Why Government Involvement In Marriage?

[Stone holm]

I'm not sure how to substantiate it... you are saying that there is nothing that restricts it. I am saying that there is nothing the specifically permits it. You show your "nothing" and I'll show mine.

I think we just have different views of how the federal government should operate.

The government had no part in creating my posterity. <grin> But, if you want to use that line of thinking than I'm going to argue that promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty applies to homosexual citizens as well. They also have posterity - even homosexual unions can adopt or create children with the same medical assistance that some of my (heterosexual) family members have used.

So, if you are interested in increasing procreation within the bonds of marriage it would seem wise to allow all couples to marry.

Congress has the power to enact laws for the general welfare of the United States, if you can figure out something that is not a part of the general welfare of the United States then you have found something they cannot regulate. Good luck with that. We have a government of specified and limited powers that just happen to specify a power so vast as to leave very few things excluded. However, the judiciary has developed some concepts that suggest that the Federal government must exercise some discretion in bossing the States around after having let them govern an area. This is a murky area of Condtitutional Law since strict construction of the Constitution is pretty much a game of semantics since first you specify a grant of power which is nearly all encompassing, and then you say that anything not granted is reserved to the States or People. Madison by the way said the latter language was merely a tautology. So except in some faux legal analysis you start with the assumption they can do it and then try to come up with something in the Constitution which says they cannot.

[wenglund]

I'm not sure how to substantiate it... you are saying that there is nothing that restricts it. I am saying that there is nothing the specifically permits it. You show your "nothing" and I'll show mine.

Not exactly. You raised the issue, and I questioned it, but was open to you making your case--assuming there is a case to be made. I even suggested several ways you could substantiate it (court rulings and constitutional experts). If you have "nothing," then there is "nothing" to discuss.

I think we just have different views of how the federal government should operate.

The government had no part in creating my posterity. <grin>

The government certainly had a part in legitimizing the creation of your posterity--that, in part, is the point.

But, if you want to use that line of thinking than I'm going to argue that promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty applies to homosexual citizens as well.

I noticed that you convenient omitted the key, and most relevant part to the discussion at hand, about "our Posterity," and that is because even you may realize that it isn't relevant to homosexual relationships [edit: given what you state below, it appear that you may be confused about whether homosexual couples can procreate or not). As the discussion progresses into other reasons why the government is involved in marriage, we will see if what you have to argue will be as invalid there as well.

They also have posterity - even homosexual unions can adopt or create children with the same medical assistance that some of my (heterosexual) family members have used.

You are trying to use rare exception as if they are the rule. It won't hold water, though, as the discussion progresses, you are welcome to try.

So, if you are interested in increasing procreation within the bonds of marriage it would seem wise to allow all couples to marry.

This is as illogical a statement as I have read in quite some time, and it underscores how little you may grasp of my argument and how desperate you seem to be in holding fast to your tissuey position (Hint: adoption isn't procreation, and homosexual couples can't procreate no matter how advance the science). In principle, it is like saying that if I am interested in increasing car driving under the bonds of drivers licenses, it would seem wise to allow infants (who can't drive) to have drivers licenses, It is anything but wise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

Not exactly. You raised the issue, and I questioned it, but was open to you making your case--assuming there is a case to be made. I even suggested several ways you could substantiate it (court rulings and constitutional experts). If you have "nothing," then there is "nothing" to discuss.

The government certainly had a part in legitimizing the creation of your posterity--that, in part, is the point.

I noticed that you convenient omitted the key, and most relevant part to the discussion at hand, about "our Posterity," and that is because even you may realize that it isn't relevant to homosexual relationships [edit: given what you state below, it appear that you may be confused about whether homosexual couples can procreate or not). As the discussion progresses into other reasons why the government is involved in marriage, we will see if what you have to argue will be as invalid there as well.

You are trying to use rare exception as if they are the rule. It won't hold water, though, as the discussion progresses, you are welcome to try.

This is as illogical a statement as I have read in quite some time, and it underscores how little you may grasp of my argument and how desperate you seem to be in holding fast to your tissuey position (Hint: adoption isn't procreation, and homosexual couples can't procreate no matter how advance the science). In principle, it is like saying that if I am interested in increasing car driving under the bonds of drivers licenses, it would seem wise to allow infants (who can't drive) to have drivers licenses, It is anything but wise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So far I haven't seen the SCOTUS opinions that you suggest that support the governments interest in stimulating procreation so far I find that rather dubious. And if that is dubious what is being argued that the government is not trying to stimulate procreation, but rather to subsidize stable relationships suggest there is no reason to discriminate against SSM.

