Skylar
Diamond Member
- Jul 5, 2014
- 54,242
- 16,467
- 2,250
That's not what the the court said in Obergefell in its third tier of rationale addressing children specifically. They said that children & child rearing are "part of the whole" of the concept of marriage.
The phrase 'part of the whole' doesn't appear anywhere in the Obergefell ruling. You're citing your imagination again. And you literally making up passages in the Obergefell ruling has no legal relevance.
Just as you ignoring the explicit findings of the Obergefell ruling has no relevance to the ruling's enforcement or its effect on other cases.
"The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples"
Obergefell v. Hodges
You can pretend the USSC never found this. But its not like the lower courts or the law will.
Know what else is part of the whole? The contract. Where was the discussion or citation..
The Obergefell decision never finds children are party to the marriage of their parents. You've imagined it. Or that children are the only purpose in marriage. In fact they found that the right to marry cannot be conditioned on procreation.
"...the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate."
Obergefell V. Hodges
How do you deal with this explicit contradiction of your assertion that EVERY marriage must be conditioned on procreation? You simply ignore the Supreme Court and replace their explicit findings with your imagination.
And your imagination is, as always, legally irrelevant. It has no impact on the outcome of any case.
Last edited: