Mildred Loving issued a powerful statement on the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia. Excerpt:
not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others.
The Bay Area Reporter has more, and links to the YouTube video of the press conference where Loving's statement was released.
112 Comments for “Loving Speaks”
posted by Fitz on
The problem with the (horribly over used) Loving example is its power comes from mere analogy. The problem with analogy is it is exactly that: an analogy.
Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy. Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of ant?miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.
Note this quick rebuke of same-sex ?marriage? offered by the plurality in Hernandez v. New York,
Justice Smith, when confronting the idea that marriage as historically defined was analogous to Loving.
?[T]he traditional definition of marriage is not merely a byproduct of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind.?
The use of the term kind is telling. Not a matter of degree, mind you. Rather a different of qualitative substance?a difference of kind.
As dismissals of the Loving v Virginia case goes, this is rather mild. However ? I like it for precisely that reason. It dismisses casually a analogy that doesn?t hold up precisely because it is not the same kind of things being compared.
As the Washington decision illustrates
“We vigorously reject any attempt to link the discriminatory Anti miscegenation laws in Loving with this State?s DOMA. The Washington Court of Appeals in Singer correctly noted:the Loving and Perez courts [Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal. 2d 711, 198 P.2d 17 (1948)] did not change the basic definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman; rather, they merely held that the race of the man or woman desiring to enter that relationship could not be considered by the state in granting a marriage license. 11 Wn. App. at 255 n.8. Numerous other courts have all rejected the claim that the decision in Loving somehow challenged state laws reaffirming marriage as the union of one man and one woman.25 Careful review of the historical context of Loving further undermines the dissents? disturbing attempt to link constitutionally void, racist laws with a historical definition of marriage as between a man and woman. Anti miscegenation laws were anathema to the ?color-blind? constitution articulated in Justice John Marshall Harlan?s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson.26 Anti miscegenation laws infringed upon the union of one man and one woman by injecting racial status as a qualification. Such laws contradicted the fact that a man and a woman of any race have the natural right to marry and have children. This right is protected by the United States and Washington State Constitutions. Racially discriminatory anti miscegenation laws also violate the right to marriage between a man and a woman. Here, in contrast, the State?s DOMA simply confirms the common law understanding of marriage as a union of a man and woman. It is the dissent that would abrogate the common law understanding through judicial fiat.”
Every court has rejected the Loving v Virginia reasoning as inapplicable. Even the Goodridge (Mass) court refused to give homosexuals strict scrutiny protection as Loving accorded to race.
posted by Casey on
Fitz, seriously, recycling posts, especially posts this long, is just annoying. This has got to be the third time I’ve seen you post this argument, and it doesn’t get any better with age. It’s still simply one court accepting the tired idea of “it is what it is because it is” – which isn’t an argument, it’s just somebody with power shouting a definition.
posted by ETJB on
No, the issue at hand is strict vs. rational legal scrutiny.
The court has created three different levels of legal scrutiny when it comes to government sponsored discrimination and gays are on the lowest level.
posted by Fitz on
Casey
“Fitz, seriously, recycling posts, especially posts this long, is just annoying. This has got to be the third time I’ve seen you post this argument, and it doesn’t get any better with age. It’s still simply one court accepting the tired idea of “it is what it is because it is” – which isn’t an argument, it’s just somebody with power shouting a definition.”
Wrong. I discuss THREE seperate rulings on same-sex “marriage” that confront the flawed Loving anology.
But for good measure; Heres two more legal opinions on the subject.
?transmuted the “right” to marry into a right to change the institution of marriage itself.?1
“only by assuming that ‘marriage’ includes the union of two persons of the same sex does the court conclude that restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples infringes on the ‘right’ of same-sex couples to ‘marry’.?2
“[i]n context, all of these decisions and their discussions are about the ‘fundamental’ nature of the institution of marriage as it has existed and been understood in this country, not as the court has redefined it today.?3
Maintaining that marriage’s – ?’fundamental’ nature is derivative of the nature of the interests that underlie or are associated with it? -and that a an – ?examination of those interests reveals that they are either not shared by same-sex couples or not implicated by the marriage statutes.?4
1,2,3,4, – Goodridge v. Dept. of Pub. Health,798 N.E.2d 941, 955 (Mass 2003)
& The California Court
“Constitutionally protected fundamental rights need not be defined so broadly that they will inevitably be exercised by everyone. For example, although the ability to make personal decisions regarding child rearing and education has been recognized as a fundamental right (see, e.g., Pierce v. Society of the Sisters (1925) 268 U.S. 510, 534- 535), this right is irrelevant to people who do not have children. Yet, everyone who has children enjoys this fundamental right to control their upbringing. A similar analogy applies in the case of marriage. Everyone has a fundamental right to ?marriage,? but, because of how this institution has been defined, this means only that everyone has a fundamental right to enter a public union with an opposite-sex partner. That such a right is irrelevant to a lesbian or gay person does not mean the definition of the fundamental right can be expanded by the judicial branch beyond its traditional moorings.”1
1- In re Marriage Cases, Cal. App. 2006, McGuiness, P. J. (writing for the majority.)
posted by Casey on
Regarding level of scrutiny, gays have been held to be on the lowest level thus far, yes – but should they be? Fair question. Intermediate scrutiny, usually used for discrimination based on sex/gender, is justified because sex is basically an immutable characteristic subject to a history of discrimination, but where, unlike race, there are sometimes legally relevant reasons for discrimination such that courts choose to defer to the legislature. Seems to me like a very good argument can be made that sexual orientation should be held to the same standard – of course, just because it’s logical doesn’t mean that a court will make the decision to do so – there are social and political considerations as well – and so to avoid doing so, judges find all sorts of hoops to jump through to avoid it, including the “it’s the definition of the thing, so I don’t even have to think about what level of scrutiny to hold you to” claim.(There’s also a reasonable debate as to whether courts really are using rational basis scrutiny in cases regarding gays, since it seems, particularly in cases like Romer v. Evans, to be something stronger… “rational basis with bite” as it’s been called).
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
The law restricting marriage to “one man, one woman” is discrimination on the basis of sex. If a man has a right to marry a woman, a woman deserves the same right to marry a woman. If a woman has a right to marry a man, a man deserves the same right to marry a man.
posted by Audrey B on
No one on this board should ever respond to Fitz ever, for any reason, at any time, under any circumstances. I repeat; Do not feed the troll.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Audrey, I don’t expect to change Fitz’s mind, I don’t care what he/she thinks, but I do want to expose his arguments for the frauds they are for the benefit of other readers who might errantly think he’s made a point.
posted by Audrey B on
Randi, anyone who takes anything Fitz says seriously is seriously an imbecile. I hate to tell you this, but you’re wasting your time.
posted by ETJB on
Casey;
Why have the three different levels of legal scrutiny? Well, they are certainly not written into the 14th Amendment. I suspect it is mostly about what the court “feels” the nation is ready for.
That is basically why the Lovings ruling is not being applied to same-sex couples.
posted by Fitz on
“anyone who takes anything Fitz says seriously is seriously an imbecile. I hate to tell you this, but you’re wasting your time.”
Its nothing personal Audrey, its just an argument. (You know…what IGF is all about!)
I?m sorry that you want my opinion to be ipso facto illegitimate.
In this particular case I am arguing recent legal precedent; If you don?t agree then it is not me who is the imbecile, rather the Judges in New York, Massachusetts, Washington & California.
posted by Jorge on
I read that statement and I wonder what the heck the courts, the government, should have to do with saying “no” on marriage. She hit it exactly on the head, and I’m pleasantly surprised she sees an analogy today.
However I still make a strong distinction between the government arresting a married couple (Loving) and pretending they don’t exist (gays), and for that reason I think the New York decision was the right one. One’s coercive, one’s a value judgment. Forcing a government to accept one particular value judgment over another is coercion. But I do hope this is one voice that can be persuasive.
I am pessimistic. She talks about marriage as if it were something so sacred, that it should be respected, period. Well that’s a little contradictory. Let’s face it, it’s very hard to talk about the kind of bond that marriage represents without giving it as a “higher” title. As long as marriage is viewed as something sacred, people will try to limit its definition to things that actually are sacred. That’s inherently a religious question.
I don’t think Ms. Loving’s libertine notions cross that bridge where she says that gay marriages are good. That gay marriages are deserving of validation because they are real marriages, not just because some people “believe” they are marriages.
posted by Casey on
ETJB, that’s a question that, frankly, could fill several books on constitutional law, but I’ll just give the snapshot answer I’ve come to. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law… but what does it mean to protect people equally when there are differences between those people? I’ve heard it said that justice is treating like people alike, and different people differently, as appropriate. The jurisprudence which establishes three kinds of scrutiny for discrimination cases attempts to do just that, saying that some kinds of difference – like race – are going to be considered legally irrelevant unless the government can meet a very, very high bar to justify discriminatory actions, while others, like physical handicap (in certain jobs, etc.), may well be very relevant, and thus the government need only show a rational basis for legally treating differently abled people differently. Intermediate scrutiny falls somewhere in between, for reasons previously mentioned. So you see, even the most conservative legal minds realize there is more to the supreme law of the land than simply being able to say things “simply aren’t written” there. I agree with you that there are probably somewhat unsavory reasons underlying the slowness with which courts have moved to evaluate cases regarding sexual orientation by an intermediate scrutiny standard – cowardice, political calculation, the perception that a ruling just won’t be accepted yet – but to say that the logic of differing levels of scrutiny is flawed just because judges are being tragically human about applying it simply doesn’t follow.
posted by Brian Miller on
The problem with the (horribly over used) Loving example is its power comes from mere analogy.
Fitz’s argument was commonly used by Nazis to justify the oppression of Jews and gypsies in Germany.
When German intellectuals pointed out the similarities between Hitler’s agenda during the rise of the National Socialist Party of Germany and similar rhetoric from the days of colonialism and slavery, Nazis often talked about “flawed analogies.”
Similar to Fitz, they cited the “majority’s right to defend the underpinnings of society” from “debasement by an immoral minority.”
Quite ironic, even with all apologies to Godwin inserted.
One of the most fascinating about the real parallels between the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement is the level to which the luminaries of both are standing up to agree — and the degree to which bigots like Fitz and his ilk are insisting there’s “no relation.”
The reality of the situation is quite clear — ML King and his late wife both were committed supporters of same-sex legal equality. The late Jerry Falwell, who Fitz plagiarizes at length, was an outspoken opponent of not only marriage equality, but also racial equality under the law.
Now, the same right-wingers whose organizations stood for segregation and “states’ rights” to violate the 14th Amendment in the case of African Americans (one of the most hilariously idiotic inventions in American political history — only individuals have rights) are now rushing to “explain” how the gay community AND the original plaintiffs in the Loving case don’t know anything about the case. We “learn” that the “analogies are all wrong” from the same people who were outspoken advocates of Jim Crow laws and state government’s supposed “right” to abridge the constitutional rights of its black residents based on a majority vote.
“One wrong, always wrong” would appear to be the *real* lesson here.
posted by Fitz on
?Fitz’s argument was commonly used by Nazis to justify the oppression of Jews and gypsies in Germany. ?
Oh. I see?now I?m a Nazi.
And so are the Judges in New York, Massachusetts, Washington & California that I site as well as the Federal District Courts and multiple other State Courts.
More Nazi?s who think Loving is a flawed analogy.
Walter Fauntroy
Former DC Delegate to Congress
Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march on DC
Rev. Jesse Jackson
Remarks in an address at Harvard Law School
Senate Testimony of Reverend Richard Richardson St. Paul African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church The Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston Children’s Services of Roxbury, Inc.
Boston, MA
Yet more Nazi propaganda
http://www.statenews.com/op_article.phtml?pk=40115
http://defendmarriageresources.blogspot.com/2007/02/important-articles-discussing-same-sex_12.html
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, the idea that marriage guarantees children fathers is absurd. No marriage is guaranteed. The idea that marriage is all about children is absurd as well – the ability and intention to have children is not a pre-requisite to marriage otherwise infertile couples and those who choose not to have children could not get married.
