North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban

Pietro Armando wrote:

<quoted text>
1.) It is about "equal protection", is it not? That's the claim made by SSMers. The relationships of SSCs are, or should be, equal in the eyes of the law, as are those of OSCs. The fundamental right to marry a person of one's choosing, is the foundation, or one of the foundations, of the ssm movement. All polygamists are asking is to extend that right to "persons" of one's choosing.
2.) Why can't bigots see that polygamy is a form of marriage that has been practiced in numerous times and places, including in the U.S, and that it has a far greater historical foundation than same sex marriage which is a relatively modern inverntion. Why can't those same bigot see that polygamists are real people with families, loved ones they want to protect. Why do gay people get to have their relatioships recognized by law but we can't? We thought love and commitment made a family?

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthought...

Here are key excerpts from his opinion.(I assure you that this summary (which was compiled by the Wall Street Journal) comes from the actual opinion and not from The Onion.)

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of society.(Page 85)

This one is straightforward: replace “polygamous partners” for “gays and lesbians and it would be equally as applicable.

Proposition 8 has had a negative fiscal impact on California and local governments.(Page 90)

Even for an opinion riddled with idiotic reasoning, this justification is exceptionally ridiculous. Almost every law passed has a negative fiscal impact on California. That does not make them unconstitutional. Nevertheless, if preventing homosexuals from marrying has a negative fiscal impact, the same must hold true for denying polygamists the right to marry.

Proposition 8 increases costs and decreases wealth for same sex couples because of increased tax burdens, decreased availability of health insurance and higher transactions costs to secure rights and obligations typically associated with marriage. Domestic partnership reduces but does not eliminate these costs.(Page 91)

The same holds true for polygamists.

Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are not good parents.(Page 93)

The same holds true for polygamists. Both research and common sense support the idea that children function better when they have both a mother and a father. In a polygamous marriage, the child would generally not only have a mother and father but a spare parent as well. Imagine the benefit of having both parents at work and yet still having a parent who can stay home with the children.

Since many children in America already have multiple stepparents, why would it be any more detrimental to their psychological health to have all these parents living under the same roof?

Children raised by gay or lesbian parents are as likely as children raised by heterosexual parents to be healthy, successful and well-adjusted. The research supporting this conclusion is accepted beyond serious debate in the field of developmental psychology.(Page 95)

The evidence is exactly the opposite of what Walker concludes. But it’s not like he really cares about facts anyway. Nevertheless, the same mythical social science studies could be used to support polygamous marriage.
"to be cont'd)

(cont'd)
"The Proposition 8 campaign relied on fears that children exposed to the concept of same-sex marriage may become gay or lesbian. The reason children need to be protected from same-sex marriage was never articulated in official campaign advertisements. Nevertheless, the advertisements insinuated that learning about same-sex marriage could make a child gay or lesbian and that parents should dread having a gay or lesbian child.(Page 105)

No they didn’t. Walker is either ignorant or dishonest. But again, we could apply the same reasoning to the stigmatization of polygamists.

Relative gender composition aside, same-sex couples are situated identically to opposite-sex couples in terms of their ability to perform the rights and obligations of marriage under California law. Gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage; marriage under law is a union of equals.(Page 113)

Even Walker isn’t dumb enough to believe that gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage. But if that’s the reasoning we are using, then the multiplication of genders would not change the conclusion.

Having considered the evidence, the relationship between sex and sexual orientation and the fact that Proposition 8 eliminates a right only a gay man or a lesbian would exercise, the court determines that plaintiffs’ equal protection claim is based on sexual orientation, but this claim is equivalent to a claim of discrimination based on sex.(Page 121)

Since polygamists would be marrying someone of the same sex, this reasoning is applicable.

Proposition 8 ... enshrines in the California Constitution a gender restriction that the evidence shows to be nothing more than an artifact of a foregone notion that men and women fulfill different roles in civic life.

