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

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

And you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

I just said how children are harmed. You're just being dense.

Unless those children would be with a heterosexual couple if it weren't for gay marriage, how does it harm them? It seems that, without gay marriage, they would either be with a non-married gay couple or possibly remain orphans if we're talking about gay married couples adopting.

Again, if this were a country in which nearly all marriages resulted in children and nearly all of those marriages remained together, if nearly all orphaned children were adopted by heterosexual couples and remained with those couples, etc. this would be a different discussion. But in a country with a decently high divorce rate, plenty of single parents, and, so far as I've ever heard or read, many orphaned children unable to find good homes, how does gay marriage actually hurt children?

You sound like somebody else on this forum. In fact you sound EXACTLY alike, like you're borg clones or something. Maybe I should refer you to the moderators to have them investigate you as a sock puppet.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

What relevance does your claim have with gay marriage? Remember, gays and lesbians have children anyway. So if they have children and they're married....or they have children and they're not married, how is that relevant to to anything you've said?

Given that they are going to have kids either way, wouldn't it be better for the children if his or her same sex parents were married?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

What relevance does your claim have with gay marriage? Remember, gays and lesbians have children anyway. So if they have children and they're married....or they have children and they're not married, how is that relevant to to anything you've said?

Given that they are going to have kids either way, wouldn't it be better for the children if his or her same sex parents were married?

Do you understand that gay marriage and gays adopting children are two separate issues?

Putin didn't have an issue with gay marriage until queers started adopting Russian children to pimp them out to all their friends. a harbinger of things to come.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

What relevance does your claim have with gay marriage? Remember, gays and lesbians have children anyway. So if they have children and they're married....or they have children and they're not married, how is that relevant to to anything you've said?

Given that they are going to have kids either way, wouldn't it be better for the children if his or her same sex parents were married?

Do you understand that gay marriage and gays adopting children are two separate issues?

So can I take it from your response that you recognize the spectacular irrelevance of your argument when applied to gay marriage?

If yes, then we've made quite a bit of progress tonight.

Putin didn't have an issue with gay marriage until queers started adopting Russian children to pimp them out to all their friends. a harbinger of things to come.

We don't use Putin or his reasoning as the basis of our laws, adoptions, marriages or morality.

Though oddly you seem to, comrade.

 

[Montrovant]

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

And you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

I just said how children are harmed. You're just being dense.

Unless those children would be with a heterosexual couple if it weren't for gay marriage, how does it harm them? It seems that, without gay marriage, they would either be with a non-married gay couple or possibly remain orphans if we're talking about gay married couples adopting.

Again, if this were a country in which nearly all marriages resulted in children and nearly all of those marriages remained together, if nearly all orphaned children were adopted by heterosexual couples and remained with those couples, etc. this would be a different discussion. But in a country with a decently high divorce rate, plenty of single parents, and, so far as I've ever heard or read, many orphaned children unable to find good homes, how does gay marriage actually hurt children?

You sound like somebody else on this forum. In fact you sound EXACTLY alike, like you're borg clones or something. Maybe I should refer you to the moderators to have them investigate you as a sock puppet.

I have no idea who you are talking about, but please do. I've been on this board for years and never changed names nor used another name to post here. Admittedly, I don't post frequently, particularly in the Politics forum where mindless partisan fighting is the norm. I know I'm not whoever you are implying I'm a sock of, though, so I encourage you to report your silly accusation.

 

[Silhouette]

Do you understand that gay marriage and gays adopting children are two separate issues?

Putin didn't have an issue with gay marriage until queers started adopting Russian children to pimp them out to all their friends. a harbinger of things to come.

Your first sentence betrays your true allegiance. The second one is manufactured with hyperbole as a shakey attempt to cover the obvious from the first.

(Still seeing that flashy rainbow in your signature.. )

 

[Skylar]

Do you understand that gay marriage and gays adopting children are two separate issues?

Putin didn't have an issue with gay marriage until queers started adopting Russian children to pimp them out to all their friends. a harbinger of things to come.

Your first sentence betrays your true allegiance. The second one is manufactured with hyperbole as a shakey attempt to cover the obvious from the first.

(Still seeing that flashy rainbow in your signature.. )

Nah, he's just recognized the spectacular hole in your argument:

If gays and lesbians have kids and get married....

If gays and lesbians don' have kids and get married...

.....what relevance does it have to your claims regarding children being raised by same sex couples? The answer is none. Which is why your claims and gay marriage have nothing to do with each other.

