Please explain how that response logically addresses my post?<quoted text>
Please show me the law, in any state, where a couple is denied the right to marry because they do not intend to have children, or the law where the state ( not either party in the marriage ) decides to invalidate their marriage because they didnít have any children.
Uhhhhhh....huh....actually at its core is sex, AND procreation. The first lead to the second. "Consumation", "marital relations", "be getting children", "presumption of paternity", all words that speak to the sexual union of husband and wife, and/or what that union produces, children. Do you honestly think that now that the is legal SSM in a few states, that a few centuries of American marital jurisprudence, not to mention the cultural, historic, and religious concept of marriage as a union of husband and wife is invalidated, or erased from the public an historic record?
I made no claim regarding the right to marry in that post.
Please link any state body of case law that deals with a same sex marriage, male or female, and recognized, byI can give you a tip.... no such law exists
law, reasons for same sex divorce, such as failure to consummate the marriage when party has pledged to do so.
Please list any and all countries, where procreation is not part of that country' s collective historic, legal, cultural, and/or religious concept of marriage.Marriage is about a commitment to one another, a contract, a promise to one another. Procreation is not a requirement in this or any country that I am aware of.
If YOU can find one, I suggest YOU move there. BTW, were your mother and father married?If you can find a country that demands that, I suggest you move there.
Procreation is a dead issue, it already failed in court, and you certainly wonít get anywhere with that lame argument here.