(and have never acknowledged your mistake) and you have yet to establish any examples of how the State uses marriage to 'encourage stable families" that are not directly contradicted by state law.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oh, SNAP!

Turns out Rabbi didn't know shit about shit in Wisconsin law, did he?

More than you know about logic.
That point was a failure. Why you'd want to point out that you lost the argument is beyond me. Masochism?

That point was I claimed there was a state law.
You said that was BS.
And when I proved you wrong- you just ignored your error.

That is an issue of honesty- not logic.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Oh, SNAP!

Turns out Rabbi didn't know shit about shit in Wisconsin law, did he?

More than you know about logic.
That point was a failure. Why you'd want to point out that you lost the argument is beyond me. Masochism?

That point was I claimed there was a state law.
You said that was BS.
And when I proved you wrong- you just ignored your error.

That is an issue of honesty- not logic.

It was BS. You misrepresented the state law. I also said even there were it didnt disprove my point. ANd when the relevant facts came out it actually proved my point.
WHy you want to rehash your losing arguments is really beyond me. Unless somehow you still dont understand how you lost.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Oh, SNAP!

Turns out Rabbi didn't know shit about shit in Wisconsin law, did he?

More than you know about logic.
That point was a failure. Why you'd want to point out that you lost the argument is beyond me. Masochism?

That point was I claimed there was a state law.
You said that was BS.
And when I proved you wrong- you just ignored your error.

That is an issue of honesty- not logic.

It was BS. You misrepresented the state law. I also said even there were it didnt disprove my point. ANd when the relevant facts came out it actually proved my point.
WHy you want to rehash your losing arguments is really beyond me. Unless somehow you still dont understand how you lost.

I don't mind showing exactly how intellectually dishonest you are

Me:
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'?

You:
Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Then I proceeded to show you exactly that law.

And you of course never admitted I was right- and you were wrong. Because that would require moral integrity.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This judge has made the mistake of relying on Baker, which is why his ruling will be overturned on appeal.

From his ruling:

“The plaintiffs would have this Court ignore Baker because of subsequent “doctrinal developments.” Specifically, the plaintiffs see the Supreme Court’s decisions in Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor as limiting Baker’s application, as most other courts to consider the issue have held.”

The judge is not only ignoring Romer, Lawrence, and Windsor, but he's also ignoring Griswold and Loving, as well as the doctrine of substantive due process in the context of civil law, where there is no objective, documented evidence in support of denying same-sex couples access to marriage law, no rational basis, and no proper legislative end.

The ruling is in no way 'elegant,' and is in fact arrogant.

 

[Skylar]

That point was a failure. Why you'd want to point out that you lost the argument is beyond me.

Because you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about, perhaps? Remember this little blast from the past?

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.

And yet, you were straight up clueless, weren't you?

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”).

And here's the fun part. Its not just that you babble ignorantly about topics you clearly don't comprehend. Its not just that you're laughably, ineptly wrong. Its that when evidence utterly overwhelms your ignorance, you literally ignore the evidence and pretend it doesn't exist.

Laughing....so how is willful ignorance working out for you?

 

[Skylar]

It was BS. You misrepresented the state law. I also said even there were it didnt disprove my point. ANd when the relevant facts came out it actually proved my point.

Obviously he didn't. Here's his claim.

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'?

And here's what the Wisconsin laws says:

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”).

He perfectly represented the law. You just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about, babbling ignorantly about laws you don't know, topics you can't comment on intelligently.

That in an of itself aren't particularly egregious. Everyone is ignorant at first. But your folly is that you're desperate to remain ignorant. That even now you continue to ignore the law, continue to deny it says what it says.

Um, slick....its not like we can't just read the Wisconsin law and see in 3 seconds that you're straight up clueless.

 

[Skylar]

So.....back to the claim that Syrius has so thoroughly supported with evidence:

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Anyone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Oh, SNAP!

Turns out Rabbi didn't know shit about shit in Wisconsin law, did he?

More than you know about logic.
That point was a failure. Why you'd want to point out that you lost the argument is beyond me. Masochism?

That point was I claimed there was a state law.
You said that was BS.
And when I proved you wrong- you just ignored your error.

That is an issue of honesty- not logic.

It was BS. You misrepresented the state law. I also said even there were it didnt disprove my point. ANd when the relevant facts came out it actually proved my point.
WHy you want to rehash your losing arguments is really beyond me. Unless somehow you still dont understand how you lost.

See what I said about having to endure Rabbi's denialism?

 

[Skylar]

See what I said about having to endure Rabbi's denialism?

Its like watching a train wreck. I...I just can't look away.