The evidence shows that the state advances nothing when it adheres to the tradition of excluding same-sex couples from marriage. Proponents’ asserted state interests in tradition are nothing more than tautologies.

In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples. Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.(Page 132)

Unlike gay marriage, polygamy has been widely practiced throughout history. There are few civilizations, religions, or cultures where polygamy has not taken root.

In fact, almost ever religion has, at some point in their development, accepted the legitimacy of polygamy. All of the major world religions—Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity—have condoned the practice of taking multiple spouses. In contrast, none of them has ever tolerated, much less openly accepted, same-sex marriage.

The same holds true for most every culture on earth. Out of 1170 societies recorded in Murdock’s Ethnographic Atlas, polygyny (the practice of men having more than one wife) is prevalent in 850. Even our own culture, which has an astoundingly high divorce and remarriage rate, practices a form of serial polygamy.

The reasons for favoring gay marriage while excluding polygamy are completely arbitrary and based on personal preference. If you truly believe that gays have a legal right to marry then you have no grounds for barring polyamorous groups from doing the same.

This leaves proponents of same-sex marriage with two choices. They either have to accept that polygamy is just as legitimate as gay marriage or they must admit that there is no inherent “right” to expand the definition of marriage. "

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't. I find an expectation of procreation just as we have an expectation of love and commitment, yet none are REQUIRED.
That we deny marriage to close relatives on genetic concerns means we indeed assume procreation may occur in a marriage. Exceptions do not negate this assumption.
If you read the SCOTUS cases you will see we have a fundamental or natural right to procreate. Since many of us use marriage as a protector of this relationship, marriage is given favor as it relates to our natural right to have kids. This sis not my theory, this is the basis for our CONSTITUTIONAL marriage rights.
Think about natural rights, in the state of nature, we all have the right to have sex with anyone we want, but who gets a MARRIAGE LICENSE in the state of nature? Ain't no city hall to get one!
Procreation is the natural right, marriage is a civil protection of that natural right. Recognition is a mere side effect of that protection, but that's all you are after. Its like you want the club jacket but not to actually be in the club.

No, you are incorrect. It is not the BASIS of our constitutional marriage rights, as there is no need to procreate to utilize those rights. people that are unable or wnwilling to procreate still have those rights.

Pietro Armando wrote:

1.) It is about "equal protection", is it not? That's the claim made by SSMers. The relationships of SSCs are, or should be, equal in the eyes of the law, as are those of OSCs. The fundamental right to marry a person of one's choosing, is the foundation, or one of the foundations, of the ssm movement. All polygamists are asking is to extend that right to "persons" of one's choosing.
2.) Why can't bigots see that polygamy is a form of marriage that has been practiced in numerous times and places, including in the U.S, and that it has a far greater historical foundation than same sex marriage which is a relatively modern inverntion. Why can't those same bigot see that polygamists are real people with families, loved ones they want to protect. Why do gay people get to have their relatioships recognized by law but we can't? We thought love and commitment made a family?

The question might well be asked, why can’t idiots count?

Three or more is greater than two. Period, end of story. Polygamy is not an equal protection question as it seeks inherently greater protection.

Do you have a competent argument against same sex marriage?

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't. I find an expectation of procreation just as we have an expectation of love and commitment, yet none are REQUIRED.
That we deny marriage to close relatives on genetic concerns means we indeed assume procreation may occur in a marriage. Exceptions do not negate this assumption.
If you read the SCOTUS cases you will see we have a fundamental or natural right to procreate. Since many of us use marriage as a protector of this relationship, marriage is given favor as it relates to our natural right to have kids. This sis not my theory, this is the basis for our CONSTITUTIONAL marriage rights.
Think about natural rights, in the state of nature, we all have the right to have sex with anyone we want, but who gets a MARRIAGE LICENSE in the state of nature? Ain't no city hall to get one!
Procreation is the natural right, marriage is a civil protection of that natural right. Recognition is a mere side effect of that protection, but that's all you are after. Its like you want the club jacket but not to actually be in the club.

marriage is not a civil protection of the right to procreate in any way. it is the legal recognitions of that pertnership and of any heirs produced by it.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
its a small point and not worth the attention, but NO I AM NOT SAYING THAT! I am saying the lack of changing names means the unification is not the primary motivation to the marriage....in other words, not changing your name is like choosing not to procreate which by your logic negates any link to the institution of marriage.
The reason you are having trouble following is that I am using your side's logic as to procreation and its confusing because its bullflop!