[rockpond]

Not exactly. You raised the issue, and I questioned it, but was open to you making your case--assuming there is a case to be made. I even suggested several ways you could substantiate it (court rulings and constitutional experts). If you have "nothing," then there is "nothing" to discuss.

The government certainly had a part in legitimizing the creation of your posterity--that, in part, is the point.

I noticed that you convenient omitted the key, and most relevant part to the discussion at hand, about "our Posterity," and that is because even you may realize that it isn't relevant to homosexual relationships [edit: given what you state below, it appear that you may be confused about whether homosexual couples can procreate or not). As the discussion progresses into other reasons why the government is involved in marriage, we will see if what you have to argue will be as invalid there as well.

You are trying to use rare exception as if they are the rule. It won't hold water, though, as the discussion progresses, you are welcome to try.

This is as illogical a statement as I have read in quite some time, and it underscores how little you may grasp of my argument and how desperate you seem to be in holding fast to your tissuey position (Hint: adoption isn't procreation, and homosexual couples can't procreate no matter how advance the science). In principle, it is like saying that if I am interested in increasing car driving under the bonds of drivers licenses, it would seem wise to allow infants (who can't drive) to have drivers licenses, It is anything but wise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wait, what part did the government have in legitmizing the creation of my posterity?

You seem to be changing your argument now... You have spent page after page trying to build a case for why the government has an interest in increasing the population through procreation in marriages. If the government has that interest than why should it matter if children are created through medical advances as long as they are created within a stable married relationship? If a couple is infertile and uses medical advances to create their children are they not of interest to the government?

And yes, adoption is not procreation. I did not suggest that it was. I suggested that it was "posterity" -- which it is. Adoption (in most cases) brings children from unstable environments into stable two parent homes. You've asserted that the government has an interest in children being raised in stable relationships, have you not?

[Stone holm]

Wait, what part did the government have in legitmizing the creation of my posterity?

You seem to be changing your argument now... You have spent page after page trying to build a case for why the government has an interest in increasing the population through procreation in marriages. If the government has that interest than why should it matter if children are created through medical advances as long as they are created within a stable married relationship? If a couple is infertile and uses medical advances to create their children are they not of interest to the government?

And yes, adoption is not procreation. I did not suggest that it was. I suggested that it was "posterity" -- which it is. Adoption (in most cases) brings children from unstable environments into stable two parent homes. You've asserted that the government has an interest in children being raised in stable relationships, have you not?

Actually, the Church is interested in the children being raised in stable environments as well which is why the Church encourages adoption out of illegitimate children.

[wenglund]

So far I haven't seen the SCOTUS opinions that you suggest that support the governments interest in stimulating procreation so far I find that rather dubious. And if that is dubious what is being argued that the government is not trying to stimulate procreation, but rather to subsidize stable relationships suggest there is no reason to discriminate against SSM.

Without yet engaging my arguments, you have distorted, in several respects, what I said. This is my actual statement: "I suppose it wouldn't help to quote you court rulings, including those from SCOTUS, indicating that procreation is, indeed, a government interest and one of the very reasons that marriage is considered a fundamental right."

Here are some citations:

SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Said another way, marriage is a basic civil right of man because it is fundamental to our very existence and survival, and, implicitly, marriage is essential to our very existence and survival because it is the orderly pursuit of procreation. In short, marriage is a basic civil right because of its orderly pursuit of procreation. Procreation, then, is essential to marriage as a basic civil right. Since homosexual relationships are not procreative, then SSM does not qualify as a basic civil right.

If you doubt that the SCOTUS is here implicitly referring to procreation, you need but read the ruling in Skinner v. Oklahoma cited in the Loving ruling above, which is a case involving state-mandated sterilization for habitual criminals. Douglas' opinion begins: "This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring....We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

As for state interest in marriage, particularly in regards to procreation, and court rulings in relation thereto (including SCOTUS), here is an excellent article that covers the matter extensively: [ulr=http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/Ave%20Maria%201.pdf]State Interest in Marriage. I just now found this article, and I wish I had found it much earlier because it does a great job of articulating, arguing, and evincing the legal answer to the question of this thread.

