Sandy,
I'm 63 and have an 8 year old daughter, making me 55 when my wife and I had her.
I'm not sure that the state can come to your rational suggestion.
Bob Ritter
On July 3, 2013 at 9:49 PM Levinson, Sanford V slevin...@law.utexas.edu
wrote:
I realize that my following question gets
Len,
Given the extreme overpopulation of the U.S. and the world, the state does
indeed have a substantial interest -- at least in the number of children parents
produce. (The current population footprint is not environmentally sustainable.)
Bob Ritter
On July 3, 2013 at 10:17 PM Len
I’m skeptical of claims that the U.S. is overpopulated; indeed,
I’m tentatively inclined to say that we ought to have a considerably larger
population. But surely if this is just a matter of the rational basis test,
the government would have a rational basis for policies aimed
Could the procreation argument carried to the extreme result in a requirement
that the marriage applicants be required to certify under oath that they intend
to have children (biologically) and that to the best of their knowledge they are
capable of having children? And that if either answer is
Again, if the question is whether there is a rational basis for
the requirement – the question that we began with, since the presence or
absence of a rational basis for certain marriage recognition rules is what
Kennedy and Alito were debating – then the answer is “yes”; there
In my view, the answer to Bob’s questions is “no.” Marriage applicants could
not be required to make such certifications. The constitutional right to marry
is firmly established in our history and traditions, and its content as firmly
established does not permit such a certification to be