Laughing....you can't even get your fellow gay marriage opponents of the absurdity of your argument, despite them being the most fertile ground for your brand of bigotry. But Kennedy is going to be magically persuaded, despite having refuted almost every point you've raised in his own rulings?

That seems....unlikely.

 

[Syriusly]

Explain how exactly gay marriage robs any children of anything other than having unmarried parents.

You mean again?

OK, children involved in "gay marriage" are deprived of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent 100% of the time. This sets them at a disadvantage to children raised in formative environments who have daily access to both genders as parental role models.

Two childless lesbians may not marry because marriage is an incentive program solely for children. The state has no other reason. And since I've just described how two lesbians don't fit the description of a couple the state wants to incentivize with the PRIVELEGE of marriage (it's not a right) for the best well being of children, two women or two men applying do not cut the muster. Two heteros do, childless or not; so they do not interfere with the standard. The state anticipates statistically that at some point a childless hetero couple will either have their own young or adopt them into a father/mother environment necessary for that child's proper formation of self esteem (his or her gender will always be represented in that home) and social interaction with both genders as the child leaves the home later in life.

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

And you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

I just said how children are harmed. You're just being dense.

Oh you gave an opinion on how you think children raised by same gender couples are harmed- that isn't the question- and you know that

That is why you danced and dance away from actually responding to my question- just like Silhouette- just like every homophobe- again:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the children of homosexuals of having married parents?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

What relevance does your claim have with gay marriage? Remember, gays and lesbians have children anyway. So if they have children and they're married....or they have children and they're not married, how is that relevant to to anything you've said?

Given that they are going to have kids either way, wouldn't it be better for the children if his or her same sex parents were married?

Do you understand that gay marriage and gays adopting children are two separate issues?
.

No that you finally understand that:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their adopted 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their adopted 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the adopted children of homosexuals of having married parents?

 

[Skylar]

Why do you want to deliberately deprive children of a mother or a father? Contrary to Leftist babble, children need both and are at a loss when one is missing. It's terrible when it happens by vicissitude, but doing it on purpose is just cruel.

What relevance does your claim have with gay marriage? Remember, gays and lesbians have children anyway. So if they have children and they're married....or they have children and they're not married, how is that relevant to to anything you've said?

Given that they are going to have kids either way, wouldn't it be better for the children if his or her same sex parents were married?

Do you understand that gay marriage and gays adopting children are two separate issues?
.

No that you finally understand that:

Again- how does gay marriage change any of that?

Again- an example
Couple a: 2 lesbians with their adopted 3 children- not married.
Couple b: 2 lesbians with their adopted 3 children- married.

How are the children of Couple b harmed by that marriage?

The only difference is that the children of Couple B have married parents.

So why do you want to deprive the adopted children of homosexuals of having married parents?

Cue chirping crickets.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.
...

Even if that were absolutely true beyond any reasonable doubt,

that in no way justifies banning by force of law the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best homes for raising a child.

 

[Katzndogz]

Having been able to follow the children of quite a few gay couples to adulthood my observation is that the children of same sex couples suffer from the same kind of emotional and social dysfunctions as any child raised in a single parent household. The best off of these children have been deliberately provided an appropriate role model of the opposite sex or a close family with a mother and father so that the child can learn the operations of a family relationship.

While it is difficult for an adult raised in a single sex household to comfortably function in a heterosexual relationship of their own it becomes impossible to understand the relationship potential partners have with their own families. A man raised in a single sex household by a man or men will never comprehend the complexities of the relationship his own female partner has with her mother. Many men who have mothers of their own bog down. The harm just spreads.

The end result is just what we're getting. The pathological society.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.
...

Even if that were absolutely true beyond any reasonable doubt,

that in no way justifies banning by force of law the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. best homes for raising a child.

No, but they can be put to the back of the line. Gay couples are demanding affirmative action, meaning they want to get in line ahead of optimal homes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gay lifestyle marriage isn't legal in most states. Only three or four? Five maybe? The rest it is illegal regardless of illegal lower circuit court defiance (contempt) of the Supreme's 2013 Windsor "states' choice" ruling..

"New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States
and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples
should have the right to marry and so live with pride in
themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all
other married persons."

Again you are wrong, Windsor itself recognized that during the process of writing the decision there were 12 States where SSCM was legal. Later that day it became 13 after they issued the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling.