The reason I am not following is that you are not using any logic. not procreating does in no way negate the contract of marriage. i have never stated anything to the contrary. the contact of marriage has nothing to do with procreation. it leglly rcognizes the partnership and any heirs that mey result from it.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>No, you are incorrect. It is not the BASIS of our constitutional marriage rights, as there is no need to procreate to utilize those rights. people that are unable or wnwilling to procreate still have those rights.

did you even try to read any of those cases? clearly not.
did you catch that you just repeated your same silly logic in response to my post pointing out how silly it is?
did you miss it or are you being purposefully pig headed?

exceptions don't negate rules, and your denial doesn't negate our SCOTUS precedent.

FYI, there is a reality that all of us get to see, and when your declarations don't line up to it, we know!

the funny thing is, in you not understanding you say "as there is no need to procreate to utilize those rights" while missing that gay marriage is specifically not a right due to procreation....

having both moms and dads equal marriage....got them, come on in...otherwise something is missing...

how do lesbians handle this weekend?
poor kids being told they don't need a dad...
make two cards for mom again...
tell them that they are the same as other kids from "broken homes"...that will make them feel better...

EdmondWA wrote:

<quoted text>
I've never heard of a person who CAN'T love. Can you provide at least one case of such a person existing?
For those who DON'T love, are you talking about arranged marriages? Marriages of convenience? None of this seems relevant or analogous. Or even real.
Love is one of the primary motivators of the decision to marry. I don't know anyone who has chosen to marry in the absence of love. Do you?
<quoted text>
Marriages with so little commitment in them tend to be doomed. Commitment isn't a "requirement" of marriage, but it sure helps! The whole point of becoming a family is to protect the people that you've come to love. If you aren't committed to that plan, then there's very little POINT in marrying.
<quoted text>
But none of your "examples" preclude gay couples from participating in marriage.
<quoted text>
Yeah it is. People can still be family even if they don't share the same name. Come on. That was a poor attempt.
<quoted text>
And that's just hyperbole and word-twisting. At no time did I say it should be meaningless.
There isn't a person in this discussion anywhere who advocates making marriage "meaningless", or discarding ALL standards of who qualifies.
But the reality is, this world comes with people who partner with people of their own gender. They deserve a function that helps protect the bonds that they form. They don't deserve to be shunned and hidden and shoved out.
Gay people have had to fight for nearly EVERY right we hold, practically even the right to EXIST. None of you are very convincing when you try to say this is about "protecting" marriage. This is just another example of playing "keep-away" from the gays, another right you're not willing to share.
It's an attempt to pretend that gay people do NOT exist, that we don't deserve inclusion with society, that we don't fall deeply in love, that we don't care about building a family. We do. And we deserve participation in this time-honored tradition.

People marry for different reasons. Love is only one of them, but doesn't have to be a component. Truth be told, it usually is (for the 1st one anyway).

As far as the same name goes, I have a friend (female) who kept her own name when she married, but gave her daughter her father's last name (of course), and said it was the biggest hassle for both of them, since no one 'immediately' understood (doctors, school officials, etc) why their names were different. Names matter.
In our family, we all had the same last name (we were a nuclear family, same mom and dad). I used to see the shame in kids that didn't have their step-dad's name or brothers and sisters with different last names, etc. Names matter.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>The reason I am not following is that you are not using any logic. not procreating does in no way negate the contract of marriage. i have never stated anything to the contrary. the contact of marriage has nothing to do with procreation. it leglly rcognizes the partnership and any heirs that mey result from it.

find any support for yourself that procreation has nothingh to do with marriage...you are spouting without a basis...
and you clearly never read a scotus case!

so we have our laws versus your opinion....
not even close.
"These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court

The institution of marriage as a union man and woman,****uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family,***** is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation."
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aot56FHha...

"uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family"
wow, you couldn't be more wrong.
where's your scotus cut and paste?
got some out of context dicta for me cause that all you have?

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>marriage is not a civil protection of the right to procreate in any way. it is the legal recognitions of that pertnership and of any heirs produced by it.

says you, google away and find me anyone else that says that.

I know why you can't.
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family...
"

I understand that you need to deny this as it deflates all your rhetoric, but its just a bare and silly denial of legal reality.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
did you even try to read any of those cases? clearly not.
did you catch that you just repeated your same silly logic in response to my post pointing out how silly it is?
did you miss it or are you being purposefully pig headed?
exceptions don't negate rules, and your denial doesn't negate our SCOTUS precedent.
FYI, there is a reality that all of us get to see, and when your declarations don't line up to it, we know!
the funny thing is, in you not understanding you say "as there is no need to procreate to utilize those rights" while missing that gay marriage is specifically not a right due to procreation....
having both moms and dads equal marriage....got them, come on in...otherwise something is missing...
how do lesbians handle this weekend?
poor kids being told they don't need a dad...
make two cards for mom again...
tell them that they are the same as other kids from "broken homes"...that will make them feel better...

Not a whole lot of sense to your post, and no logic whatsoever.

there is no requirement for procreation to secure the right to marry. None at all. it is not the esception to the rule, it is the rule.

Your attempts to tie the right of marriage to procreation have no logic and no constitutional backing.

major fail.

Get That Fool wrote:

<quoted text>
People marry for different reasons. Love is only one of them, but doesn't have to be a component. Truth be told, it usually is (for the 1st one anyway).
As far as the same name goes, I have a friend (female) who kept her own name when she married, but gave her daughter her father's last name (of course), and said it was the biggest hassle for both of them, since no one 'immediately' understood (doctors, school officials, etc) why their names were different. Names matter.
In our family, we all had the same last name (we were a nuclear family, same mom and dad). I used to see the shame in kids that didn't have their step-dad's name or brothers and sisters with different last names, etc. Names matter.

perhaps you projected that shomw on them and it never really existed.

perhaps you lied about the whole thing. we have all seen how you are willining to do that openly to support your prejudice.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
find any support for yourself that procreation has nothingh to do with marriage...you are spouting without a basis...
and you clearly never read a scotus case!
so we have our laws versus your opinion....
not even close.
"These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman,****uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family,***** is as old as the book of Genesis. Skinner V. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S.Ct. 1110, 1113, 86 L.Ed. 1655, 1660 (1942), which invalidated Oklahoma's Habitual Criminal Sterilization Act on equal protection grounds, stated in part: "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race." This historic institution manifestly is more deeply founded than the asserted contemporary concept of marriage and societal interests for which petitioners contend. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a charter for restructuring it by judicial legislation."
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Aot56FHha...
"uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family"
wow, you couldn't be more wrong.
where's your scotus cut and paste?
got some out of context dicta for me cause that all you have?

yes, uniquely involving, but in no way necessary to secure that right to marry.

Can you show any hint that procreation, or even the supposition or promise of procreation, is necessary to secure this right? No, you will not be able to. it is not there. procreation has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional right to marry.

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
says you, google away and find me anyone else that says that.
I know why you can't.
The institution of marriage as a union man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family...
"
I understand that you need to deny this as it deflates all your rhetoric, but its just a bare and silly denial of legal reality.

