I know exactly what I’m arguing. You said that Loving is the only case that we quote regarding marriage, I said that you were incorrect, and proceeded to list the other cases that relate to marriage that were in Judge Shelby’s opinion. What I don’t get is what you’re arguing.
And you know this how? If that ain’t grasping for straws, I dunno what is. It reminds me of an earlier poster here in this thread who told a Psychiatrist who works with a lot of gay people and backed up his claims here that all his degree meant was that he did well in school. I have to wonder if that person who posted that feels the same way about heart surgeons…
Any port in a storm, right?Facts are stubborn things. - John Adams
Well said, SeannyM. “A man/woman convinced against his/her will, is of the same opinion still.”
I’m going to give some examples of how the cases relate to marriage. I do not have time to do this for all of them, but I’ll give you a few. The rest will have to be up to you to research if you are interested. What I want you to do is tell me how they don’t relate to marriage.I am judging the list by the contents of the list.Few of the cases on the list back up the claim previously made that the opinion referenced most of the previous marriage cases. It was nothing more than a list of cases lifted from the opinion, without understanding why they were there or what they were referencing. Just because a case is sited in a marriage opinion does not make it a marriage case or relevant to the discussion.
Only if this Judge is correct, which remains to be seen. Other courts have said otherwise.
And there are many cases that deal with who may marry whom.
Please point out where I made that claim. I said that there were OTHER marriage cases. You said that most were cited. Most were not cited.
Not playing this game any more… you tell me which cases he missed… that might be a little easier. Maybe there are some that I’m not aware of… who knows?
You mean like you telling me that I don’t know my profession? That’s funny.And you know this how? If that ain’t grasping for straws, I dunno what is. It reminds me of an earlier poster here in this thread who told a Psychiatrist who works with a lot of gay people and backed up his claims here that all his degree meant was that he did well in school. I have to wonder if that person who posted that feels the same way about heart surgeons…
Any port in a storm, right?
I am still curious how those cases don’t pertain to marriage though. They all establish marriage as a civil right and apply 14th amendment protections to it. As a paralegal, do you think that I’m incorrect?
I didn’t say or imply that. However, your position is erroneous.
If marriage between one and one woman is the original plan of marriage by God, then marriage between one man and one woman was God’s ideal for marriage before polygamous marriage existed. Problems arose from polygamous marriage described in the Bible and today there are societial problems that have been recognised in cultures that permit polygamy.
But how ironic they would speak against your cause. In these cases there references throughout indicating the REASON marriage s so essential is that marriages result in children and perpetuating society through subsequent generations.
“If…”
I agree 111%.
Well said.
Are you telling me the Conservative judges don’t have assistants to help them research cases?
As far as I can tell, you seem to be awfully selective as to what cases you like (and therefore claim to be applicable, especially when presented with the decision we’re discussing.)
One would think that our Lord would have made it quite clear to people in other cultures much earlier on in time, then.
Those who believe that government has an interest in promoting or preserving the institution of marriage for its benefits to society - e.g. the best arrangement for raising children, etc. might disagree.