So far, I presented rational argumentation and socio-economic evidence for governments, ancient and modern, having an interest in marriage as a means for encouraging population growth. I have done the same in establishing government, ancient and modern, interest in marriage as a means for encouraging "responsible procreation."

However, as compelling as this may be, you seem to have been not the least bit phased in your belief that the legal definition of marriage should be mangled well beyond it's traditional meaning to include same-sex couples, and you wish to put the government's seal of approval and encouragement of homosexual relationships. It will be interesting to see if you change your mind now that I have provided court opinions and legal argumentation in support of my case, and in controvention to your bald opinion. I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 1, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

Without yet engaging my arguments, you have distorted, in several respects, what I said. This is my actual statement: "I suppose it wouldn't help to quote you court rulings, including those from SCOTUS, indicating that procreation is, indeed, a government interest and one of the very reasons that marriage is considered a fundamental right."

Here are some citations:

SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Said another way, marriage is a basic civil right of man because it is fundamental to our very existence and survival, and, implicitly, marriage is essential to our very existence and survival because it is the orderly pursuit of procreation. In short, marriage is a basic civil right because of its orderly pursuit of procreation. Procreation, then, is essential to marriage as a basic civil right. Since homosexual relationships are not procreative, then SSM does not qualify as a basic civil right.

If you doubt that the SCOTUS is here implicitly referring to procreation, you need but read the ruling in Skinner v. Oklahoma cited in the Loving ruling above, which is a case involving state-mandated sterilization for habitual criminals. Douglas' opinion begins: "This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring....We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

As for state interest in marriage, particularly in regards to procreation, and court rulings in relation thereto (including SCOTUS), here is an excellent article that covers the matter extensively: [ulr=http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/Ave%20Maria%201.pdf]State Interest in Marriage. I just now found this article, and I wish I had found it much earlier because it does a great job of articulating, arguing, and evincing the legal answer to the question of this thread.

So far, I presented rational argumentation and socio-economic evidence for governments, ancient and modern, having an interest in marriage as a means for encouraging population growth. I have done the same in establishing government, ancient and modern, interest in marriage as a means for encouraging "responsible procreation."

However, as compelling as this may be, you seem to have been not the least bit phased in your belief that the legal definition of marriage should be mangled well beyond it's traditional meaning to include same-sex couples, and you wish to put the government's seal of approval and encouragement of homosexual relationships. It will be interesting to see if you change your mind now that I have provided court opinions and legal argumentation in support of my case, and in controvention to your bald opinion. I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Is this government interest really just about procreation or does the government interest also extend to raising those children in stable homes?

[Stone holm]

Without yet engaging my arguments, you have distorted, in several respects, what I said. This is my actual statement: "I suppose it wouldn't help to quote you court rulings, including those from SCOTUS, indicating that procreation is, indeed, a government interest and one of the very reasons that marriage is considered a fundamental right."

Here are some citations:

SCOTUS ruled in Loving v Virginia: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

Said another way, marriage is a basic civil right of man because it is fundamental to our very existence and survival, and, implicitly, marriage is essential to our very existence and survival because it is the orderly pursuit of procreation. In short, marriage is a basic civil right because of its orderly pursuit of procreation. Procreation, then, is essential to marriage as a basic civil right. Since homosexual relationships are not procreative, then SSM does not qualify as a basic civil right.

If you doubt that the SCOTUS is here implicitly referring to procreation, you need but read the ruling in Skinner v. Oklahoma cited in the Loving ruling above, which is a case involving state-mandated sterilization for habitual criminals. Douglas' opinion begins: "This case touches a sensitive and important area of human rights. Oklahoma deprives certain individuals of a right which is basic to the perpetuation of a race the right to have offspring....We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race."

As for state interest in marriage, particularly in regards to procreation, and court rulings in relation thereto (including SCOTUS), here is an excellent article that covers the matter extensively: [ulr=http://www.marriagelawfoundation.org/publications/Ave%20Maria%201.pdf]State Interest in Marriage. I just now found this article, and I wish I had found it much earlier because it does a great job of articulating, arguing, and evincing the legal answer to the question of this thread.

So far, I presented rational argumentation and socio-economic evidence for governments, ancient and modern, having an interest in marriage as a means for encouraging population growth. I have done the same in establishing government, ancient and modern, interest in marriage as a means for encouraging "responsible procreation."