Every SCOTUS decision on the right to marry says that, you just don't understand it.

you cannot find one case that says procreation is a neccessary part of the right to marry. people that cannot procreate have the same right to marry as you do. My own daughter is proof of that. her marriage is as legal as anyone else's and she has the same right to marry as any other citizen.(except the homosexual members of our society, but that will change.)

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>N
Your attempts to tie the right of marriage to procreation have no logic and no constitutional backing.
major fail.

so you just flat refuse to read any of the law here and just declare things?

must be bliss..

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>yes, uniquely involving, but in no way necessary to secure that right to marry.
Can you show any hint that procreation, or even the supposition or promise of procreation, is necessary to secure this right? No, you will not be able to. it is not there. procreation has absolutely nothing to do with the constitutional right to marry.

calling it a requirement is bukllsh!t. period.
get over it, its dumb.

It was addressed IN BAKER as DUMB. but stay ignorant and continue to prove you are ignorant:
" Petitioners note that the state does not impose upon heterosexual married couples a condition that they have a proved capacity or declared willingness to procreate, posing a rhetorical demand that this court must read such condition into the statute if same-sex marriages are to be prohibited. Even assuming that such a condition would be neither unrealistic nor offensive under the Griswold rationale, the classification is no more than theoretically imperfect. We are reminded, however, that "abstract symmetry" is not demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment."

"abstract symmetry"...that's fancy talk for your trying to make an exception negate the rule and that is just plain dumb.

Are you even remotely right that procreation is irrelevant? Nope, you are totally wrong.

Go ahead and tell me Baker is not relevant and defy every court that has relied on it based on your ignorant opinion...
this never gets old, but its sad to me that you are seeking rights that you are so ignorant about and that you get the same vote as me.
Why is it I keep posting support and you have NONE but your bold and inaccurate proclamations?
I know why.

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Every SCOTUS decision on the right to marry says that, you just don't understand it.
you cannot find one case that says procreation is a neccessary part of the right to marry. people that cannot procreate have the same right to marry as you do. My own daughter is proof of that. her marriage is as legal as anyone else's and she has the same right to marry as any other citizen.(except the homosexual members of our society, but that will change.)

"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."

name that case?
you have no clue do you?

where are your quotes?"
I know why there are none. Your full of it...prove me wrong with any support...I know why you won't!

In Anderson et al. v. King County, a case that challenged Washington's Defense of Marriage Act, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the law survive constitutional attack. The majority concluded that the legislature had rational basis, that is, it was entitled to believe, and to act on such belief, that only allowing opposite-sex marriages "furthers procreation."[15] In response, a group of marriage advocates filed what became Initiative 957 which, if passed, would have made procreation a legal requirement for marriage in Washington State.[citation needed] The Maryland Supreme Court used similar grounds to rule that it was permissible to confer the benefits of marriage only on opposite-sex couples.[16]
The issue of procreation highlights a biological inequality between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, an inequality that is raised in American legal circles in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.[citation needed] In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage in Federal law as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". Congressional record, a House Report (H.R. 104-664 at 33, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, 1996), states that procreation is key to the requirement of a valid marriage being a union and of one man and one woman.

In Conaway v. Deane, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled (2003) that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging a family structure in which children are born. The court then refrained from deciding whether this interest was served by the status quo, leaving it to the other branches to decide.
In July 2006, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld a state law that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in the case Andersen v. King County,[18] which was cited months later by the Maryland Supreme Court. The court ruling stated that state legislation failing to recognize same sex marriages had rational bases, one of which involved procreation and marriage.
In June 2005, a New Jersey state appeals court, in the decision Lewis v. Harris, upheld a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in part, by accepting that the marriage procreation link although maybe not wise wasn't irrational.
In 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals, in a decision Standhardt v. Superior Court (77 P.3d 451, 463-464) with regards to Arizona's state marriage law, a three judge panel concluded that the petitioners had failed to prove that the State's prohibition of same sex marriage is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest holding that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the marital relationship, and that limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman is rationally related to that interest and that even assuming that the State's reasoning for prohibiting same sex marriage was debatable, it was not 'arbitrary' or 'irrational'.

wow, all that and your response is that it didn't happen and its not relevant...(get how I chose my name now?)
again, must be bliss for you...