The so-called “defense of marriage” is absolutely about discrimination. No one’s trying to prevent heterosexuals from marrying – there is nothing to defend. The sole act of this “defense of marriage” is to prevent gays from marrying, it is about discrimination against gays.
posted by Fitz on
Randi Schimnosky |
I could counter your arguments: but before I do you may want to choose your words more carefully.
Example: “absurd”
Thats rather qualitative. Are you sure you want to be that firm on those points?
You should read more John Rauch. His approach dosent dissmiss so easily.
Or just read the multiple links, court precendents. civil rights leaders and the rest I quote above.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, I read all your posts, they’re not convincing. Martin Luther King and his wife supported equality for gays. Funny how you quote someone involved with him as though the association gives him credibility but you ignore what that major figure himself believed. That you can find a handful of isolated opinions that support your bigotry is of no particular importance. More important opinions such as the decision in Massachusetts are the real precedents.
The idea that marriage is all about children is absurd. If this were true infertile couples and those with no intention of having children wouldn’t be allowed to marry
posted by Fitz on
“The idea that marriage is all about children is absurd. If this were true infertile couples and those with no intention of having children wouldn’t be allowed to marry”
You missed the California decision (above)
“Martin Luther King and his wife supported equality for gays.”
Uh- Martin Luther King is dead, and has been for years.
The only quotes his wife has made concern overall human rights for homosexuals. She never came out and endorsed same-sex “marriage”.
Don?t try and co-opt the dead.
posted by ETJB on
Casey
As a student in law, I am well aware of what the 14th Amendment means. I have yet to finish my degree, but I think I might just be able to fill at least one book talking about it.
It is like a video game. Strict Scrutiny is the hardest (final) level and the multi-headed dragon is almost impossible to kill. Then comes intermediate and then rational…
Perhaps the most oddest case is discrimination against citizens choice of political party. The courts often claim its a strict scrutiny issue but often rule like its a rational scrutiny problem.
posted by Brian Miller on
Don?t try and co-opt the dead.
That’s one funny troll quote. You’ve been doing it for years, my man, take your own advice.
The only quotes his wife has made concern overall human rights for homosexuals. She never came out and endorsed same-sex “marriage”.
I know this probably isn’t news to you, but you’re an idiot.
The widow of Martin Luther King Jr. called gay marriage a civil rights issue, denouncing a proposed constitutional amendment that would ban it.
Constitutional amendments should be used to expand freedom, not restrict it, Coretta Scott King said Tuesday.
“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,” she said. “A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, Corretta Scott King knew her husband best and if she says he supported equal rights for gays then it goes without saying that he did.
Fitz said “You missed the California decision (above)”.
No I didn’t miss it, it didn’t say anything about marriage being all about having children – that idea is absurd, if it were true then infertile couples and those who choose not to have children wouldn’t be allowed to marry.
posted by Fitz on
Randi Schimnosky
“No I didn’t miss it, it didn’t say anything about marriage being all about having children – that idea is absurd, if it were true then infertile couples and those who choose not to have children wouldn’t be allowed to marry.”
No Randi – that idea is “absurd”. Under that logic same-sex marriage should be legal because we don?t execute single mothers for out-of-wedlock childbearing.
If the California Court doesn?t spell it out for you clearly enough, well here is the Washington Supreme Court.
posted by Casey on
ETJB – it was apparent that you knew how strict scrutiny worked. What was also clear, and what I tried to alleviate, was that you didn’t know the system was there in the first place, because of your contention that “they are certainly not written into the 14th amendment.” That’s a statement about a certain kind of (in my opinion, untenable) method of interpreting the Constitution, and it was that statement I was addressing. No offense, and good luck at law school.
posted by Casey on
Bah – that was supposed to be “you didn’t know WHY the system was there in the first place”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz it isn’t considered marriage when single mothers have children – that has nothing to do with the fact that we do allow the infertile and those who choose not to have children to marry.
The point this and I make is that marriage is not all about having children, not that it is totally unrelated to having children. The Washington court got it wrong, there’s no big surprise there, courts often mirror public opinion, back when bans on interracial marriage were popular some courts reasoned that such bans were right and just, eventually they got it right and the same will happen with equal marriage for same sex couples.
In any event, many same sex couples do have children, so the argument that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry because marriage is all about children is bogus. If marriage is good for the children of heterosexuals then its good for the children of gays – there’s no rational basis for your bigotry.
posted by Fitz on
Randi Schimnosky
“there’s no rational basis for your bigotry.”
as well as the bigotry of the Judges in New York, Massachusetts, Washington & California that I site as well as the Federal District Courts and multiple other State Courts.
as well as all these people
57-43 = Oregon, 59-41 = Michigan, 62-38 = California, 62-38 = Ohio, 66-34 = Utah, 67-33 = Montana, 71-29 = Kansas, 71-29 = Missouri, 73-27 = North Dakota, 75-25 = Arkansas, 75-25 = Kentucky, 76-24 = Georgia, 76-24 = Oklahoma, 78-22 = Louisiana, 86-14 = Mississippi, 56-44 = Colorado, 63?37 = Idaho, 74-26 = South Carolina, 52-49 = South Dakota, 82-19 = Tennessee, 57-43 = Virginia, 60-40 = Wisconsin.
Must feel good up there on your high hoarse.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz, at one time the majority of Americans supported segregation and bans on interracial marriage. At one time the majority thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth – didn’t make it right. The U.S. has never been a global leader in advancing the cause of human rights, but history has shown that eventually it gets it right, and it will be that way with equal marriage for same sex couples as well. Polls show growing support for gays and equal marriage even in the past few years. The majority of the younger generation supports gays having equal rights and its clear which direction things are going. Its only a matter of time before people like you are generally seen in the same light as racists are today.
posted by Fitz on
As stated….
The problem with the (horribly over used) Loving example is its power comes from mere analogy. The problem with analogy is it is exactly that: an analogy.
Its weight raises and falls on the strength of the analogy. Courts have been quick to dismiss this characterization of marriage law with racial segregation. The point of ant?miscegenation laws were to keep the races apart. No one would seriously argue that that is the point of marriage law. Quite the opposite, the intention of marriage law is to bring the two sexes together.
Go back to the beginning and read again.
The day will never come when saying “children are best raised by their own mother & father in a married household” is condemned as bigotry.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Fitz I’ve read your arguments and they don’t hold water. Its bigotry to stand in the way of the marriage of any two loving consenting adults who aren’t close blood relatives.
posted by Brian Miller on
marriage is traditionally linked to procreation and survival of the human race
Then why aren’t you behind efforts to make child-bearing a mandatory requirement of legal marriage, Fitz?
There are a number of groups advocating exactly that — yet Republicans such as yourself who rage endlessly against queer folk for being “nonprocreative” haven’t actually created a requirement for procreation within marriage.
If procreation is the prerogative, you don’t need anti-gay DOMA laws, you simply need laws that state that individuals who cannot procreate together may not be legally recognized as married.
The fact you’ve made your crusade gay-specific gives away your true agenda.
posted by Xeno on
Looks like Fitz is on the fritz. He hasn’t even bothered replying to Brian’s post because he knows Brian has the better argument and correct information. Can the admins simply ban this troll?
posted by Craig on
Unfortunately, Xeno, on this site they quote the trolls, as here: http://northdallasthirty.blogspot.com/2007/05/orientation-of-hate.html.
It’s unfortunate too – I used to like this site – let’s face it, us lefties – and yeah, ND30 – if you’re going to seriously make an effort to follow Jesus Christ, you have to be a leftie – can get carried away with our own self importance. It’s good to sometimes get that knocked out of us a little bit.
But I live in Georgia, and there’s no shortage of people here who love to berate us for our sexuality – why come here and read the same drivel from trolls like ND 30 and fitz? I’ll miss Lori’s fierce defense of her Christian beliefs, and Randi’s passionate arguments for equality. Brian is brilliant – always fun to read – and Casey has helped me understand the ins and outs of the law on several occasions. For the most part a thoughtful and creative and intelligent group of people. But if I’m going to hang around a gay site, I ought to at least be able to count on a “bash-free” zone.
See ya.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Given your support of bashing others such as myself, Craig, is it a “bash-free” zone that you want — or a zone where you can bash with impunity without being questioned?
Given your behavior elsewhere, I think the latter is far closer to reality.
And frankly, Craig, I’m amused that you say anything about Lori’s defense, when you had nothing to say about your fellow leftist dalea’s harassment and hate speech against her, insisting that she be banned and demanding her IP address so that she could be harassed directly and physically.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, on to Mr. Miller.
Then why aren’t you behind efforts to make child-bearing a mandatory requirement of legal marriage, Fitz?
Better question, Mr. Miller; since you argue that procreation should not be considered in the least when making marriage determinations, why aren’t you opposing:
1) Bans on incest based on the fact that closeness of blood relationships increases the likelihood of genetic defects?
2) Bans on polyamorous marriage based on the claim that it creates too much legal and familial confusion for children?
3) Bans on marriage based on age and not sexual maturity based on the claim that it is dangerous for those who are not yet biologically adults to have children?
Furthermore, Mr. Miller, since you and your fellow gay leftists insist that your children are suffering and helpless without the full benefits and protections of marriage, why are you not demanding laws mandating that all parents be married? Since you insist it is, in fact, endangering and harming a child when their parents are not married, why have you not banned unmarried mother- or fatherhood?
The simple fact of the matter is that our law assigns parental responsibility primarily on the basis of biology; therefore, marriage is legally structured to represent that fact. Non-biological parenthood requires additional legal structures that are OUTSIDE of marriage to be put into place, even for heterosexual married couples; they do not, for example, get automatic custody of a non-biological and unadopted child if their spouse dies.
In short, you don’t need marriage to put in place parental protections for purposes of gays; it would be far more practical (and logical, given the rise in unmarried heterosexual parents) to simply update adoption laws, since every gay two-or-more-parent situation is an adoption anyway, and the tax advantages come from having dependents, not necessarily from being married.
And the reason I argue this way is very simple; the reason gays keep losing is because gay leftists are cloaking ideological anti-marriage and antireligious battles (think the Beyond Marriage manifesto) behind the push for gay marriage. Using the argument that marriage is some sort of “constitutional right”, that the state has no power to regulate it at all, and that you should be allowed to extend it to any sexual partner or partners you desire only plays right into their hands.
The gay community needs a quantum shift in mentality — away from the lawsuit-happy, “You have to legitimize my relationship” to “Here are the reasons why it would be a good idea to do it.” And frankly, heterosexuals have a lot better grip on what works and what doesn’t in marriage than we do; it’s about time we started listening to their concerns, rather than trying to force through something that doesn’t fit the vast majority of our relationships at all out of some need for government validation.
posted by Brian Miller on
Better question, Mr. Miller; since you argue that procreation should not be considered in the least when making marriage determinations, why aren’t you opposing:
1) Bans on incest based on the fact that closeness of blood relationships increases the likelihood of genetic defects?
2) Bans on polyamorous marriage based on the claim that it creates too much legal and familial confusion for children?
3) Bans on marriage based on age and not sexual maturity based on the claim that it is dangerous for those who are not yet biologically adults to have children?
Glad to see you’re covering for your homophobic GOP brothers, ND, but I can answer all three questions quite easily:
I don’t support government involvement in marriage. I view marriage equality as simply a transitional step to getting government out of the marriage business altogether. So I don’t support “bans,” “restrictions” or “regulations” on the activities of mutually consenting adults.
You and your Republican ilk are the ones arguing for bans, regulations, and restrictions based on purported “public policy” reasons, not I. However, you’re not supporting policies that would actually advance any of the issues that you’re advocating — nor the “promotion of procreation.” Your party is doing nothing but working feverishly to define government “marriage” by gender roles.
Such a definition doesn’t guarantee procreation, nor does it meet the other “policy goals” you’ve outlined above.
Surely, you and your control-freak friends have an explanation for this, beyond demanding that libertarians explain why they don’t support government asserting sole domain over our relationships, genitals, and other decisions.
I’m waiting. . .
posted by Brian Miller on
since you and your fellow gay leftists insist that your children are suffering and helpless without the full benefits and protections of marriage
I don’t recall making that statement either. I simply note that government marriage creates restrictions against same-sex families (and single people) that should be rectified through a transitional policy of equalizing access to the government institution, and then getting government out of it altogether.
You know, small, limited government — the libertarian mantra that your party constantly quotes but then violates like a passed-out sorority girl at a frat party.
The gay community needs a quantum shift in mentality — away from the lawsuit-happy, “You have to legitimize my relationship” to “Here are the reasons why it would be a good idea to do it.”
Au contraire. Gay people have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law. Homophobes such as yourself need to begin justifying your own anti-gay laws with some modicum of logic — which you cannot do.
You also are, ironically enough, destroying marriage with your statist lumbering. By making government, and not mutually-consenting adults, the determinant of marriage, you’ve created a system with a 2:1 ratio of marriages to divorces.
You’ve created “family oriented” states with skyrocketing divorce rates.
You’ve created numerous single-parent families.
You’ve created numerous families that have to spend extra time and money (and pay more taxes) simply because of the gender of the parents involved.
You’ve put government above the personal metaphysical, spiritual and/or religious beliefs of individual people.
In short, you’ve created a giant socialist centrally-planned welfare system that pays people for having sex with certain people, and penalizes other folks for whom they have sex with.
Gay people have nothing to prove — they’re simply one of several groups whose 14th Amendment rights are violated by socialist “marriage.” The people with the obligation to “prove” themselves are the unconstitutionalists such as yourself and your GOP and Democratic groupthinkees.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Really, Mr. Miller, I love this:
By making government, and not mutually-consenting adults, the determinant of marriage, you’ve created a system with a 2:1 ratio of marriages to divorces.
That is because in marriage, in exchange for said benefits, protections, and so forth, you agree to certain conditions. The fact that you ultimately do not want to keep those conditions and want out cannot even remotely be construed as being the government’s fault. That’s like signing the contract to purchase a car, then whining that it’s the finance company’s fault that you don’t want to make your payments.
And here, really, is the underlying problem.
Gay people have a constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
Equal protection of what? Gays have the same rights as straights to marry someone of the opposite sex and enjoy all the privileges and benefits thereof.
What the “equal protection” argument is really saying is that you should be able to demand tax and legal benefits for any and all of your sex partners, regardless of its relationship to anything else. You are totally beyond thinking that there might be anything beneficial about society encouraging heterosexuals to marry and have children and facilitating the process; you’re just upset because they have something and you don’t.
posted by Brian Miller on
Gays have the same rights as straights to marry someone of the opposite sex and enjoy all the privileges and benefits thereof.
LOL!
ND30, please marry an overseas woman, and go down to the INS and tell them you’re gay (and thus don’t have sex with your new wife), but are still exercising your “right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
Tell me how prison time is for marriage immigration fraud — I’ll look forward to your post in about 30 years’ time.
That is because in marriage, in exchange for said benefits, protections, and so forth, you agree to certain conditions. The fact that you ultimately do not want to keep those conditions and want out cannot even remotely be construed as being the government’s fault.
Goodness, you have quite the enthusiasm for government setting the “conditions” for basic intimate life. Are you also an advocate of government wiping for you after you use the toilet?
posted by ETJB on
Casey;
I would contend that the different levels of equal protection legal scrutiny are not found within the 14th Amendment.
I suspect that they existed largely for political reason in that the court does not want to issue opinions that most Americans will not…”live with.”
Although every now and again I write up my own little state and federal constitutional amendments.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Goodness, you have quite the enthusiasm for government setting the “conditions” for basic intimate life.
You are asking the government to give you welfare benefits and protections based on that intimate life. Thus, it is their prerogative to insist on and enforce conditions in order to grant said benefits.
Bluntly put, you want the perks, but you don’t want to have to abide by the contract. No deal.
ND30, please marry an overseas woman, and go down to the INS and tell them you’re gay (and thus don’t have sex with your new wife), but are still exercising your “right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”
Tell me how prison time is for marriage immigration fraud — I’ll look forward to your post in about 30 years’ time.
Red herring. I would have the right to marry her, just as any other man would, but I do not have the right to commit immigration fraud in the process — as is the case for every other man as well.
Again, my point: what the “equal protection” argument is really saying is that you should be able to demand tax and legal benefits for any and all of your sex partners, regardless of its relationship to anything else. You are totally beyond thinking that there might be anything beneficial about society encouraging heterosexuals to marry and have children and facilitating the process; you’re just upset because they have something and you don’t.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Gays have the same rights as straights to marry someone of the opposite sex and enjoy all the privileges and benefits thereof.”.
That’s bogus and irrelevant. If a man has the right to marry a woman then a woman deserves the same right to marry a man – anything else is sex discrimination. If a woman has the right to marry a man than a man deserves the same right to marry a man – anthing else is sex discrimination.
Gays deserver the same right that heterosexuals have to marry the one person they love most, they do not have equal rights.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You are totally beyond thinking that there might be anything beneficial about society encouraging heterosexuals to marry and have children and facilitating the process; you’re just upset because they have something and you don’t.”.
LOL, of course gays are upset that heterosexuals have the right to marry the one person they love most and gays don’t – what an idiot. If the tables were turned straights would be damned upset about that too. And allowing gays to marry doesn’t in any way prevent the governement and the law from encouraging heterosexuals to marry and have children and facilitate the process in exactly the same way as it did before. Allowing gays to marry changes NOTHING for heterosexuals and how the law applies to and affects them.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Gays deserver the same right that heterosexuals have to marry the one person they love most, they do not have equal rights.
Which you claim violates “equal protection”, right, Randi?
Well, in that case:
— Pedophiles are denied the right to marry the persons they love most
— Bestialists are denied the right to marry the persons they love most
— Polyamorists are denied the right to marry the persons they love
— Brothers and sisters, or other close blood relatives, are denied the right to marry the persons they love most
And before you start spinning, remember that what underpins the argument against all of these is that society should have the right to encourage what it wants and ban what it finds unacceptable in the area of marriage and sex — and that its choosing to do so is not in any way depriving pedophiles, bestialists, and polyamorists of their “rights”.
Allowing gays to marry changes NOTHING for heterosexuals and how the law applies to and affects them.
Only if it is additive to the existing law.
But that requires LGBTs to make a persuasive case for enacting such things, and quite frankly, Randi, you and yours have ruined that for the rest of us by linking homosexuality to your numerous other prejudices and bigotries.
Until you shut up and start calling over 80 – plus percent of the US population superstitious and ignorant bigots — and linking why you’re doing it to your homosexuality — we aren’t getting anywhere. Grow up and take responsibility for your own behavior, rather than blaming it on your sexual orientation, and then we might get somewhere.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, there are good reasons why people can’t marry children, animals, close blooad relatives, and multiple partners. There are no good reasons why a man cannot marry a man or a woman cannot marry a woman. The equal protection clause is in effect unless there are good reasons for it not to be. This isn’t that hard Northdallass, are you really that stupid or do you just get perverted pleasure out of being a bigot?
By your logic the equal protection clause must be either totally invalid or it cannot restrict driving, alcohol consumption, and the ability to enter into contracts by age. Obviously the equal protection clause applies in general and there are sometimes valid exceptions to it. You haven’t made a valid argument as to why gay couples should be excepted because you can’t – you’re just a bigot.
Once again, I stand against child molestation, incestuous marriage, beastiality and the like and you’re going to try to defend it – we can see where your true sympathies lie, you pay lip service to opposing these things but when push comes to shove you fall back to your true feelings and defend them. You’re one sick puppy, I wouldn’t be surprised in the slightest if you had an 8 year old chained up in the basement to molest.
Allowing gays to marry doesn’t affect how the law applies to heterosexuals in the slightest. There is no rational reason to prevent gays from marrying the one person they love most.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The equal protection clause is in effect unless there are good reasons for it not to be.
Um, no; the “equal protection” clause is always in effect. It merely states that the laws underneath it should be applied equally.
And unfortunately for you, Randi, the law that limits marriage to being between a man and a woman applies equally to both sexes and to all sexual orientations. The fact that it is more convenient for 95% of the population does not invalidate its equality of application.
Furthermore, when you start arguing that it is a violation of “equal protection” to not allow you to marry based on sexual attraction and love, you then validate and make legitimate the claims of those who practice pedophilia, polyamory, incest, and bestiality, all of whom are also prohibited from marrying based on their sexual attraction and love.
Meanwhile, keep repeating your accusations about me being a child molestor. As I said before, those who know me know better, and the opinions of those who would believe you are already inexorably set against me anyway. All it does is to provide a stark example of how “real LGBTs” like yourself insist on complete and utter conformity to leftist beliefs — and will use any means necessary to enforce it.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And unfortunately for you, Randi, the law that limits marriage to being between a man and a woman applies equally to both sexes and to all sexual orientations. The fact that it is more convenient for 95% of the population does not invalidate its equality of application.”.
What matters northdallass, is not that men, women, and gay have some rights that are equal, but that they have all equal rights. Its not enough to have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, gays deserve the same right to marry the one person they love most just as heterosexuals can. A man deserves the same right a woman has to marry a man. A woman deserves the same right a man has to marry a woman. Once gays are allowed to marry marriage will be exactly as it was for the 95% of the population you are supposedly concerned with but the added bonus is that the other 5% will be benefited as well – and you’d just hate that, wouldn’t you.
Children and animals can’t enter into a marriage because they can’t give informed consent. Polygamy is a bad idea as demonstrated by the problems inherent in groups like the religious Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints – with a 50% divorce rate its obviously hard enough to make a realtionship between two people work without adding the difficulties inherent in balancing the needs and desires of three or more. Close blood relatives shouldn’t marry because they can never be free enough of such a relationship to give informed consent to the difficulties inherent in a romantic and sexual incestuous relationship.
Now lets see you go and start defending child molestation, incest, beastialty, and polygamy again, that’s where your true feelings lie as we’ve seen. You defend those relationships and yet fight tooth and nail against loving committed same sex marriage – you’re one sick puppy, talk about insisting complete and utter conformaty to rightist beliefs and using any means to enforce it. You’d support that which virtually everyone finds evil in order to prevent gays from marrying, the hatred of gays and fairness is the essence of you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Its not enough to have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, gays deserve the same right to marry the one person they love most just as heterosexuals can.
What a joke. Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage, nor is it legal grounds for automatically granting marriage.
The simple fact of the matter is that marriage being limited to two individuals of the opposite sex equally applies to everyone, male, female, gay, or straight. If you want to change those rules, go to the voters, not through the courts.
But the reason you can’t and won’t do that is obvious here, Randi; anyone who shrieks that anyone who disagrees with them has an eight-year-old chained up in their basement to molest is going to not only turn people off, but is going to lose credibility very quickly.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage”.
LOL, why would anyone do it otherwise?! And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
Northdallass said “The simple fact of the matter is that marriage being limited to two individuals of the opposite sex equally applies to everyone, male, female, gay, or straight. If you want to change those rules, go to the voters, not through the courts.”.
That’s all well and good Northdallass, the problem is that people deserve all the same rights another has, not just one of them. Its great that gays have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they also deserve the same right straights have to marry the one person they love most. Its great that a woman has the same right a man does to marry someone of the opposite sex, but she also deserves the same right a man has to marry a woman. Its great that a man has the same right a woman does to marry somoone of the opposite sex, but he also deserves the same right she has to marry a man. Your argument is the same as saying preventing women from voting isn’t discrimination because women have the same rights men do to an education – yeah, so what? – that’s still not equal rights.
I never said you had an eight-year old chained up in the basement, I don’t know that, I said I wouldn’t be surprised if you did. That’s where you and I differ, not knowing me at all you insisted repeatedly that I actually repeatedly assaulted religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners. Unlike you I know better than to make a statement of certainty about something I can’t possibly know – that’s because I’m honest at heart and you’re a habitual liar at heart.
posted by Brian Miller on
Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage
Good Lord. One would figure, with your ceaseless lecturing on “reality,” that you’d at least have a friggin’ clue about what you’re talking about.
Marriages in many states that “aren’t consummated” are considered null and void.
And if you’re not having regular sex — and expressing sexual attraction to — your foreign opposite sex “spouse,” the INS will deny you a visa lickety split. If you lie to them and they later find out you aren’t having sex, you’ll go to the klink for immigration fraud in short order.
Do thinking people a favor and refrain from posting if you’re completely clueless on the basic laws you’re shilling. Thanks!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Amazing.
First Randi shrieks:
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
And then Brian Miller echoes obediently:
Marriages in many states that “aren’t consummated” are considered null and void.
I quote (emphasis mine):
11. Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this).
* Consumate: What is completed. A right is said to be initiate when it is not complete; when it is perfected, it is consummated.
* Consummation: The completion of a thing; such as the consummation of marriage, the consummation of a contract, and the like.
* Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.
And, if that is not strong enough, I quote the Goodridge decision itself, which stated:
Our laws of civil marriage do not privilege procreative heterosexual intercourse between married people above every other form of adult intimacy and every other means of creating a family. General Laws c. 207 contains no requirement that the applicants for a marriage license attest to their ability or intention to conceive children by coitus. Fertility is not a condition of marriage, nor is it grounds for divorce. People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (“The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity”). [FN22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry.
As the legal phraseology goes, “consensus, non concubitus, facit nuptias”. Sex is not a requirement of marriage, nor does the absence of it invalidate it. The reason why is patently obvious; if, after all, as leftists claim, the state has no right whatsoever to interfere in private sexual relationships, requiring sex as a condition of marriage would be a violation thereof.
And to you, Mr. Miller, please demonstrate that YOU have researched the topic by providing links that demonstrate, as you claim, that “many” states require consummation for marriage and that marriages without it are automatically “null and void” — since I have brought forward links that directly contradict that assertion.
Your argument is the same as saying preventing women from voting isn’t discrimination because women have the same rights men do to an education – yeah, so what? – that’s still not equal rights.
Voting rights and rights to an education are not the same thing. The reason you are attempting to do this is because the answer to this simple question eludes you: do men and women have the same and equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex?
I never said you had an eight-year old chained up in the basement, I don’t know that, I said I wouldn’t be surprised if you did.
That’s right, you don’t know that.
But you said it anyway.
Like I said, Randi, your shrieks amuse those people who know better, and they obviously fulfill some sort of need you have to smear your enemies, regardless of whether or not your accusations are factual.
It’s a win-win, as far as I’m concerned; you vent, and we get the enjoyment of watching you reveal what a true “LGBT” is like.
posted by ETJB on
“Gays have the same rights as straights to marry someone of the opposite sex and enjoy all the privileges and benefits thereof.”
Based on this silly logic, their was no equal protection violation by banning interracial marriage or when Germans banned Jews from marrying non-Jews.
After all, so the logic goes, everyone had the equal right to marry a person of the same race. Everyone had the equal right (in Germany) to marry a person of the same race-religion….
“Two legs bad…”
“Four legs good”
posted by ETJB on
BTW, how many fathers would really want their daughter to marry a gay man? Or have their son marry a gay woman?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you’re hilarious. In your attempt to deny that sex is a requirement of marriage you prove yourself wrong. In your own quote it said “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this). Thanks for proving my point.
Northdallass said “leftists claim, the state has no right whatsoever to interfere in private sexual relationships”.
You’re a despicable liar. No LGBT would deny that the state has a right, nay, an obligation, to interfere in private sexual relationships that involve pedophelia or forced sex and some of us “leftists” would put polygamy and incestuous sexual relationships in the same boat. You can’t win an arugement on a rational and realistic basis so you have to resort to straw men.
Northdallass said “Voting rights and rights to an education are not the same thing. The reason you are attempting to do this is because the answer to this simple question eludes you: do men and women have the same and equal right to marry a person of the opposite sex?”.
LOL, Northdallass, and the right to marry a man is not the same as the right to marry a woman. If a woman has the right to marry a man then a man deserves the same right to marry a man, anything less is not equal rights. If a man has the right to marry a woman then a woman deserves the same right to marry a woman, anything else is not equal rights. Once again, its all well and good to have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but everyone does not have the same equal rights until men, women, and gays have the same right to marry the one person they love most.
Northdallass said “That’s right, you don’t know that. But you said it anyway.”.
No you lie, I never said you had an eight year old chained up in the basement, I said IF you had an eight year old tied up in the basement. According to your own logic “that’s why your rants aren’t something to take seriously; you obviously don’t read my posts, and fictionalize whatever you need to fit your ideological viewpoints. Facts don’t enter into it.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thanks for proving my point.
Unfortunately, Randi, your point was that ALL states required consummation, and that the marriage was null and void without it.
As my source pointed out, the few states that “require” consummation do so in the context of allowing its absence to be used as an automatic legal right to annul the marriage. If a couple gets married, does not have sex, but chooses not to apply for an annulment or dissolution, they remain married; the government doesn’t come around demanding proof that they had sex in order for them to stay married.
And now, the real problem here.
First Randi says this:
No LGBT would deny that the state has a right, nay, an obligation, to interfere in private sexual relationships that involve pedophelia or forced sex and some of us “leftists” would put polygamy and incestuous sexual relationships in the same boat.
But then she insists this:
Once again, its all well and good to have the equal right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but everyone does not have the same equal rights until men, women, and gays have the same right to marry the one person they love most.
So she says that government should have the right to prevent people from marrying the person(s) to which they are sexually attracted and that they love…..but claims that it is wrong to prevent someone from marrying the person to which they are sexually attracted and which they love.
No you lie, I never said you had an eight year old chained up in the basement, I said IF you had an eight year old tied up in the basement.
And again, the “proud LGBT” is backpedaling, twisting around, trying to explain why she doesn’t have the guts to simply say what she’s already stated — that I have an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest.
I have to wonder, Randi; why don’t you just simply come out and say that? You obviously believe it, and you claim everyone else believes it. Why are you so afraid to state it?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Based on this silly logic, their was no equal protection violation by banning interracial marriage or when Germans banned Jews from marrying non-Jews.
And based on your logic that the government has no right to regulate or limit marriage at all, it is a violation of “equal protection” to deny marriage to pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, or incest practitioners.
You would do far better, ETJB, by simply allowing that the government does have the right to limit marriage as it sees fit and interpret Loving, not as allowing endless marriage, but as simply pointing out that states were already not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race by Federal law and Constitutional amendment, and that it made even less sense to do so given that “race” holds no clear biological or procreative difference — unlike the other restrictions that the government does keep.
posted by Brian Miller on
based on your logic that the government has no right to regulate or limit
Ah, got to love ND-30, outspoken advocate of government regulation and limitation, who then refers to others as “leftists.” 😉
posted by ETJB on
North Dallas;
I have not really put forth my own views about the role of the State in regulating or defining marriage. So please don’t try and read my mind.
To argue that exclude gay couples from civil marriage is NOT an equal protection violation because a gay man has the same right as a straight man to marry a woman (parental objections aside) is akin to saying that a ban on interracial marriage (or on Jews) is “OK” .
Instead of debating this point, you decided to accuse me of supporting the notion, “government has no right to regulate or limit marriage at all.”
A Libertarian would believe that, but I am not a Libertarian.
“pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, or incest practitioners.”
I am not sure if a civility code applies here anymore, but if it does this might raise some eyebrows. Apparently, some one has just compared every single gay couple to child molestors and animal abusers…
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Unfortunately, Randi, your point was that ALL states required consummation, and that the marriage was null and void without it.”.
LOL, Northdallas, you can’t argue against what I did so so you have to make up stuff. I never said ALL states required consumation, merely that the law did, that means any single state.
Northdallass said “So she says that government should have the right to prevent people from marrying the person(s) to which they are sexually attracted and that they love…..but claims that it is wrong to prevent someone from marrying the person to which they are sexually attracted and which they love.”.
Once again, you lie, I never said that, what I said was that if the state is going to prevent anyone from marrying it must have good reason to do so – it does not have good reason in the case of same sex couples, but it does have good reason in the case of child marriage, polygamy, and incest.
The equal protection clause applies unless there is good reason for it not to. According to your logic there can be no exceptions to it or it doesn’t apply at all. That’s shown to be absurd by the fact that the government does make exceptions such as limiting the age of drivers license and the ability to consume alchohol while stil applying the principle in general. Just because you’re too simple minded to take this into account doesn’t mean the law is.
According to your logic Northdallass, the ban on interracial marriage was okay because everyone had the same right to marry someone whithin their race. Obviously that didn’t stand up to scrutiny because a black man didn’t have the same right a white man did to marry a white woman and so on. You don’t have a leg to stand on.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said ALL states required consumation, merely that the law did, that means any single state.
Mhm.
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
It’s amazing how creative you get with interpretation in the face of factual citations.
The equal protection clause applies unless there is good reason for it not to.
So the Constitution applies, except when you don’t want it to apply. Right.
That’s shown to be absurd by the fact that the government does make exceptions such as limiting the age of drivers license and the ability to consume alchohol while stil applying the principle in general.
There is no right to drive in the United States Constitution; that is a privilege extended by the government to those it chooses. Just as is marriage.
According to your logic Northdallass, the ban on interracial marriage was okay because everyone had the same right to marry someone whithin their race.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Randi, there are specific amendments in the Constitution that make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race — and an act that preceded said decision, called the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that said states did not have the right to discriminate on the basis of race by order of the Federal government.
Furthermore, the difference between people of two different races is a) biologically meaningless and b) no preventative whatsoever to what marriage was originally designed to support in the first place.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah, got to love ND-30, outspoken advocate of government regulation and limitation, who then refers to others as “leftists.”
Feel free to argue that the government should remove all regulation and limitations on pedophilia, Mr. Miller.
Just make sure you make it clear that your stance on that matter is because you are a libertarian, and not because you’re gay.
I am not sure if a civility code applies here anymore, but if it does this might raise some eyebrows. Apparently, some one has just compared every single gay couple to child molestors and animal abusers…
What I said, ETJB, was this:
And based on your logic that the government has no right to regulate or limit marriage at all, it is a violation of “equal protection” to deny marriage to pedophiles, polygamists, bestialists, or incest practitioners.
That is because you invoked “equal protection” as a reason for removing any and all restrictions on marriage. Therefore, since “equal protection” should remove all restrictions, those folks have the same legitimate right as gay couples to marry — if you buy that theory.
First state clearly that the government has the right to regulate and restrict marriage, and then we can talk.
And by the way, I am more than amused that you said nothing as Randi accused me of having an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest, but are now getting all upset over my statement above, which you consider a breach of a “civility code” on my part.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, you’re hilarious. In your attempt to deny that sex is a requirement of marriage you prove yourself wrong. In your own quote it said “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this). Thanks for proving my point.
Northdallass said “So the Constitution applies, except when you don’t want it to apply. Right.”.
Idiot, its not a matter of it applying unless one wants it too, its a matter of it applying unless there’s good reason to make an exception. For example there are exceptions to the first amendment where there is good reason and those aren’t spelled out in the constitution. Its the same with marriage.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, the difference between people of two different races is a) biologically meaningless and b) no preventative whatsoever to what marriage was originally designed to support in the first place.”.
And the marriage of two gays is biologically meaningless to all heterosexual marriages and is in no way preventative whatsoever to supporting those marriages in the way they always have been. There is no good reason to prevent same sex marriages and the equal protection clause of the constituion means the government cannot discriminate on the basis of sex without good reason and therefore a proper interpretation of the law says that if a man has a right to marry a woman then a woman must have the same right he does to marry a woman and so on. You simply have no reason to oppose same sex marriages beyond your insane hatred of gays.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Feel free to argue that the government should remove all regulation and limitations on pedophilia, Mr. Miller.”.
You mean like you were a few days ago, screaming that it was discrimination to prevent people like you from marrying children, that it shouldn’t be assumed that children can’t give informed consent? And then you wonder why people think you might have an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest.
Northdallass said “That is because you invoked “equal protection” as a reason for removing any and all restrictions on marriage. Therefore, since “equal protection” should remove all restrictions, those folks have the same legitimate right as gay couples to marry”.
As is typcical, you’re lying, no one said that. The only one who advocated pedophelia was you.
Northdallass said “Randi accused me of having an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest”.
That’s a lie, I said IF you had an eight year old chained up in the basement, I never said you actually did, and you acknowledged that here:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html#commentform
at June 23, 2007, 7:26pm when you said “Don’t you have the confidence that you can claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest and people will believe you?”. Obviously you wouldn’t be berating me for not making such a claim if I actually had. Of course what I actually said is irrelevant to you, you make up stories as you see fit because you can’t win an argument on a rational and realistic basis. Fortunately virtually everyone sees through your lies and you just end up cementing your image as a evil gay basher.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thanks for proving my point.
Your point apparently being that if a few states do it, they all do it, despite having evidence a) to the contrary and b) that the states who use “consummation” do go around asking or watching people to see if they’ve had sex after they were married so they can void the marriage if they don’t, but instead use it as grounds for annulment on request of the parties involved in the marriage.
You mean like you were a few days ago, screaming that it was discrimination to prevent people like you from marrying children, that it shouldn’t be assumed that children can’t give informed consent?
Idiot, its not a matter of it applying unless one wants it too, its a matter of it applying unless there’s good reason to make an exception.
In other words, unless you don’t want it to apply.
And the marriage of two gays is biologically meaningless to all heterosexual marriages and is in no way preventative whatsoever to supporting those marriages in the way they always have been.
If you don’t understand the biological difference between opposite sex and same sex couples versus couples of different races and how that relates to what marriage is designed to do, encourage, and support, Randi, there’s very little that can be done to help you.
You mean like you were a few days ago, screaming that it was discrimination to prevent people like you from marrying children, that it shouldn’t be assumed that children can’t give informed consent?
Mhm.
I think once people read that, they’ll understand the situation far better.
That’s a lie, I said IF you had an eight year old chained up in the basement, I never said you actually did, and you acknowledged that here:
Actually, this is what I stated:
What you’re doing, Randi, is simple; you’re making personal attacks, but you don’t have the guts to stand up for them — so you try twisting semantics to avoid consequences.
Like I said, go ahead and claim that I have an eight-year-old in my basement chained up to molest. Say what you believe. State what you insinuate. A big “proud” LGBT like yourself should have no trouble doing that; she shouldn’t need to pussyfoot around and hide behind “it’s only a question” or “I didn’t really say”.
What’s the matter? Don’t you have the guts to say that to my face? Don’t you have the confidence that you can claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest and people will believe you?
In short, I was mocking your cowardice and how you were so scared of consequences that you were spinning, trying to explain how you didn’t really mean it, rather than honestly stating what you obviously were saying — that I had an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Your point apparently being that if a few states do it, they all do it.”
Once again, I never said that, you again make up stuff to argue against because you can’t argue against my actual position which is that the law requires consumation of marriage and you confirmed that in your quote: “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this). Thanks for proving my point, obviously you were wrong when you claimed sex is not a requirement of marriage. Now be a man for once and admit it.
Northdallass said “In other words, unless you don’t want it to apply.”.
It has nothing to do with whether or not I want it to apply, its to do with whether or not there’s a good reason for an exception, like the exceptions to the first amendment that makes it illegal to incite acts of violence against people. You won’t find that in the constitution but the law takes it into account. Ditto for the equal protection clause, you won’t find an exception for underage marriage, drinking, driving, or incest, but it is in the law nevertheless. And its the same for the equal protection clause, discrimination on the basis of sex (denying a man the same right to marry a man that a woman has) is against the law unless there’s good reason and the government disliking the gender of someone’s spouse isn’t good reason.
Northdallass said “Like I said, go ahead and claim that I have an eight-year-old in my basement chained up to molest. Say what you believe. State what you insinuate. A big “proud” LGBT like yourself should have no trouble doing that; she shouldn’t need to pussyfoot around and hide behind “it’s only a question” or “I didn’t really say”.
What’s the matter? Don’t you have the guts to say that to my face? Don’t you have the confidence that you can claim I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest and people will believe you?
Obviously from your own words you know I didn’t say you have an eight year old chained up in the basement, unlike you I’m very careful about what I say and I wouldn’t claim something that I don’t know to be true. My exact words were “I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained in the basement so you can molest him every day.”
I stand behind my statment, it is 100% the truth. It would be no surprise to me if you were molesting children given your pyschopathic personality and defense of child molestation. You claimed I actually had assaulted religious people in every manner possible, that I have multiple sex patners, that I demand to have public sex – if I lied about you like you lied about me you’d be suing me for slander. You don’t because you know you can’t pass off your lies in a court of law any better than you can here. That’s the difference between you and I, you claim you’re courageous when you lie, and when other’s refuse to lie you call it cowardice. Your twisted morality would be a joke if it weren’t so inherently dangerous. Its clear from your twisted morality that you have no consideration of others, your concept of what’s right is “what do I want to do” and your concept of what’s wrong is “someone disagreeing with me”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Thanks for proving my point, obviously you were wrong when you claimed sex is not a requirement of marriage. Now be a man for once and admit it.
Hilarious. Really.
And its the same for the equal protection clause, discrimination on the basis of sex (denying a man the same right to marry a man that a woman has) is against the law unless there’s good reason and the government disliking the gender of someone’s spouse isn’t good reason.
Oddly enough, government dislike works just fine as a reason for bans on pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polyamory, and other forms.
I stand behind my statment, it is 100% the truth.
There you go; now that’s being courageous, stating publicly that you believe as “100% the truth” that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest.
It also should be hugely entertaining to all those people who know me. 🙂
What’s happening is this, Randi; what has been made patently obvious in interactions with you is that you’ve used verbal bullying to get your way for nearly your entire life.
Unfortunately, you’ve finally met someone who can counter that by a simple and expedient method; they don’t care what you say about them, but they are more than willing to repeat it to show everyone else how ridiculous it is.
You’ve progressed into a full-bore temper tantrum, and there are several people watching now, wondering what you’ll say next. Don’t disappoint us. Throw some more vitriol and bile; you’re so darn GOOD at it. 🙂
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Hilarious. Really.”
What’s hilarious is your denial of the obvious. At June 22, 2007, 5:18pm you said “What a joke. Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage. At June 23, 2007, 2:00am you proved yourself wrong with the quote “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this).” You can’t accept reality so you have to deny and hope that everyone else will join in your delusion – I’ve got news for you, they won’t and they haven’t.
Northdallass said “Oddly enough, government dislike works just fine as a reason for bans on pedophilia, bestiality, incest, polyamory, and other forms”.
As I’ve repeatedly explained to you, those aren’t matters of mere government dislike, there are rational reasons to back up those positions, such as the inability of children and animals to give informed consent – you’re incredibly dense.
Northdallass said “There you go; now that’s being courageous, stating publicly that you believe as “100% the truth” that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in my basement to molest.”.
Once again, you lie, my actual words were “It would be no surprise to me if you were molesting children given your pyschopathic personality and defense of child molestation”.
That is 100% the truth, as to whether or not you actually have an eight year old chained up in the basement that you molest, I couldn’t say for sure, and haven’t made any such statement. Of course the fact of what I actually did say is irrelevant to you and that’s why few people take seriously anything you say, you obviously live in a delusion world and can’t accept reality so you make you own up.
Northdallass said “Unfortunately, you’ve finally met someone who can counter that by a simple and expedient method”.
That’s hilarious! You think you can counter the truth with lies. I gotta admit, that’s simple and expedient, but unfortunately for you lies don’t counter the truth of what I’ve said – given your support for child molestation it wouldn’t be surprising if you were molesting children and once again I fully acknowledge the possibility that you may not be.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What’s hilarious is your denial of the obvious.
Still hilarious. Really.
Especially when one takes the quote directly cited in that post that says this:
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
Next:
As I’ve repeatedly explained to you, those aren’t matters of mere government dislike, there are rational reasons to back up those positions, such as the inability of children and animals to give informed consent – you’re incredibly dense.
Mhm.
If children weren’t able to give informed consent, every sexual act with someone under the age of 18 would count as nonconsensual sex — aka rape — and be a crime.
But schools actively tell children as young as 12 that it’s OK for them to have sex as long as they “use protection”, and children can give informed consent to have abortions. Heck, children can have abortions — which is a clear-cut indication that somebody had sex with them — without even having to reveal who got them pregnant, despite the fact that, by definition, whoever did raped them.
In short, Randi, you’re arguing that children can’t give “informed consent” even as your fellow leftists support them doing activities that require “informed consent” to be legal.
it wouldn’t be surprising if you were molesting children and once again I fully acknowledge the possibility that you may not be.
If that were the case, you wouldn’t have needed to say that I was in the first place.
You accused me of having an eight-year-old child in my basement to molest, even though you a) didn’t know it to be true and b) allegedly “acknowledge the possibility” that that may not be true.
Why did you claim that I was, then? Why did you even make the statement when you yourself admit you don’t know the facts?
And here’s the other part, Randi; you’re used to people retaliating in kind, which legitimizes your behavior in your twisted moral structure. I am simply stating publicly that you accused me of molesting children and citing your own statements; you are now having to twist yourself into knots to explain how you really didn’t, even though it’s there for all the world to see.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Still hilarious. Really”
What’s hilarious is your denial of the obvious. At June 22, 2007, 5:18pm you said “What a joke. Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage. At June 23, 2007, 2:00am you proved yourself wrong with the quote “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this).” You can’t accept reality so you have to deny and hope that everyone else will join in your delusion – I’ve got news for you, they won’t and haven’t.
Northdallass said “If children weren’t able to give informed consent, every sexual act with someone under the age of 18 would count as nonconsensual sex — aka rape — and be a crime.”.
LOL, it IS a crime to have sex with an underage person Northdallass, its called statutory rape. Although there are some exceptions for this when the older person is close in age to the child the general principal holds true that children cannot give informed consent and sex with a minor is a crime. Once again, just like the equal protection provision of the constitution, the general principal holds true unless there is good reason for an exception which there isn’t when it comes to sex discrimination in marriage. According to your logic either there are no exceptions to the first amendment, or if there are it doesn’t apply at all, we all know that’s false, there it applies in general, but for example one is not protected by the first amendment if you advocate breaking the law.
Northdallass said “You accused me of having an eight-year-old child in my basement to molest, even though you a) didn’t know it to be true and b) allegedly “acknowledge the possibility” that that may not be true.”.
Gawd, its like arguing with a 4 year old…Once again, I never said you actually had an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest, my actual words at June 21, 2007, 5:51pm in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html#commentform
were “I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained in the basement so you can molest him every day.” I didn’t “allegedly” acknowledge that this may not be the case, I literally acknowledged it at June 26, 2007, 12:04pm when I said “it wouldn’t be surprising if you were molesting children and once again I fully acknowledge the possibility that you may not be.”.
Once again, your childish lies know no bounds. People aren’t stupid Northdallass, you’re not fooling anyone.
If you’re looking for someone who made statments they don’t know to be true, that’d be you. You lied saying I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, you said I have multiple sex partners, you said I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever. Unlike you I wouldn’t make statements that I can’t know to be true, I’m not a habitual liar like you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Ah yes, more attempts to verbally bully.
Randi, you insisted that marriage is not valid without consummation.
Clearly contradicting that:
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
And if you try to argue that that only covers Massachusetts and thus is not valid since that’s only one state, I have a simple reply:
I never said ALL states required consumation, merely that the law did, that means any single state.
Therefore, since that single state does not require consummation, that means that, if you apply your own logic, the law does not require consummation.
And my guess is that you will never bring that particular topic up again.
Now, on to other business.
Although there are some exceptions for this when the older person is close in age to the child the general principal holds true that children cannot give informed consent and sex with a minor is a crime.
Then why are schools encouraging children to commit the crime of having sex? Or why do abortion clinics and supporters not automatically file rape charges when a child has an abortion? Or why are children allowed to consent to abortions in the first place?