However, as compelling as this may be, you seem to have been not the least bit phased in your belief that the legal definition of marriage should be mangled well beyond it's traditional meaning to include same-sex couples, and you wish to put the government's seal of approval and encouragement of homosexual relationships. It will be interesting to see if you change your mind now that I have provided court opinions and legal argumentation in support of my case, and in controvention to your bald opinion. I won't hold my breath.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I opened Loving and also Skinner. Neither of these legal cases support your proposition. Loving is cited repeatedly in the pro-Gay marriage cases. There is no support in these cases for your proposition that the government has an interest in encouraging procreation. Loving is basically a racial civil rights case which clearly involved invidious discrimination. Skinner is a eugenics case which was thrown out. I suspected that the cases really did not stand for what you were asserting they did. I did not read the 1888 case, but I doubt it does either.

[wenglund]

Wait, what part did the government have in legitmizing the creation of my posterity?

The answer seem so obvious that I am embarrassed to say. But, since you asked, by definition, children born "illegitimately" are those that are born outside of wedlock (i.e. marriage). Since the government regulates marriage, and thus sets the boundaries of marriage, it then the sets the boundaries of legitimacy and illegitimacy for procreation (i.e. creating posterity). If you and your spouse are legally married, then the government has, by way of that legal marriage, legitimized your procreation (i.e. legitimized the creation of your posterity). Obviously.

You seem to be changing your argument now...

Nope. I am simply adding layers and dimensions to my argument as I progressively lay out my case.

You have spent page after page trying to build a case for why the government has an interest in increasing the population through procreation in marriages. If the government has that interest than why should it matter if children are created through medical advances as long as they are created within a stable married relationship?

I don't know that it would matter, nor have I argued that it would matter. All I am saying is that homosexual couples don't create children within any relationships, stable married or otherwise, regardless of the progress of science. Creation of human children, whether naturally or via science, requires heterosexual pairings. This is so basic, and such a no-brainer, that I am puzzled that you persistently don't get it--though it may benefit you to figure out why you don't get it.

If a couple is infertile and uses medical advances to create their children are they not of interest to the government?

Yes, though not specifically of interest to the government, but as a small, exceptional part of the general governmental interest in population growth, and not specifically an interest that the government may wish to or need to promote. In fact, because of the sizable disparity in costs between natural conception and medically facilitated conception, and that the overwhelming predominate form of conception is natural, the government may have a greater, if not only, interest in promoting natural conception than medically facilitated conception, Since infertile couples who are willing to incur the sizable cost of medical fertilization have already demonstrated more than sufficient desire to procreate, then the government's general interest in population growth will be met by these couples without the government needing to promote procreation or medically assisted procreation.

Is this starting to sink in?

And yes, adoption is not procreation. I did not suggest that it was. I suggested that it was "posterity" -- which it is. Adoption (in most cases) brings children from unstable environments into stable two parent homes. You've asserted that the government has an interest in children being raised in stable relationships, have you not?

Thus far, my arguments have been specific to procreation, and not "posterity" in general. When the discussion progresses to talking generally about "posterity" and "raising of children," then feel free to bring up adoption at that point. But, for now, it is irrelevant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Is this government interest really just about procreation or does the government interest also extend to raising those children in stable homes?

There are multiple governmental interests. Procreation is the interest we are currently discussing. Raising children in a stable home is another interest that I hope to get to as the discussion progresses. However, it is important that you first correctly understand the procreative interest because it is the prevailing governmental interest when it comes to marriage, and also because it is a key or foundational element of the governmental interest in raising children.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

The answer seem so obvious that I am embarrassed to say. But, since you asked, by definition, children born "illegitimately" are those that are born outside of wedlock (i.e. marriage). Since the government regulates marriage, and thus sets the boundaries of marriage, it then the sets the boundaries of legitimacy and illegitimacy for procreation (i.e. creating posterity). If you and your spouse are legally married, then the government has, by way of that legal marriage, legitimized your procreation (i.e. legitimized the creation of your posterity). Obviously.

Nope. I am simply adding layers and dimensions to my argument as I progressively lay out my case.

I don't know that it would matter, nor have I argued that it would matter. All I am saying is that homosexual couples don't create children within any relationships, stable married or otherwise, regardless of the progress of science. Creation of human children, whether naturally or via science, requires heterosexual pairings. This is so basic, and such a no-brainer, that I am puzzled that you persistently don't get it--though it may benefit you to figure out why you don't get it.