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>Still a vacuum, isn't it? i am fully aware that space is not empty, it does in fact have energy, but it is still a vacuum, is it not?

Only relatively.

We don't know about intergalactic space, but so far, in THIS galaxy there isn't a cubic meter without quite a bit in it.

Energy? Hmm. Is that a wave? a particle? a wavicle?

lol

We'd better stop. If we go much further the language begins to fail and we are left with verbiage that starts to sound pretty mystical.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Reality wrote:

<quoted text>
"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."
name that case?
you have no clue do you?
where are your quotes?"
I know why there are none. Your full of it...prove me wrong with any support...I know why you won't!
In Anderson et al. v. King County, a case that challenged Washington's Defense of Marriage Act, the Washington Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the law survive constitutional attack. The majority concluded that the legislature had rational basis, that is, it was entitled to believe, and to act on such belief, that only allowing opposite-sex marriages "furthers procreation."[15] In response, a group of marriage advocates filed what became Initiative 957 which, if passed, would have made procreation a legal requirement for marriage in Washington State.[citation needed] The Maryland Supreme Court used similar grounds to rule that it was permissible to confer the benefits of marriage only on opposite-sex couples.[16]
The issue of procreation highlights a biological inequality between opposite-sex and same-sex couples, an inequality that is raised in American legal circles in light of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.[citation needed] In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act that defines marriage in Federal law as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife". Congressional record, a House Report (H.R. 104-664 at 33, 104th Congress, 2nd Session, 1996), states that procreation is key to the requirement of a valid marriage being a union and of one man and one woman.
In Conaway v. Deane, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled (2003) that the State has a legitimate interest in encouraging a family structure in which children are born. The court then refrained from deciding whether this interest was served by the status quo, leaving it to the other branches to decide.
In July 2006, the Washington state Supreme Court upheld a state law that defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in the case Andersen v. King County,[18] which was cited months later by the Maryland Supreme Court. The court ruling stated that state legislation failing to recognize same sex marriages had rational bases, one of which involved procreation and marriage.
In June 2005, a New Jersey state appeals court, in the decision Lewis v. Harris, upheld a state law defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, in part, by accepting that the marriage procreation link although maybe not wise wasn't irrational.
In 2003, the Arizona Court of Appeals, in a decision Standhardt v. Superior Court (77 P.3d 451, 463-464) with regards to Arizona's state marriage law, a three judge panel concluded that the petitioners had failed to prove that the State's prohibition of same sex marriage is not rationally relationship, and that limiting marriage to the union of one man and one woman is rationally related to that interest and that even assuming that the State's reasoning for prohibiting same sex marriage was debatable, it was not 'arbitrary' or 'irrational'.
wow, all that and your response is that it didn't happen and its not relevant...(get how I chose my name now?)
again, must be bliss for you...

Yet you still cannot come up with one case that states that procreation is a necessary part of the right ot marry, can you?

Where are your quotes? Where are your examples of a souple being denied the right to marry because they were unable to or unwilling to procreate?

you keep posting the same cases that say it is an integral par tof marrige, and no-one is disputing that, but you have yet to, and never will, be able to show that it is a necessary part of the right to marry.

you are wrong on this point, Man up and wdmit it or provide the proof of your statement.

snyper wrote:

<quoted text>
Only relatively.
We don't know about intergalactic space, but so far, in THIS galaxy there isn't a cubic meter without quite a bit in it.
Energy? Hmm. Is that a wave? a particle? a wavicle?
lol
We'd better stop. If we go much further the language begins to fail and we are left with verbiage that starts to sound pretty mystical.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

it has matter in it, but it is still a vacuum, as we use that term.