11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case? SCOTUS?

[Silhouette]

Well if you care about the topic of gay-lifestyle marriage being forced upon your unwilling state...

The start of same-sex marriage in Florida may not happen on Jan. 6 as anticipated.
And even if it does, a battle is brewing over issuing such marriage licenses. While county clerks have been advised they will be committing a misdemeanor by issuing such licenses, some state attorneys — such as Palm Beach County's Dave Aronberg — say they will look the other way....on Tuesday night, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas agreed to consider extending the temporary hold. Once attorneys make their cases on Thursday, Thomas can either unilaterally continue the hold, allow it to be lifted on Jan. 5, or else bring the matter to his colleagues on the Supreme Court....As of now, Florida's county clerks are in a holding pattern after their attorneys said they'd be committing a misdemeanor if they issued marriage licenses Supreme Court to weigh in on Florida same-sex marriage - Sun Sentinel

States should be able to incentivize that best situation for their only concern in marriage: the children in it. Children need and deserve both complimentary genders in the home for their own self-esteem and balanced formative years that prepare them for society at large. That can be found in the best scenario of their two blood parents or the next best in adoptive father/mother.

So-called "gay marriage", which is properly gay-lifestyle marriage, promises the state it is petitioning for inclusion in the incentive program that they will deprive the state's #1 concern, children, of one of the complimentary gendered parents or one blood parent 100% of the time.

Long story short, since this is a lifestyle question and not one of "civil rights" (behaviors don't have civil rights), a state's majority has a right to reject that type of "marriage" on behalf of untold numbers of children yet to be born within its borders.

Windsor 2013 Upholds and affirms states' "unquestioned authority" on the choice of whether or not to validate gay-lifestyle marriages (also referred to as "same sex marriage" or "marriage equality"). Until further notice by the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court only, Windsor is the standing and highest law concerning the matter. No lower court may overrule a current SCOTUS finding on a specific question of law, nor may they engage in the practice of reading crystal balls to anticipate what future decisions "might be" in order to justify acting as the Supreme Court in-advance to try to overturn Windsor from underneath.

Useful & relevant links:

6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings Page 585 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum (82% of the largest poll at USMB say an emphatic "NO")

United States v. Windsor

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You've lost. For the love of God, give it up. The States have no compelling, or even valid reasons for restricting the civil right of gays to marry.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes, children are a compelling reason. Sorry. For the love of God, accept that children thrive best in homes where they have a mother AND a father.

French populists agree: (Paris, 2013)

France is one of the most liberal countries around. Even they can see that common sense prevails when it comes to the formative years of children...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, children are a compelling reason. Sorry. For the love of God, accept that children thrive best in homes where they have a mother AND a father.

Actually children thrive best when there are many adults around to care for them, period. The sex of the adults matters not a damn but your homophobia simply clouds all rational thought this issue.

If you truly wanted to do what was best for children we'd have to change society at a fundamental level, and many biological parents would lose their children, forever.

 

[g5000]

Well if you care about the topic of gay-lifestyle marriage being forced upon your unwilling state...

What exactly is a "gay-lifestyle marriage"? Isn't that the one where two married people get to file a joint tax return and are eligible for Social Security death benefits? Or did you think it was the one where you are forced to suck a dick?

If you are opposed to this "gay-lifestyle marriage" being allowed, it makes me wonder how you feel about the gay lifestyle in general being allowed.

 

[mdk]

Yes, children are a compelling reason. Sorry. For the love of God, accept that children thrive best in homes where they have a mother AND a father.

French populists agree: (Paris, 2013)

France is one of the most liberal countries around. Even they can see that common sense prevails when it comes to the formative years of children...

France is also a very Cathloic nation. Instead showing photos of a rally held a year ago in a foreign nation why don't you shows the photos from the March for Marriage back in June? The crowds were beyond pathetic. You'll find more people in a mall parking lot then at NOM's rally.

 

[Silhouette]

Actually children thrive best when there are many adults around to care for them, period. The sex of the adults matters not a damn but your homophobia simply clouds all rational thought this issue.