Yes, though not specifically of interest to the government, but as a small, exceptional part of the general governmental interest in population growth, and not specifically an interest that the government may wish to or need to promote. In fact, because of the sizable disparity in costs between natural conception and medically facilitated conception, and that the overwhelming predominate form of conception is natural, the government may have a greater, if not only, interest in promoting natural conception than medically facilitated conception, Since infertile couples who are willing to incur the sizable cost of medical fertilization have already demonstrated more than sufficient desire to procreate, then the government's general interest in population growth will be met by these couples without the government needing to promote procreation or medically assisted procreation.

Is this starting to sink in?

Thus far, my arguments have been specific to procreation, and not "posterity" in general. When the discussion progresses to talking generally about "posterity" and "raising of children," then feel free to bring up adoption at that point. But, for now, it is irrelevant.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

True one of the purposes was to legitimize descendants, although that form of descrimination has since been knocked out. Not sure what that has to do with the notion that marriage increases procreation, well actually I am fairly sure what that has to do with encouraging procreation -- nothing.

[wenglund]

I opened Loving and also Skinner. Neither of these legal cases support your proposition. Loving is cited repeatedly in the pro-Gay marriage cases. There is no support in these cases for your proposition that the government has an interest in encouraging procreation. Loving is basically a racial civil rights case which clearly involved invidious discrimination. Skinner is a eugenics case which was thrown out. I suspected that the cases really did not stand for what you were asserting they did. I did not read the 1888 case, but I doubt it does either.

I figured it wouldn't do any good to site the court cases and the relevant aspects of those case. As expected, and as with previous arguments and evidence, rather than reasonably and intelligently engaging what was presented, you simply and ignorantly and without basis dismissed it all out of hand. So, there is little point in even attempting to have a reasoned discussion with you on this issue. Your mind is clearly closed. Bye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 1, 2013 by wenglund

[rockpond]

The answer seem so obvious that I am embarrassed to say. But, since you asked, by definition, children born "illegitimately" are those that are born outside of wedlock (i.e. marriage). Since the government regulates marriage, and thus sets the boundaries of marriage, it then the sets the boundaries of legitimacy and illegitimacy for procreation (i.e. creating posterity). If you and your spouse are legally married, then the government has, by way of that legal marriage, legitimized your procreation (i.e. legitimized the creation of your posterity). Obviously.

Got it. I guess I just don't bother to put that much stock in the government. I married my wife in the House of the Lord and I believe that God "legitimized" my children.

Yes, though not specifically of interest to the government, but as a small, exceptional part of the general governmental interest in population growth, and not specifically an interest that the government may wish to or need to promote. In fact, because of the sizable disparity in costs between natural conception and medically facilitated conception, and that the overwhelming predominate form of conception is natural, the government may have a greater, if not only, interest in promoting natural conception than medically facilitated conception, Since infertile couples who are willing to incur the sizable cost of medical fertilization have already demonstrated more than sufficient desire to procreate, then the government's general interest in population growth will be met by these couples without the government needing to promote procreation or medically assisted procreation.

Is this starting to sink in?

Your view of government is starting to sink in... I think... So, if I understand correctly you believe that the government has an interest in promoting heterosexual, non-medically assisted procreation. Whereas infertile couples and homosexual couples who choose to procreate through medical advances or who choose to adopt children have already demonstrated sufficient desire to increase the population and thus do not need any incentives from the government? Is that a correct summary?

Thus far, my arguments have been specific to procreation, and not "posterity" in general. When the discussion progresses to talking generally about "posterity" and "raising of children," then feel free to bring up adoption at that point. But, for now, it is irrelevant.

Are these two things not already interconnected in your argument? The case you've laid out is that the government should promote procreation through marriage because that provides the most stable environment for the children which have been created. Now you want to claim that procreation and raising of children are separate government interests?

Fine. Move ahead. I think we are all curious to have you arrive at your point after 9 pages.

Edited May 1, 2013 by rockpond

[rockpond]

I figured it wouldn't do any good to site the court cases and the relevant aspects of those case. As expected, and as with previous arguments and evidence, rather than reasonably and intelligently engaging what was presented, you simply and ignorantly and without basis dismissed it all out of hand. So, there is little point in even attempting to have a reasoned discussion with you on this issue. Your mind is clearly closed. Bye.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade - Stone Holm makes a valid point. Loving has been cited as support for gay marriage so it's interesting to see you use it in support of your case against gay marriage. And, as we've been discussing... Loving used the term "posterity". Gay couples create posterity. You may not be in favor of their methodology, but they DO raise children. And children ARE posterity.

