Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Manx
Of course, each of your points has had numerous weaknesses. Such as this latest one, where the laws are not discrminatory (sic) because gay people can marry someone of another gender. This is clearly absurd, one need only look at your interpretation of the law and then apply it to brother and sister - techincally they should be allowed to marry according to how you read the law, but they are not. So your reading of the law is incorrect.
|
I assume you're referring to this definition:
Quote:
|
Any man (straight or gay) who is legally able to marry can marry any woman (straight or gay) that can legally marry and that agrees to it.
|
Under this definition, you apparently missed the "that can legally marry" part. Other portions of the code specify what the disqualifications of marriage are.
You keep saying my reading of the law is wrong. Where did you get your J.D. from again? Consanguinity is a codified disqualification for marriage practically everywhere if it's within a certain distance. Will this need to be changed in case a pair of homosexual siblings wish to marry?
Quote:
|
It is obvious that marriage is meant to be provided for strong relationships - just look at INS, a marriage with a foreigner is constantly reviewed by the INS in order to ensure that the relationship is serious and not simply convenience. In your interpretation of marriage laws, the INS would have no business making such judgements: marriage need not be about relationship. Since your interpretation is not the interpretation of the gov'ts, it becomes clear that prohibiting gay marriage is indeed discrminatory - a gay person, if they want to be married, is forced to accept a relationship with someone that they are, naturally, not strongly attracted to.
|
As I'm sure you're aware, immigration law is handled differently in many ways than standard civil law is. Checking for immigration fraud in the form of a sham marriage isn't about enforcing the marriage laws, it's about enforcing IMMIGRATION laws. You know this, but are either deliberately trying to obfuscate, or are grievously misinformed. IF MARRIAGE IS THERE TO PROVIDE STRONG RELATIONSHIPS, WHERE'S THE CIVIL LAW ENFORCEMENT VEHICLE? When was the last time you heard of a couple being busted for "marriage fraud" for engaging in a marriage of convenience????? Would you care to cite a statute which criminalizes marriages of convenience if the intent is anything other than a specific intent to defraud?
What, exactly, have I NOT explained to death about my first post? Please be SPECIFIC.