Gawd, its like arguing with a 4 year old…Once again, I never said you actually had an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest, my actual words at June 21, 2007, 5:51pm in this thread
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html#commentform
were “I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained in the basement so you can molest him every day.” I didn’t “allegedly” acknowledge that this may not be the case, I literally acknowledged it at June 26, 2007, 12:04pm when I said “it wouldn’t be surprising if you were molesting children and once again I fully acknowledge the possibility that you may not be.”.
There is a five-day gap between June 21 and June 26.
On June 21, you said nothing of the sort about “fully acknowledging the possibility that you may not be” — as your own citation demonstrates.
In fact, you didn’t do anything of the sort until it became obvious that a) I was not going to retaliate in kind, b) I was not going to back down, and c) I would gladly hold it up as an example of your behavior.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Therefore, since that single state does not require consummation, that means that, if you apply your own logic, the law does not require consummation”.
No, when I say the law requires consummation then all that’s needed to make that a true statement is one place that does. By contrast when you say the law does not require consummation then all that’s needed to falsify that statement is one place that does, and by your own admission “ a few states require this“. I’m right and you’re wrong – case closed.
Northdallass said “And my guess is that you will never bring that particular topic up again.”.
LOl, your overconfidence is side-splitting.
Northdallass said “There is a five-day gap between June 21 and June 26.”.
And unfortunately for the lies you hope to pass off, at June 22, 2007, 6:19pm I clearly stated “I never made any such claim, [that you had a child chained up in the basement] I said it wouldn’t surprise me IF you did, that’s an important distinction, one you wouldn’t be honest enough to make.” and on June 23, 2007, 12:33pm I said “You weren’t honest enough not to make a statement about something you couldn’t possibly know and you were desperate enough to lie as you so frequently do. I didn’t make a statement about that which I couldn’t know“. Not making a “statement about that which I couldn’t know” is the same as saying I have no evidence that you have a child chained up in your basement to molest. Once again you’re caught in your lies by the very words that have been typed in black and white.
I clearly acknowledged early on the possiblity that you may not be a child molester while acknowledging that being one would be consistent with your attacks on me for opposing underage marriage, your dishonesty, and your desire to hurt innocent people for your own pleasure.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, when I say the law requires consummation then all that’s needed to make that a true statement is one place that does.
Then, using that logic, all that is needed to make my statement that the law does not require consummation true is one place that does not.
Provided.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
And then:
By contrast when you say the law does not require consummation then all that’s needed to falsify that statement is one place that does, and by your own admission ” a few states require this”.
Therefore, all that is required to prove your statement false about the law requiring consummation is one place that does not — which, again, I cite:
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
Now, Randi, feel free to tear down that logic — and by doing so, invalidate your own argument.
Or, if you want to try to drop your “single state” argument and argue that “a few states” is more than one, go right ahead; I will gladly point out that, if we’re going by number of states, the ones who do not require consummation are far, far more numerous. Furthermore, what you have never acknowledged is the fact that the states who care about consummation at all are the ones who allow the use of lack of it as grounds for granting an annulment request; they do not automatically void the marriage on the basis of non-consummation unless one of the parties involved asks them to do it, nor do they require proof of consummation before they grant marital rights or view the marriage as valid.
And more business:
And unfortunately for the lies you hope to pass off, at June 22, 2007, 6:19pm I clearly stated “I never made any such claim, [that you had a child chained up in the basement] I said it wouldn’t surprise me IF you did, that’s an important distinction, one you wouldn’t be honest enough to make.” and on June 23, 2007, 12:33pm I said “You weren’t honest enough not to make a statement about something you couldn’t possibly know and you were desperate enough to lie as you so frequently do. I didn’t make a statement about that which I couldn’t know”. Not making a “statement about that which I couldn’t know” is the same as saying I have no evidence that you have a child chained up in your basement to molest.
Well, first, you didn’t cite those; you cited your statement on June 26.
And yet you claim that it’s a lie when I point out, verbatim, that there is a five-day gap between June 21 and June 26.
Furthermore, your two citations made now are June 22 and June 23; even allowing your interpretation of them to stand, it continues to be true that on June 21, you said nothing of the sort about “fully acknowledging the possibility that you may not be” — as your own citation demonstrates.
And, in the first place, it seems absurd that you would make any kind of insinuation or statement that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest when you yourself admit that a) you have no facts to prove it and b) that the possibility is there that it is not true.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Then, using that logic, all that is needed to make my statement that the law does not require consummation true is one place that does not.”. No, one exception to that falsifies your statement and you’ve admitted that “a few states require this.
Its just like if I say “birds are black” and you say “no birds are black”. All I need are two black birds to prove my statment true and one black bird to prove your statement false. The fact that in some places the law requires consummation of marriage falsifies your statement that it does not.
The fact is you made a blanket statement that love and sexual attraction are not requirements for marriage and then your own quotes proved that you’re wrong about that.
Northdallass said “And yet you claim that it’s a lie when I point out, verbatim, that there is a five-day gap between June 21 and June 26.”
That there’s five days between those dates is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that on June 21st I said “I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained up in the basement to molest every day”. Its apparent from that statment, right from the very beginning that I was not saying there was evidence that you do.
What I am saying and nothing more is that it would not be surprising if you were a child molester given the way you jumped all over me for opposing underage marriages, the way you hurt innocent people for pleasure, and your habitual dishonesty. That is 100& the truth and I stand behind my statments by signing my name unlike your cowardly self.
Unlike you I don’t make statements of certainty about that which I cannot know. You lied saying I assault religious people and and heterosexuals in all possible manners. You lied saying I have multiple sex partners. You lied saying I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever. You have no evidence whatsoever to support those statements yet being the hateful scum you are you made them anyway – you get pleasure out of trying to hurt the innocent, that’s why its easy for people to think you might be a child molester.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, one exception to that falsifies your statement and you’ve admitted that “a few states require this.
Again, Randi, apply your own logic.
Your statement:
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
Therefore, according to your own logic, one exception to that falsifies your statement.
Provided.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
Now go ahead, Randi, and state that your own logic is wrong when anyone else uses it.
And again; the few states that use consummation use it as acceptable grounds for an annulment upon request of the parties; they do not automatically consider invalid or illegal marriages on the grounds that they have no proof of the couple consummating their relationship.
Unlike you I don’t make statements of certainty about that which I cannot know.
Of course you do, Randi; that’s why you accused me of having an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest and of harassing your family.
You’re just not used to somebody a) not retaliating in kind and thereby justifying your actions and b) someone who is willing to repeat over and over and over again what you said, just to watch your story, rationale, reason, and logic change with each new iteration.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Therefore, according to your own logic, one exception to that falsifies your statement.”.
Again, its like I’m arguing with a four year old. No an exception to that does not falsify the statement anymore than finding a white bird falsifies the statement that there are black birds. One example of the law requiring consummation validates my statment and you’ve admitted that a few states require this.
One exception falsifies your statement that the law does not require consumation just as finding one black bird would falsify your statement that there are no black birds.
Northdallass said “Of course you do, Randi; that’s why you accused me of having an eight-year-old chained up in my basement to molest and of harassing your family.”
Once again, you can’t argue against what I did say so you have to lie. I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained up in your basment to molest. I said it may be that you’re the one harrassing me. At no point did I make a statement of certainty about that which I cannot know, unlike yourself.
Northdallass said “You’re just not used to somebody a) not retaliating in kind”.
LOL, Northdallass, while you falsely accuse me of having made statements of certainty about that which I cannot know you’ve done that very thing:
You lied and said I attack religious people and Christians in all possible manners, you lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever. Far from having taken the high road as you claimed you’ve treated me far far worse than I’ve treated you. Don’t give me any of this “I haven’t retaliated in kind” bullshit.
Northdallass said “You’re just not used to…b) someone who is willing to repeat over and over and over again what you said.
LOL, but you haven’t repeated what I’ve said, you’ve lied about what I’ve said over and over again and I’m well used to that as is everyone else on IGF. I’ve simply pointed out your blatant lies with my actual words. That you think this somehow helps rather than damages your reputation is hilarious, shows how warped your mind is and lends credence to the possiblity that you might be a child molester and the one who’s been harrassing me. By all means, continue lying, it just cements your poor reputation all the more. Hell, what would freak me out is if you were to stop lying for a couple of threads.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
end
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Randi makes her hypocrisy blatant.
Her original statement:
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
Now, here’s what Randi just argued:
One exception falsifies your statement that the law does not require consumation just as finding one black bird would falsify your statement that there are no black birds.
So one exception to HER statement — that the law requires consummation — would falsify her statement that the law requires consummation.
Provided.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
But watch her now spin again and argue that, while anyone else’s statement is automatically invalidated by one exception, hers insisting that marriage is not legally valid without consummation is not.
Furthermore, for the umpteenth time, in the states where the law deals with consummation at all, it is the lack of it that may be used as grounds for an annulment on request of the parties; the state recognizes people as married, regardless of whether or not they have consummated the marriage, until they request otherwise.
In short, the marriage is valid with or without consummation — until the parties involved ask it not to be based on the absence thereof. The state demands no proof; it simply accepts the marriage ceremony and grants marital benefits until asked to do otherwise.
At no point did I make a statement of certainty about that which I cannot know, unlike yourself.
Correction.
You said I was a child molestor, and you cited these “facts” to prove it.
the way you jumped all over me for opposing underage marriages, the way you hurt innocent people for pleasure, and your habitual dishonesty
You keep accusing me of being a child molestor, you keep citing your “facts” as proof, but then you try to argue that you’re not doing it and that, in fact, you have no proof that I am.
If you have no proof that I’m a child molestor, than why did you even accuse or insinuate it?
Because it was an insult. You made it with the full intent of insulting me. Furthermore, you demand that people who insult others without proof be banned.
Follow your own rules.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “So one exception to HER statement — that the law requires consummation — would falsify her statement that the law requires consummation.”.
No, just as finding one white bird doesn’t falsify the statement that there are black birds finding some places that don’t require consumation by law doesn’t falsify the statement that the law requires consummation when as you said yourself “some states require this”
Northdallass said “You said I was a child molestor, and you cited these “facts” to prove it.”.
Again you lie non-stop. My exact words were “I wouldn’t be surprised IF you had an eight year old chained in the basement so you can molest him every day.”. I never said you actually did. Unlike you I have not made a statement of certainty about that which I could not know.
Northdallass said “If you have no proof that I’m a child molestor, than why did you even accuse or insinuate it?”
I never accused you of being a child molester, I said that was consistent with your defending child molestation, your habitual dishonesty, and your habitual attempts to hurt others for your own pleasure.
ou lied and said I “attack religous people and heterosexuals in all possible manners”, I have multiple sex partners, and I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. You have no proof of that whatsoever, why did YOU say that?
Because you couldn’t debate me based on reality and rationality. You couldn’t compete with the truth so you felt you had to resort to lies.
Northdallass said “you demand that people who insult others without proof be banned.”.
You lie, I never demanded that although I wouldn’t oppose you being banned for your habitual lies and habitual attacks on innocent people.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, just as finding one white bird doesn’t falsify the statement that there are black birds finding some places that don’t require consumation by law doesn’t falsify the statement that the law requires consummation when as you said yourself “some states require this”
Ah, but you see, Randi, this is what you claimed before:
No, one exception to that falsifies your statement and you’ve admitted that “a few states require this.
You now clearly have changed your argument, stating in one spot that one exception falsifies a statement and then in another that one exception does not falsify a statement.
The only consistency here is that you treat your own statements differently than the rules of logic you use to evaluate everyone else’s.
And more spin:
I never accused you of being a child molester, I said that was consistent with your defending child molestation, your habitual dishonesty, and your habitual attempts to hurt others for your own pleasure.
You keep accusing me of being a child molestor, you keep citing your “facts” as proof, but then you try to argue that you’re not doing it and that, in fact, you have no proof that I am.
You lie, I never demanded that although I wouldn’t oppose you being banned for your habitual lies and habitual attacks on innocent people.
Mhm — but not your accusations and attacks on innocent people claiming that they are child molestors.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “You now clearly have changed your argument, stating in one spot that one exception falsifies a statement and then in another that one exception does not falsify a statement.”.