[rockpond]

There are multiple governmental interests. Procreation is the interest we are currently discussing. Raising children in a stable home is another interest that I hope to get to as the discussion progresses. However, it is important that you first correctly understand the procreative interest because it is the prevailing governmental interest when it comes to marriage, and also because it is a key or foundational element of the governmental interest in raising children.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You have said that the procreative interest of the government is increasing the population. Why does it matter if the population increase comes through natural conception or medically-aided conception?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I find it odd that people wonder why gov't is involved in marriage "now". They have been for as long as they figured out thy could charge for marriage licenses. When this started a very long time ago, it was defined as "one man one woman", if fact they used this law to take Church money and property during polygamy, not to mention the means to imprison our Church leaders. So this has been laws and involvement all over the Western World for 100's of years.

[wenglund]

My understanding is that the federal government can only do that which is authorized by the constitution. I think that incentivizing procreating is outside of that scope even if some citizens and some in the government think it is of interest.

Here is a SCOTUS ruling (Maynard v Hill), cited in Loving v Virginia, that talks somewhat about the basis of marital law in the U.S., whether states (and, by extension, the federal government) can be involved in marriage, and that marriage is more than a contract between husband and wife. It would be good for you to read it all the way through, though here are some pertinent snippets:

"Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority....Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution....It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress....

"When this country was settled, the power to grant a divorce from the bonds of matrimony was exercised by the Parliament of England. The ecclesiastical courts of that country were limited to the granting of divorces from bed and board. Naturally the legislative assemblies of the colonies followed the example of Parliament and treated the subject as one within their province. And until a recent period, legislative divorces have been granted, with few exceptions, in all the states....The granting of divorces from the bonds of matrimony was not confided to the courts in England, and from the earliest days the colonial and state legislatures in this country have assumed to possess the same power over the subject which was possessed by the Parliament, and from time to time they have passed special laws declaring a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony in special cases....Special divorce laws are legislative acts. This power has been exercised from the earliest period by the legislature of the province, and by that of the state, under the constitutions of 1776 and 1790. The continual exercise of the power after the adoption of the Constitution of 1790 cannot be accounted for except on the ground that all men, learned and unlearned, believed it to be a legitimate exercise of legislative power. This belief is further strengthened by the fact that no judicial decision has been made against it. Communis error facit jus would be sufficient to support it, but it stands upon higher ground of contemporaneous and continued construction of the people of their own instrument."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade - Stone Holm makes a valid point. Loving has been cited as support for gay marriage so it's interesting to see you use it in support of your case against gay marriage.

No, that isn't a valid point. It doesn't directly engage the specific points that I have made. If you believe it does, then take each of my points and show me where, in Loving the point is countered. Good luck with that.

And, as we've been discussing... Loving used the term "posterity". Gay couples create posterity. You may not be in favor of their methodology, but they DO raise children. And children ARE posterity.

Whether Loving uses the term "posterity" or not, and whether gay couples create "posterity" and raise children, is not pertinent to the specific points I have raised about PROCREATION. What will it take for you to finally get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

Here is a SCOTUS ruling (Maynard v Hill), cited in Loving v Virginia, that talks somewhat about the basis of marital law in the U.S., whether states (and, by extension, the federal government) can be involved in marriage, and that marriage is more than a contract between husband and wife. It would be good for you to read it all the way through, though here are some pertinent snippets:

"Marriage is something more than a mere contract, though founded upon the agreement of the parties. When once formed, a relation is created between the parties which they cannot change, and the rights and obligations of which depend not upon their agreement, but upon the law, statutory or common. It is an institution of society, regulated and controlled by public authority....Marriage, as creating the most important relation in life, as having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature. That body prescribes the age at which parties may contract to marry, the procedure or form essential to constitute marriage, the duties and obligations it creates, its effects upon the property rights of both, present and prospective, and the acts which may constitute grounds for its dissolution....It is also to be observed that while marriage is often termed by text writers and in decisions of courts as a civil contract, generally to indicate that it must be founded upon the agreement of the parties, and does not require any religious ceremony for its solemnization, it is something more than a mere contract. The consent of the parties is, of course, essential to its existence, but when the contract to marry is executed by the marriage, a relation between the parties is created which they cannot change. Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which in its purity the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress....

