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 didnt have any children.<quoted text>
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?
Why in the name of Francis Albert Sinatra, would procreation have to be required in order to prove that marriage and procreation are linked? How about this, ".....first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes Big D in the baby carriage..." BTW, what form of birth control do SSCs use?
I can give you a tip.... no such law exists
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 a country that demands that, I suggest you move there.
Procreation is a dead issue, it already failed in court, and you certainly wont get anywhere with that lame argument here.