If you truly wanted to do what was best for children we'd have to change society a fundamental level, and many biological parents would lose their children, forever.

I disagree. So do the children themselves:

************

During the oral arguments about Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy referred to children being raised by same-sex couples. Since I was one of those children—from ages 2-19, I was raised by a lesbian mother with the help of her partner—I was curious to see what he would say.
I also eagerly anticipated what he would say because I had taken great professional and social risk to file an amicus brief with Doug Mainwaring (who is gay and opposes gay marriage), in which we explained that children deeply feel the loss of a father or mother, no matter how much we love our gay parents or how much they love us. Children feel the loss keenly because they are powerless to stop the decision to deprive them of a father or mother, and the absence of a male or female parent will likely be irreversible for them.
Over the last year I’ve been in frequent contact with adults who were raised by parents in same-sex partnerships. They are terrified of speaking publicly about their feelings, so several have asked me (since I am already out of the closet, so to speak) to give voice to their concerns.
I cannot speak for all children of same-sex couples, but I speak for quite a few of them, especially those who have been brushed aside in the so-called “social science research” on same-sex parenting.
Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.
Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex....

...
The richest and most successful same-sex couple still cannot provide a child something that the poorest and most struggling spouses can provide: a mom and a dad. Having spent forty years immersed in the gay community, I have seen how that reality triggers anger and vicious recrimination from same-sex couples, who are often tempted to bad-mouth so-called “dysfunctional” or “trashy” straight couples in order to say, “We deserve to have kids more than they do!”
But I am here to say no, having a mom and a dad is a precious value in its own right and not something that can be overridden, even if a gay couple has lots of money, can send a kid to the best schools, and raises the kid to be an Eagle Scout.
It’s disturbingly classist and elitist for gay men to think they can love their children unreservedly after treating their surrogate mother like an incubator, or for lesbians to think they can love their children unconditionally after treating their sperm-donor father like a tube of toothpaste...

...It’s also racist and condescending for same-sex couples to think they can strong-arm adoption centers into giving them orphans by wielding financial or political clout. An orphan in Asia or in an American inner city has been entrusted to adoption authorities to make the best decision for the child’s life, not to meet a market demand for same-sex couples wanting children. Whatever trauma caused them to be orphans shouldn’t be compounded with the stress of being adopted into a same-sex partnership....

...
Justice Kennedy alluded to the views of children being raised by same-sex couples as if our desires and concerns are identical to and uncritical of the decisions made by our parents. The reality is far more complicated than that.
Putting aside all the historical analogies to civil rights and the sentimental platitudes about love, the fact is that same-sex parenting suffers from insurmountable logistical problems for which children pay the steepest lifelong price.
Whether it’s by surrogacy, insemination, divorce, or commercialized adoption, moral hazards abound for same-sex couples who insist on replicating a heterosexual model of parenthood. The children thrown into the middle of these moral hazards are well aware of their parents’ role in creating a stressful and emotionally complicated life for kids, which alienates them from cultural traditions like Father’s Day and Mother’s Day, and places them in the unenviable position of being called “homophobes” if they simply suffer the natural stress that their parents foisted on them—and admit to it.
Same Sex Parenting What Do the Children Say

 

[g5000]

Are children or adults any given state's main concern with incentivizing marriage?

So I can put you down as supporting government behavioral control programs?

 

[Silhouette]

What exactly is a "gay-lifestyle marriage"? Isn't that the one where two married people get to file a joint tax return and are eligible for Social Security death benefits? Or did you think it was the one where you are forced to suck a dick?

If you are opposed to this "gay-lifestyle marriage" being allowed, it makes me wonder how you feel about the gay lifestyle in general being allowed.

I think adults should be allowed to smoke cigarettes. I don't think they should be allowed to smoke cigarettes inside homes or cars where children are constantly present. That is the best analogy I can give you about your point. Adults can fuck up and do insane/stupid or harmful stuff. They just cannot be allowed to drag kids down with them without the child's knowledgable consent. And since children are not capable of that knowledgable consent, the state gets involved on their behalf.

 

[g5000]

What exactly is a "gay-lifestyle marriage"? Isn't that the one where two married people get to file a joint tax return and are eligible for Social Security death benefits? Or did you think it was the one where you are forced to suck a dick?