"When this country was settled, the power to grant a divorce from the bonds of matrimony was exercised by the Parliament of England. The ecclesiastical courts of that country were limited to the granting of divorces from bed and board. Naturally the legislative assemblies of the colonies followed the example of Parliament and treated the subject as one within their province. And until a recent period, legislative divorces have been granted, with few exceptions, in all the states....The granting of divorces from the bonds of matrimony was not confided to the courts in England, and from the earliest days the colonial and state legislatures in this country have assumed to possess the same power over the subject which was possessed by the Parliament, and from time to time they have passed special laws declaring a dissolution of the bonds of matrimony in special cases....Special divorce laws are legislative acts. This power has been exercised from the earliest period by the legislature of the province, and by that of the state, under the constitutions of 1776 and 1790. The continual exercise of the power after the adoption of the Constitution of 1790 cannot be accounted for except on the ground that all men, learned and unlearned, believed it to be a legitimate exercise of legislative power. This belief is further strengthened by the fact that no judicial decision has been made against it. Communis error facit jus would be sufficient to support it, but it stands upon higher ground of contemporaneous and continued construction of the people of their own instrument."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Okay. Still not seeing anything about incentivizing procreation. But that's okay... I thought we were kind of accepting that the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing was broad enough to cover just about anything the government desires to do.

[wenglund]

You have said that the procreative interest of the government is increasing the population. Why does it matter if the population increase comes through natural conception or medically-aided conception?

See my response to you in post #159.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[rockpond]

No, that isn't a valid point. It doesn't directly engage the specific points that I have made. If you believe it does, then take each of my points and show me where, in Loving the point is countered. Good luck with that.

Whether Loving uses the term "posterity" or not, and whether gay couples create "posterity" and raise children, is not pertinent to the specific points I have raised about PROCREATION. What will it take for you to finally get this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade,

I know you think we are just all being difficult here but, you are all over the map on this. I've done my best to follow along and here's what I've got from you so far:

1. You believe the the government has an interest in increasing population growth.

2. In order to further that interest, the government can provide incentives for procreation.

3. Since procreation is best done in marital relationships, the government can provide incentives for marriage.

4. It is not in the government's interest to provide incentives for gay couples or infertile couples because they cannot produce children without outside aid.

5. Raising children is, so far, not relevant to our discussion.

Alright... please help me understand if I've followed you to this point. Can you either affirm or correct each of those statements and add any others that I have missed?

Edited May 1, 2013 by rockpond

[wenglund]

Got it. I guess I just don't bother to put that much stock in the government. I married my wife in the House of the Lord and I believe that God "legitimized" my children.

That is a nice sentiment that I also share. It just isn't relevant to the context of government involvement in marriage--which, in case you may have forgotten, is the topic of this thread. Regardless of how much stock one may or may not put in the government, I was rightly, and in context, speaking of "legitimacy" in the eye of the law, and not in the eyes of God. Please, try a little harder to follow the line of discussion, in context.

Your view of government is starting to sink in... I think... So, if I understand correctly you believe that the government has an interest in promoting heterosexual, non-medically assisted procreation.

There is no other form of human procreation than heterosexual. Did no one take you aside to teach you about "the birds and the bees"?

Whereas infertile couples and homosexual couples who choose to procreate through medical advances or who choose to adopt children have already demonstrated sufficient desire to increase the population and thus do not need any incentives from the government?

Again, homosexual couples CAN NOT PROCREATE. What part of that statement do you not understand?

Is that a correct summary?

No. It fails in several respect. Please use, instead, the summary I gave in my own words. Keep in mind the important distinctions I drew between the government's interest, itself, and the government promoting that interest; as well as the distinction between the general and certain exceptional specifics.

Are these two things not already interconnected in your argument?

Only superficially at this point.

The case you've laid out is that the government should promote procreation through marriage because that provides the most stable environment for the children which have been created.

Not exactly. My argument thus far regarding state interest in marriage, has been about "responsible procreation," which, among other things that I posited, but touches on the stability of environment for children, though it doesn't directly address that issue. It might help you in following the line of discussion to realize that, up to this point, I have been talking about procreation and marriage, and not yet about marriage and raising children. Does that compute?

Now you want to claim that procreation and raising of children are separate government interests?