Does he really think we can't read the law just because he denies what it says? What's the pay off for him? He's just burning through credibility like he's feeding books to a bonfire.

I don't get it. Its not like the law is magically going to change just because he closes his eyes.

 

[Syriusly]

So.....back to the claim that Syrius has so thoroughly supported with evidence:

If marriage is all about children,why then does Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry?

Anyone?

Because its all about children.....but only when talking about same gender couples....

 

[Syriusly]

See what I said about having to endure Rabbi's denialism?

Its like watching a train wreck. I...I just can't look away.

Does he really think we can't read the law just because he denies what it says? What's the pay off for him? He's just burning through credibility like he's feeding books to a bonfire.

I don't get it. Its not like the law is magically going to change just because he closes his eyes.

There is another thread started by a Conservative complaining about people just not admitting that they were wrong.

And the usual suspects all gladly proclaim that is what liberals do.....not Conservatives.

In my experience, no one likes to admit that they were flat out wrong- and the moral integrity to admit ones mistakes have nothing to do whether one leans Right or Left.

 

[The Rabbi]

See what I said about having to endure Rabbi's denialism?

Its like watching a train wreck. I...I just can't look away.

Does he really think we can't read the law just because he denies what it says? What's the pay off for him? He's just burning through credibility like he's feeding books to a bonfire.

I don't get it. Its not like the law is magically going to change just because he closes his eyes.

Burning through credibility=kicking our asses.
Face it. You've got nothing on this thread but misstatements, errors of logic, errors of fact, half truths, falsehoods and deflection.
You have thoroughly lost the argument. Time to pack it in.

 

[Syriusly]

See what I said about having to endure Rabbi's denialism?

Its like watching a train wreck. I...I just can't look away.

Does he really think we can't read the law just because he denies what it says? What's the pay off for him? He's just burning through credibility like he's feeding books to a bonfire.

I don't get it. Its not like the law is magically going to change just because he closes his eyes.

Burning through credibility=kicking our asses.
Face it. You've got nothing on this thread but misstatements, errors of logic, errors of fact, half truths, falsehoods and deflection.
You have thoroughly lost the argument. Time to pack it in.

Feel free to point out where I have been wrong once- or that you have been right.

Here is the dialogue you and I had- highlighted where you were wrong- and don't have the moral integrity to admit it.

Rabbi: The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens.

Me: 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'?

Rabbi: Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.

Me:

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”).

Me:

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.

Rabbi: One aberrant case isnt proof of anything.

So how many times are you flat out wrong in this series of posts?

a) You claimed that a law in Wisconsin forbidding marriage to some couples unless they were infertile was BS
b) You claimed one aberrant case was not proof- so I provided you with 5
c) You claimed The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens- and have not once addressed the 5 state laws which provide for marriage only if no future citizens can be produced. The State could have forbidden those marriages- but instead chooses to allow those marriages only if they NEVER produce 'future citizens'- what distinguishes those couples from same gender couples?

 

[Skylar]

Burning through credibility=kicking our asses.
Face it. You've got nothing on this thread but misstatements, errors of logic, errors of fact, half truths, falsehoods and deflection.
You have thoroughly lost the argument. Time to pack it in.

Face it....the law contradicts you. This is what Syrius said:

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'?

And here's what the Wisconsin laws says:

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”).

He perfectly represented the law. You were just wrong when you said that no such law exists in Wisconsin. Oh, you can deny you're wrong. You can insist the law doesn't say what it obviously does. You can deny the law ever existed.

And all I have to do is post Wisconsin's law again.....and poof, you lose. Each time. Every time. The law doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument. You have no explanation for why Wisconsin would have a law for some folks that require they PROVE they can't have children before they are allowed to marry.....if marriage is 'all about children'.

Try again.

 

[Syriusly]

Burning through credibility=kicking our asses.
Face it. You've got nothing on this thread but misstatements, errors of logic, errors of fact, half truths, falsehoods and deflection.
You have thoroughly lost the argument. Time to pack it in.

Face it....the law contradicts you. This is what Syrius said:

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'?

And here's what the Wisconsin laws says:

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”).

He perfectly represented the law. You were just wrong when you said that no such law exists in Wisconsin. Oh, you can deny you're wrong. You can insist the law doesn't say what it obviously does. You can deny the law ever existed.

And all I have to do is post Wisconsin's law again.....and poof, you lose. Each time. Every time. The law doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument. You have no explanation for why Wisconsin would have a law for some folks that require they PROVE they can't have children before they are allowed to marry.....if marriage is 'all about children'.

Try again.

I suspect that Rabbi is a Royals fans who was celebrating at the end of Game 1 of the World Series for their epic win......