I was never concerned. I always knew you were an imbecile.That's a relief.....you had me worried there for a moment.
Dear, dumb person. None of this is a prerequisite for, nor requirement of legal marriage. It is absolutely grounds for annulment, but that is a completely separate issue. Congratulations, you are an idiot.I'm glad you asked! First lets start off with the definition of sex, so that there's no confusion. It is coital sexual intercourse. While other sexual acts have been sometimes called "sex", they should not be confused with actual coital intercourse. Second, courts have referred to sex as "marital relations". The first act of coital sexual intercourse between husband and wife is know as "consummation", which, in some states, failure to do, is grounds for annulment. Lastly, sex can, and does lead to conception....procreation...wh ich we both know is a function of marriage and a legitimate state interest in marriage, as numerous courts have ruled.
Conjugal, there is that word again. I am starting to think you don't know what it means. It certainly doesn't support your notion of marriage being one man and one woman.There are numerous reason, but one often overlooked, is the issue of equality. By maintaining the monogamous conjugal definition of marriage, the state ensures not only that both genders are integrated into the marital union, but that all men and women are treated the same as it relates to marriage.
Tell me, moron, how does allowing same sex couples to marry deny anyone the right to, "enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife?"You seem unable to offer a compelling state interest in depriving some men and women of their fundamental right to marry, enter into a legally recognized union of husband and wife, that would render such a deprivation, constitutional.
Of course, not. At question is whether there is an interest in treating same sex couples differently.There's no state interest in treating some men and women, unequally, than other men and women as it relates to marriage, the legally recognized union of husband and wife. You seem to be of the opinion that such unequal treatment is okay.
I am not. I am advocating all people be treated equally. You are the idiot advocating for some people to receive less than equal protection of the law.Some courts have recognized the compelling state interest in treating all men, and women the same as it relates to marriage. Why you continue to advocate for unequal treatment for some men and women, is puzzling.
How's that hunt for a compelling governmental interest served by limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman going?
Clearly, from your earlier responses, you are too stupid to understand the legal concepts in play, or the applicability of a compelling governmental interest.
I would explain it to you, but quite frankly, it seems a waste of time. Just keep being the idiot you are.