From the outset I have viewed them as separate interests--and rightly so--though I may not have said as much since it didn't need to be said until now.

Fine. Move ahead. I think we are all curious to have you arrive at your point after 9 pages.

I have been making points all along. It has taken 9 pages to make some of the points because I have been dealing with respondents who seem quite challenged in grasping even some of the most obvious and uncontroversial points--i.e I am working against the cementing of years of inane pop cultural indoctrination.

Once you correctly grasp my points, then we can finally move forward. Until then, I will try my best to be patient. It may help now that I will no longer attempt to converse with respondents, like california boy and Stone holm, who clearly are unwilling or able to have a rational, intelligent, and meaningful exchange on this issue.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[tyler90az]

To claim the reason for marriage stems all the way back to the romans means we are admitting it was tradition. Something handed down from one generation to another without much thought. If we go back to the begning of the USA it appears that in 1776 marriage was more of a property contract then anything. There is no hint that it was in order to promote procreation.

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/womens-history/essays/legal-status-women-1776%E2%80%931830

Edited May 2, 2013 by tyler90az

[wenglund]

Wade,

I know you think we are just all being difficult here but, you are all over the map on this.I've done my best to follow along and here's what I've got from you so far:

No, I haven't been all over the map. I have presented a rather consistent, linear argument. What has made things difficult, is you haven't correctly grasped what I have said, and misread things into what I have said, which may have confused you into errantly concluding that I have been all over the map. See below:

1. You believe that the government has an interest in increasing population growth.

Here is how I more accurately stated it:

A. Governments, including modern U.S., have an interest in population growth through procreation (in addition to, and perhaps even preferential to, immigration).

2. In order to further that interest, the government can provide incentives for procreation.

3. Since procreation is best done in marital relationships, the government can provide incentives for marriage.

Here is how I more accurately stated it:

B. In terms of overall cost/benefits, it has been in the interest of governments, including modern U.S., to promote procreative population growth through marriage.

C. It is also in the interest of governments, including the U.S., to channel the procreative drive into marriage, or in other words, promote procreation through marriage.

In short, the government has an interest in responsible procreation, which is best done through marriage.

4. It is not in the government's interest to provide incentives for gay couples or infertile couples because they cannot produce children without outside aid.

I have made no such argument. Rather, I have intimated that, in regards to marriage:

1) the government has no procreative interest in, and no reason to promote responsible procreation, within homosexual relationships because they can't procreate,

2) As for infertile couples, I have said "yes," the government does have an interest in them responsibly procreating, though the government may not have a reason to, or a need to, promote medically assisted procreation. Because of the sizable disparity in costs between natural conception and medically facilitated conception, and that the overwhelming predominate form of conception is natural, the government may have a greater, if not only, interest in PROMOTING natural conception than medically facilitated conception, Since infertile couples who are willing to incur the sizable cost of medical fertilization have already demonstrated more than sufficient desire to procreate, then the government's general interest in population growth will be met by these couples without the government needing to PROMOTE procreation or medically assisted procreation.

(Do you see the important distinction I made between the government interest, itself, and their PROMOTING that interest? Do you also see the important distinction regarding government interest that I drew between homosexual couples and infertile couples?)

5. Raising children is, so far, not relevant to our discussion.

Close enough.

Alright... please help me understand if I've followed you to this point. Can you either affirm or correct each of those statements and add any others that I have missed?

Done.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2013 by wenglund

[Stone holm]

Okay, I read the Maynard case all the way through. There is nothing in that case which at all suggests that the regulation of marriage has anything to do with incentivizing procreation. To the contrary, that case is a very strong case for exactly what the opponents have been arguing that the government interest is in the stabilization of a relationship between two adults. The case cannot be understood as settling the State versus Federal right to regulate marriage since it is a territorial case. I would argue, however, that marriage clearly falls within the scope of the general welfare so it would seem to me that Congress could regulate it if it so chose. The conservative wing of the SCOTUS has been trying to breath more life into the 10th Amendment than Madison said it had since he considered it a mere tautology which by its language neither conferred or withdrew power, so no one knows for sure what might happen. So far I have seen nothing in these cases which links marriage to incentivizing procreation. What I do see is the Court suggesting that the married relationship is the most important relationship which two people can form. Which suggests to me that it is very likely that DOMA and Prop 8 will both fall.

Edited May 2, 2013 by Stone holm