If you are opposed to this "gay-lifestyle marriage" being allowed, it makes me wonder how you feel about the gay lifestyle in general being allowed.

I think adults should be allowed to smoke cigarettes. I don't think they should be allowed to smoke cigarettes inside homes or cars where children are constantly present. That is the best analogy I can give you about your point. Adults can fuck up and do insane/stupid or harmful stuff. They just cannot be allowed to drag kids down with them without the child's knowledgable consent. And since children are not capable of that knowledgable consent, the state gets involved on their behalf.

So two gay people being married is analogous to second hand smoke around children?

Explain.

 

[g5000]

Are children or adults any given state's main concern with incentivizing marriage?

Everybody knows that if the government stopped "incentivizing marriage", people would stop fucking and having kids, amiright? I mean, the human race almost went extinct until the State started "incentivizing marriage" about a hundred years ago.

Whew! That was a close one!

 

[g5000]

Until the State started "incentivizing marriage", hardly anybody was getting married and having kids. And those that did get married were getting divorced about eight days later. It was a crazy time.

Thank God the State started incentivizing marriage.

 

[g5000]

What's wrong, Ward?

Dammit, June, the government is not going to incentivize us any more. I'm divorcing you.

But, Ward, I'm pregnant with Wally. Should I get an abortion?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil should be concentrating the effort on child abuse.

Sil's own situation is not any more awful than it was for all of us who have been through it. I was abused by a female school counselor and a male Methodist priest.

The issue is child abuse, not marriage, whether by hetero or same sex abusers.

Incentivizing is an argument for the drool worthy fearful

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sil, of course, has a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue. Just because you can produce children doesn't mean, ever, that you are therefore the best people to raise them. If you were actually choosing the best thing for the children, who raised them would not be based upon biology or sexual orientation, and in many cases the best thing for your child would be you NOT raising it. Sil is a good example of someone who should not be allowed to raise children.

 

[g5000]

Being gay is not normal.

Being gay is abnormal.

Where the rubes go wrong is thinking abnormal is synonymous with evil. You have to go a few more steps to show that someone who is different than you is evil. You have to show actual harm.

Saying that being gay is the same as secondhand smoke just doesn't cut it. Making an ipse dixit argument which attempts to link something to a known harm is a bogus tactic. But we see bigots do it all the time.

It's a prejudice based on fear. "Those who are different from me are evil."

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil's abnormality is that Sil thinks Sil is normal.

Definitely not the case.

Transparency by Sil would help.

 

[Silhouette]

Everybody knows that if the government stopped "incentivizing marriage", people would stop fucking and having kids, amiright? I mean, the human race almost went extinct until the State started "incentivizing marriage" about a hundred years ago.

Whew! That was a close one!

The problem isn't the ability to create children, it's the environment in which they spend their formative years. That's what the state's interest is in creating incentives for parents to marry.

That best environment involves a father and a mother. All others are inferior for all the reasons stated in the OP.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That best environment involves a father and a mother. All others are inferior for all the reasons stated in the OP.

That is incorrect and the State has a interest which it very often, and unfortunately, ignores when it lets biology override what is in the best for the child. The best parents for a child are very often not those who created it. There are very few people I would let reproduce, and even fewer who would be allowed to then act as parents.

You make a huge and poor assumption, heterosexual biological parents are best, and you're wrong.

 

[g5000]

Everybody knows that if the government stopped "incentivizing marriage", people would stop fucking and having kids, amiright? I mean, the human race almost went extinct until the State started "incentivizing marriage" about a hundred years ago.

Whew! That was a close one!

The problem isn't the ability to create children, it's the environment in which they spend their formative years. That's what the state's interest is in creating incentives for parents to marry.

That best environment involves a father and a mother. All others are inferior for all the reasons stated in the OP.

You are absolutely right. Before the State began incentivizing marriage, parents weren't getting married. Children were spending their formative years being raised by parents "living in sin".

For thousands and thousands and thousands of years, there was no institution of marriage. Not until the State began incentivizing it.