Absolutely the truth. Whether or not a statement is falsified by one exception is entirely dependent on the statement in question. One white bird does NOT falsify the statement that there are black birds. One black bird DOES falsify the statement that there are no black birds. Honest to goodness, you’ve got the logical abilities of a four year old. One state requiring consummation validates the statement that the law requires consummation. One state that requires consummation invalidates the statement that the law does not require validation. This is simple logic, but of course the truth and reality are irrlevant to you, you figure its okay to lie to get statements to match what you want them to be.
Northdallass said “You keep accusing me of being a child molestor, you keep citing your “facts” as proof, but then you try to argue that you’re not doing it and that, in fact, you have no proof that I am.”.
No, I never said you were a child molester, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF were. And I never claimed the facts of your behavior that I cited proved you were a child molester, I said they made people wonder if you might be.
Northdallass said “Mhm — but not your accusations and attacks on innocent people claiming that they are child molestors.”.
Unlike you I’ve never knowingly made a false statement, I’ve never attacked innocent people for the wrongs of others, and I’ve never claimed you are a child molester. You’re a habitual offender and that’s why I wouldn’t oppose you being banned, you’ve had ample opportunity to amend your evil ways and you unrepentently continue to offend. You’ve lied dozens and dozens of times in this thread alone.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
This statement “One state that requires consummation invalidates the statement that the law does not require validation.” should have read “One state that requires consummation invalidates the statement that the law does not require consummation.”
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And now Randi spins, trying to obfuscate by making false comparisons and avoiding the content of her original statement.
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
So, if Randi’s logic were consistent, one state allowing marriage to be valid (because, as I cited above, she insists that ONE exception falsifies the entire statement) WITHOUT requiring consummation would invalidate her statement.
Provided.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
And again to show her hypocrisy, she desperately spins:
One state requiring consummation validates the statement that the law requires consummation. One state that requires consummation invalidates the statement that the law does not require validation.
But, according to the spinning Randi, one state that does not require consummation does NOT validate the statement that the law does not require consummation, and one state that does not require consummation does NOT invalidate her statement that the law requires consummation.
In other words, Randi can shriek that the law requires consummation even when there are plain examples that it does not and still be right — but someone who points out that the law does not require consummation and provides a plain example that it does not require consummation is always wrong.
This is why her insistence that I am lying is so hilarious; as we see, the “truth” in her mind is whatever she wants it to be, and has no relevance whatsoever to information provided. Because she thinks the law requires consummation, it is so, and nothing will ever prove to her that it doesn’t, even direct citations of said law.
Just as she insists that I am a child molestor and am harassing her despite her complete lack of proof and acknowledgment that she has none.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “And now Randi spins, trying to obfuscate by making false comparisons and avoiding the content of her original statement.”.
LOL, ohhh Northdallass, now I’m done feeling sorry for you and I’m just laughing at you. You were so determined to deny the obvious you had to make youself look like a fool and I didn’t even have to help. You’re like “wait wait, I haven’t made myself look stupid enough yet, let me go on”. And so you did with the absurd statement:
“You now clearly have changed your argument, stating in one spot that one exception falsifies a statement and then in another that one exception does not falsify a statement.”.
Let’s just cherish the idiocy of the position you insisted on decending to by demonstrating once again just how painfully obviously wrong it is:
Contrary to your idiocy it does not follow that if one exception falsifies one statement that one exeption must also falsify a different statement. To wit: One white bird does NOT falsify the statement that there are black birds. One black bird DOES falsify the statement that there are no black birds. By the same token one state requiring consummation VALIDATES the statement that the law requires consummation. One state that requires consummation INVALIDATES the statement that the law does not require consummation. Directly analogous situations Northdallas, and I love that you don’t know when to leave well enough alone, you’re in a hole and you just keep digging and digging, screaming “I don’t look like a big enough idiot yet, let me keep going”. If you spin any faster your head’s going to come off. By all means, please continue – this is rich.
Northdallass said “Just as she insists that I am a child molestor and am harassing her despite her complete lack of proof and acknowledgment that she has none.”.
LOL Northdallas, no matter how many times you tell the same lies the truth remains the same. I did not insist you are a child molester, I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you were. I did not say you had harrassed me, I said you may have been the one that did.
And showing the hypocrite you are you’ve done exactly what you rail against, make claims of certainty about that which you cannot know to be true. You lied and said I “assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners”, you lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and wherever. You bitch that no one should do the very things you’ve done so frequently, its clear what kind of a lowlife you are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
LOL….and again, Randi, your tactics are patently obvious; instead of using your own statement, as I have, you are setting up a strawman statement about birds.
In contrast, I have clearly cited your own statements and used them directly to demonstrate that you apply your “logic” in a most-hypocritical fashion.
Instead of shrieking, namecalling, and setting up strawmen, defend your own statements using your own logic. Demonstrate to all of us the logic of your position that even if a state does NOT require consummation, as is clearly pointed out, that you are not wrong for insisting that “the law” does — and that, even if a state does not require consummation, as is clearly pointed out, someone who says it does not require consummation is wrong.
Or how one exception disproves everyone else’s rule — but in your case, multiple exceptions do not disprove your rule.
Again, Randi, your post is nothing more than your usual accusations made without proof, such as your accusation that I am harassing you and am a child molestor.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “you are setting up a strawman statement about birds…[demonstrate] how one exception disproves everyone else’s rule — but in your case, multiple exceptions do not disprove your rule”
Its not a strawman, you based your claim that I’m wrong on your stated rule that if one exception falsifies one statement then one exception falsifies a different statement. I demonstrated your rule undisputably wrong with the two statements:
One white bird does NOT falsify the statement that there are black birds. One black bird DOES falsify the statement that there are no black birds.
As per your request I’ve demonstrated that one exception disproves one rule and multiple exceptions do not disprove a different rule. You insisted the rule is that one exception falsifies both statements and are too childish to accept that the absurdity of your position is exposed.
Northdallass said “Demonstrate to all of us the logic of your position that even if a state does NOT require consummation, as is clearly pointed out, that you are not wrong for insisting that “the law” does — and that, even if a state does not require consummation, as is clearly pointed out, someone who says it does not require consummation is wrong.”.
Now THAT’S a straw man. I never took the position that if a particular state’s law does not require consummation that that state’s law does.
I said the law requires consumation of marriage, you admitted in your quote that a few states require this . That makes that statement true just like two black birds make the statement that there are black birds true.
You said the law does not require consummation. That a few states do makes that statement false just like a single black bird makes the statement that there are no black birds false.
Northdallass said “Again, Randi, your post is nothing more than your usual accusations made without proof, such as your accusation that I am harassing you and am a child molestor.”.
I never claimed that you were a child molester or that you were harrassing me and I certainly never claimed to have proof that that was true. True to your nature you lie again and again because you can’t compete in an argument based on reality and rationality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never took the position that if a particular state’s law does not require consummation that that state’s law does.
Again, your original statement:
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
And then what did you try to spin when I pointed out the facts?
I never said ALL states required consumation, merely that the law did, that means any single state.
Furthermore, and ironically, she tries to spin that she didn’t say “all states” and she is therefore right and my statement is wrong — when I didn’t say “all states” either.
Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage, nor is it legal grounds for automatically granting marriage.
Now, remember the spinning Randi’s argument that a statement is true if it is true in even just one area?
Provided.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
So again, the spinning Randi shrieks that if she’s wrong 47 times out of 50, she’s still right, and if I’m right far more than that — especially when one considers that the states that consider consummation at all use it as grounds for annulling a marriage on request, not as grounds for recognizing the marriage at all — I’m still wrong.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Once again Northdallass I never took the position that if a particular state’s law does not require consummation that that state’s law does and the statement of mine you quoted shows I didn’t.
Northdallass, you said “Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage, nor is it legal grounds for automatically granting marriage.” and then you admitted “a few states require this – you admitted your statement was wrong.
If I find 3 black birds and you find 47 white birds my statement that there are black birds is still true. If you find 47 white birds and I find three black birds your statement that there are no black birds is proven to be false.
The law requires consummation of marriage, you admitted that. Your statement that the law does not require love and sexual attraction is wrong, you admitted that.
Case closed.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possilbe manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you liked and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see you I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Randi spins, using her strawman statement.
If I find 3 black birds and you find 47 white birds my statement that there are black birds is still true. If you find 47 white birds and I find three black birds your statement that there are no black birds is proven to be false.
But I did not say there are “no black birds”, just as YOU claim that, since you didn’t say ALL, you didn’t mean ALL.
Love and sexual attraction is not a legal requirement of marriage, nor is it legal grounds for automatically granting marriage.
You tried to argue back:
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
And I cited a clear example that it does not.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
But, as is your usual practice, rather than admit your ignorance, you seized on a small point and tried to argue that it validated your entire argument and that you were right and I was wrong.
In your attempt to deny that sex is a requirement of marriage you prove yourself wrong. In your own quote it said “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this). Thanks for proving my point.
You then, when confronted on that, tried to spin and argue that one state was enough to validate your statement and make it universally true.
I never said ALL states required consumation, merely that the law did, that means any single state.
Then, when I pointed out that, under your “one state” rule, MY statement was valid, you then started making strawman arguments that you could manipulate unrelated to the original statements, rather than citing actual arguments, to explain why your argument was automatically right and mine was automatically wrong — first insisting that one exeception universally disproved a statement, then, when I demonstrated an exception that disproved your statement, insisting that an exception never disproves your statements.
Then, when I referenced the very original statements and equally applied her “logic”, she shrieked, namecalled, and again tried to wave her strawman, and has continued to do the same, even as I pointed out how her evaluation spins in comparing her original statement to mine — and even in this most recent post, she still tries to hide behind her faked strawman statement about birds, rather than dealing with her real and original statement.
Furthermore, she never answers the simple question: what states, as she insists, require proof of consummation before they will recognize and grant benefits and legal protections to married couples?
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “But I did not say there are “no black birds”, just as YOU claim that, since you didn’t say ALL, you didn’t mean ALL.”.
What you said was “You now clearly have changed your argument, stating in one spot that one exception falsifies a statement and then in another that one exception does not falsify a statement.”.
The bird analogy proves your argument false, whether or not a statement is falsified by an exception is entirely dependent on the statement in question. Thus the basis for your insisting that I’m wrong is destroyed. You admitted that consummation is required by “a few states” and thus my statement that the law requires consummation is true and your postion that the law does not require consummation is false.
Northdallass said “Furthermore, she never answers the simple question: what states, as she insists, require proof of consummation before they will recognize and grant benefits and legal protections to married couples?”.
You can check that out for yourself here:
http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml
I don’t know which particular states require it, just that it clearly says regarding consumation that “a few states require this
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possilbe manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you liked and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, when cornered, Randi tries to spin her strawman.
The bird analogy proves your argument false, whether or not a statement is falsified by an exception is entirely dependent on the statement in question.
Again, she invokes her strawman, rather than dealing with real statements, as I have, which demonstrate conclusively that Randi’s “logic” involves her being able to ignore facts and insist that she is always right.
For example, Randi insists that she is always right and “the law” requires consummation.
When she goes to Massachusetts, what does she find in “the law”?
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
So Randi insists that “the law” requires consummation even when it clearly says otherwise.
But when you ask her to cite a similar state law that requires consummation, as she claims they do, what does she babble?
I don’t know which particular states require it,
She knows; she just doesn’t want to acknowledge the following statement in her source.
Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.
She just doesn’t want to admit that the states who do “require” consummation don’t require proof of consummation to recognize and grant benefits of marriage; they only use it as a basis for nullifying the marriage upon request after it’s already been legally recognized.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the law requires consummation, you admitted it yourself “a few states require this”
Your statement that the law does not require consummation is falsified by this fact.
The truth of that is in the statment you quoted you claim I don’t want to acknowledge:
“Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.”
Obviously sometimes a lack of subsequent sexual relations does affect the validity of the marriage and could be the basis for having the marriage annulled. The existence of a few states requiring consummation validates my statement that the law requires consummation despite states that don’t just like the existence of a few black birds validates the statement “there are black birds” despite the existence of white birds. The existence of a few states requiring consummation invalidates your statement that the law does not require consummation just like the existence of a few black birds invalidates the statement that there are no black birds. Both situations invalidate your assertion that if an exception invalidate one statement that it must invalidate a different statement. Your house of cards has come tumbling down and you look like the fool you are.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possilbe manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
end
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, Randi spins.
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Again, Randi insists that she is always right and “the law” requires consummation.
When she goes to Massachusetts, what does she find in “the law”?
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
But according to Randi, she is still right, because she’s always right and “the law” requires consummation, regardless of what it actually says — and to prove that, she makes up strawman statements about birds, desperately avoiding her own statements or analysis thereof.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own. She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
No, its not dependent on whether its my statment or yours, its dependent on the statement itself. For example, two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One black bird disproves the statement that there are no black birds. Its the same way with our statements. The statement that the law requires consummation is proven by your admission that “a few states require this” and the statment that the law does not require consummation is disproven by the fact that “a few states require this
Northdallass said “She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
No, I never said that, By not qualifying my statement it meant in any state or jurisdiction. Given that the law does require consummation. Similarly you did not qualify your statement and that means in any state or jusrisdiction and makes your statement that the law does not require consummation false.
Northdallass said “She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.”.
No, you lie, I merely said the law requires consummation, I didn’t specify for what purpose.
Northdallass said “When she goes to Massachusetts, what does she find in “the law”?”.
I never go to Massachusetts, I wouldn’t risk stepping foot in a country without a reasonable concept of right and wrong. Now if Massachusetts was in Canada I might go there.
Northdallass said “But according to Randi, she is still right, because she’s always right and “the law” requires consummation, regardless of what it actually says — and to prove that, she makes up strawman statements about birds, desperately avoiding her own statements or analysis thereof.”.
No, I never said the law requires consummation regardless of what it says, I said the law requires consummation and given that as you said “a few states require this that is the truth. And the bird analogy was not a straw man, I never said you took that position, what I said was that it invalidates your assertion that if one exception falsifies one statement then one exception must falsify a differnt statemnt – the bird analogy clearly shows you were wrong about that and have no basis for your assertion that I was using double standards to judge our statements about consummation.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No, I never said that, By not qualifying my statement it meant in any state or jurisdiction. Given that the law does require consummation. Similarly you did not qualify your statement and that means in any state or jusrisdiction and makes your statement that the law does not require consummation false.
http://www.indegayforum.com/blog/show/31279.html#10388Thank you for being so blatantly hypocritical.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
So, according to Randi, even though the law specifically states consummation is not required, it is required or the marriage isn’t legally valid, and that anyone who says it is not required is wrong.
So again:
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own. She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.”
Nonsense. Whether a statement is disproven by an exception depends on the statment. Whether an occurrence proves a statement is dependent on the statement.
For example, two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One white bird does not disprove that statment. One black bird disproves the statment that there are no black birds. Several white birds do not prove the statement that there are no black birds.
Its the same with our statements. Your admission that “a few states require this” proves my statement that the law requires consummation as well as disproving your statment that the law does not require consumation. That’s logic a 10 year old could understand, too bad your mental age is four.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, the spinning Randi runs away from her statement and tries to use a strawman.
She says:
No, I never said that, By not qualifying my statement it meant in any state or jurisdiction. Given that the law does require consummation. Similarly you did not qualify your statement and that means in any state or jusrisdiction and makes your statement that the law does not require consummation false.
Thank you for being so blatantly hypocritical.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married.
So, according to Randi, even though the law cited specifically states consummation is not required, it is required or the marriage isn’t legally valid — and that anyone who says it is not required is wrong.
Furthermore, since the spinning Randi argues that any one state proves her right, why does that not apply to anyone else?
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me.
Nope.
You made that accusation.
You support polygamy incest, and child molestation and I condemn you for it.
So she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said ”
So, according to Randi, even though the law cited specifically states consummation is not required, it is required or the marriage isn’t legally valid — and that anyone who says it is not required is wrong.
You lie, I never said that. Whether a statement is disproven by an exception depends on the statment. Whether an occurrence proves a statement is dependent on the statement.
For example, two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One white bird does not disprove that statment. One black bird disproves the statment that there are no black birds. Several white birds do not prove the statement that there are no black birds.
Its the same with our statements. Your admission that “a few states require this” proves my statement that the law requires consummation as well as disproving your statment that the law does not require consumation. That’s logic a 10 year old could understand, too bad your mental age is four.
Northdallass said “You made that accusation.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me.
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And laughably once again the link you posted proves what I said and shows you’re lying.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, the spinning Randi runs to her strawman.
You stated the law requires consummation, spinning Randi.
I say it doesn’t.
It says it doesn’t.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (“The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity”). [FN22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry.
But again, the spinnning Randi shrieks that she is right, fabricating fanciful strawmen to “prove” the fact rather than dealing with the clear link and proof.
Now watch as the spinning Randi, who namecalls and insults people like myself who confront her with facts, tries to cite “a few” as her proof — but insists that the fact that the overwhelming number of states do not is irrelevant.
So again:
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the link you provided said very clearly “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this)” and ” Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.”
You proved my point the law requires consummation and when you say it doesn’t you’re wrong. The fact that Masachusetts doesn’t require it does not negate the fact that as you said yourself “a few states require this” and in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.”
THE LAW REQUIRES CONSUMMATION. When you say it doesn’t, YOU’RE WRONG.
Northdallass said ”
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.”.
Once again you lie, I never said that, I never said what the law requires consummation for, merely that it did.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Once again you lie, I never said that, I never said what the law requires consummation for, merely that it did.
Mhm.
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
THE LAW REQUIRES CONSUMMATION. When you say it doesn’t, YOU’RE WRONG.
Like here.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (“The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity”). [FN22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry.
Remember, everyone, Randi says that the law requires consummation, and ANYTHING that says otherwise is WRONG.
Even the law itself.
And then again:
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know.
But, as we see, the spinning Randi can insist, “THE LAW REQUIRES CONSUMMATION. When you say it doesn’t, YOU’RE WRONG,” in the face of referenced FACT.
So again:
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass, the link you provided said very clearly “Consummation of the marriage by the act of sexual relations (only a few states require this)” and ” Most states consider a couple to be married when the ceremony ends. Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage, although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.”
That proves as I said “the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
The fact that the law does not require consummation in Masachusetts does not negate that fact that in some states the law does require consummation. Its exactly the same situation as the occurrence of one white bird does not negate the statement that there are black birds and by the same token one black birds negates the statement that there are no black birds. One state requiring consummation negates your statement that the law does not require consummation.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, the desperate Randi spins:
The fact that the law does not require consummation in Masachusetts does not negate that fact that in some states the law does require consummation.
But you didn’t SAY “some states”, spinning Randi; there are no exceptions to the rule in your statement.
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
The facts prove you wrong, spinning Randi.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (“The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity”). [FN22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry.
And if you want to play the exceptions game, spinning Randi, you have to play equally; your “only a few” is far outweighed by my “everyone else”.
But, as we see, the spinning Randi can insist, “THE LAW REQUIRES CONSUMMATION. When you say it doesn’t, YOU’RE WRONG,” in the face of referenced FACT.
So again:
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own. She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s..
Not at all, you lie. Whether an exception or an occurrence disproves or proves a statement depends entirely on the statement in question.
Two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One white bird does not disprove the statement that there are black birds.
Your own quote that “a few states require this proves the statement that the law requires consummation and disproves the statement that the law does not require consummation.
Northdallass said ”
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.”.
You lie I never said what the law requires consummation for, merely that it does require consummation.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”.
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said what the law requires consummation for, merely that it does require consummation.
And again, the spinning Randi is contradicted by her own words.
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
No wonder she keeps shrieking about birds; she has to spin away from her own words.
So again:
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “Randi is contradicted by her own words.”.
Wrong. You said “She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.”.
I never said whether a lack of consummation made a marriage invalide immediately or if it made it invalid as reason for an annulment. You lied again.
Northdallass said “She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own. She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
Not at all, you lie. Whether an exception or an occurrence disproves or proves a statement depends entirely on the statement in question.
Two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One white bird does not disprove the statement that there are black birds.
Your own quote that “a few states require this proves the statement that the law requires consummation and disproves the statement that the law does not require consummation.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”.
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
And again, we see Randi start to spin when she can’t explain her own statements.
First she stated:
I never said what the law requires consummation for, merely that it does require consummation.
Then, when that was proven to be false by citing her own statement:
And you’re wrong, a sexless marriage is grounds for divorce and the consumation of marriage is a legal requirement for a valid marriage.
she spins again:
I never said whether a lack of consummation made a marriage invalide immediately or if it made it invalid as reason for an annulment.
Again, her own statement is clear: if a marriage is not consummated, it is not legally valid. Period. End of report. No exceptions cited there. None.
Now, if the spinning Randi is ready to admit that consummation is NOT required for a marriage to be legally valid, we may have something. But she has flatly stated that consummation is always required, and insists that anyone who says consummation is not required is wrong — even if the law specifically states it is not.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.”.
I never said whether a lack of consummation made a marriage invalid immediately or if it made it invalid as reason for an annulment.
In either case a lack of consummation is a requirement for a valid marriage just as I said.
Two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One white bird does not disprove the statement that there are black birds.
Your own quote that “a few states require this proves the statement that the law requires consummation and disproves the statement that the law does not require consummation.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”.
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
In either case a lack of consummation is a requirement for a valid marriage just as I said.
Mhm.
People who have never consummated their marriage, and never plan to, may be and stay married. See Franklin v. Franklin, 154 Mass. 515, 516 (1891) (“The consummation of a marriage by coition is not necessary to its validity“). [FN22] People who cannot stir from their deathbed may marry.
So again:
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own. She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.”
You lie. Wether a statement is proven or disproven by exceptions or occurrences is entirely dependent on the statement in question. The fact that Massachusetts does not require consummation does not refute YOUR own statement that regarding consummation “ a few states require this nor YOUR statment “Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage[but obviously may do so], although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.
Two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One white bird does not disprove the statement that there are black birds.
By the same token your admission that in some states the law requires consummation proves the statement that the law requires consummation and one state not requiring does not falsify the statment that the law requires consummation.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
By the same token your admission that in some states the law requires consummation proves the statement that the law requires consummation and one state not requiring does not falsify the statment that the law requires consummation.
So again:
She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own.
She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
She insists that her statement “the law” does not mean “all states” since it’s not specifically mentioned — but insists that the statements of others that do not specifically mention “all states” mean “all states”.
She insists that the fact that a “few states” allow non-consummation as a reason for annulment when asked by the parties involved means that those states do not recognize a marriage as existing until provided with proof of consummation.
Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Northdallass said “She insists that any exception disproves a statement — except her own. She insists that any occurrence proves her statement — except anyone else’s.
You lie. Wether a statement is proven or disproven by exceptions or occurrences is entirely dependent on the statement in question. The fact that Massachusetts does not require consummation does not refute YOUR own statement that regarding consummation “a few states require this nor YOUR statment “Lack of subsequent sexual relations does not automatically affect the validity of the marriage[but obviously may do so], although in some states non-consummation could be a basis for having the marriage annulled.
Two black birds prove the statement that there are black birds. One white bird does not disprove the statement that there are black birds.
By the same token your admission that in some states the law requires consummation proves the statement that the law requires consummation and one state not requiring consummation does not falsify the statment that the law requires consummation.
Northdallass said “Meanwhile, she continues to scream and namecall me, making accusations of which she admits she has no proof or facts that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest and that I am harassing her.”
You lie, I never said you were a child molester or the one harrassing me I said I wouldn’t be surprised IF you are a child molester and that you may be the one who was harrassing me. And at no point did I claim to have evidence of that which I can’t know. Once again we see the facts are irrelevant to you, you can’t argue against what I actually said so you have to lie. You however DO make false claims about that which you cannot know. You lied and said I assault religious people and heterosexuals in all possible manners, You lied and said I have multiple sex partners, you lied and said I demand to have public sex whenever and whereever. Once again, we see I never stoop to treating you the way you treat me.