Even for just the 12 pre-Hollingsworth States, some achieved SSCM through ballot action, some through legislative action, and some through Judicial action. ALL were recognized as valid.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Gay lifestyle marriage isn't legal in most states. Only three or four? Five maybe? The rest it is illegal regardless of illegal lower circuit court defiance (contempt) of the Supreme's 2013 Windsor "states' choice" ruling..

"New York, in common with, as of this writing, 11 other States
and the District of Columbia, decided that same-sex couples
should have the right to marry and so live with pride in
themselves and their union and in a status of equality with all
other married persons."

Again you are wrong, Windsor itself recognized that during the process of writing the decision there were 12 States where SSCM was legal. Later that day it became 13 after they issued the Hollingsworth v. Perry ruling.

Even for just the 12 pre-Hollingsworth States, some achieved SSCM through ballot action, some through legislative action, and some through Judicial action. ALL were recognized as valid.


>>>>

It made no ruling of merit on Prop 8. Don't be dishonest. It was a procedural ruling.

And you just answered without realizing it how Prop 8 is still law. You quoted Windsor: "..as of this writing, 11 other states ...decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry..." The readers here will notice that the Court didn't say "as of this writing all 50 states have to recognize gay marriage". At the end of the only Decision that day on the merits of forcing states to have gay marriage or not, the Court Declared that it was only legal 'in some states'.

And those only states are those that ratified it themselves without federal interference. No California judge or California Supreme Court judge nor federal circuit judge may erase the applicability of a state law that has been affirmed as "a choice of the states" (Windsor 2013) that California enacted via its initiative system. Period. The only way to erase the potency of that law is for the voters themselves to put a new intiative out that revokes it.

Since that has not happened, Prop 8 is still the law. As further attestation to that fact, you find that the CA legislature has not scrubbed it from the Constitution there. Because there it still sits. And they will not talk about scrubbing it because if they did, the conversation would arise that anyone who knows CA law will say "but you cannot scrub initiative law without a referendum from the People of CA in order to do so".

So we have the highest Court in our nation affirming that gay marriage as of Windsor 2013 is up to each individual state, as you yourself just quoted and affirmed Worldy. And we have the way CA makes its laws as dominant via the intiative system.

ERGO, Prop 8 is still the valid and enforceable law in CA as are all the other similar laws passed in other states currently being duped into believing they have to allow gay marriage by seditious activist lower circuit federal judges currently in contempt of Windsor 2013...and who are quite likely on the chopping block for impeachment in *checks watch* about 30 days or less...

The only circuit court majority free from the threat of impeachment for greviously and seditiously circumventing federal court dominance is the 6th circuit. The 6th circuit correctly cited procedural laws forbidding lower courts from attempting to "rule in advance" or "overrule from underneath" or "overturn from underneath" Windsor 2013.

Those other lower circuit courts are in grave danger from Congress this session. I hope the judges responsible have a new resume' typed up.. Federal procedure is federal procedure. You cannot use it to the LGBT advantage to erroneously declare that "SCOTUS defeated Prop 8 by procedural flaws of standing" and then declare that "procedural rules of dominance don't apply when it comes to gay marriage". Can't have it both ways...

 

[Skylar]

Having been able to follow the children of quite a few gay couples to adulthood my observation is that the children of same sex couples suffer from the same kind of emotional and social dysfunctions as any child raised in a single parent household.

I've seen none of that. My experience has been that the children grow up well adjusted and healthy. In fact, I've observed noticeably greater rates of such outcomes with same sex couples than with hetero couples.

When trying to glean the reason why, the best I was able to come up with is that there are no shotgun weddings among same sex couples. All children are born on purpose. Giving the parents a chance to ensure financial stability and emotional maturity to a much greater degree than many hetero couples are granted when the stick turns up blue.

 

[The Rabbi]

Having been able to follow the children of quite a few gay couples to adulthood my observation is that the children of same sex couples suffer from the same kind of emotional and social dysfunctions as any child raised in a single parent household.

I've seen none of that. My experience has been that the children grow up well adjusted and healthy. In fact, I've observed noticeably greater rates of such outcomes with same sex couples than with hetero couples.

When trying to glean the reason why, the best I was able to come up with is that there are no shotgun weddings among same sex couples. All children are born on purpose. Giving the parents a chance to ensure financial stability and emotional maturity to a much greater degree than many hetero couples are granted when the stick turns up blue.

I've observed that children growing up with same sex "parents" are wildly dysfunctional and often become serial killers.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

and arguments based on lies and myths do nothing to help these fools.

 

[Skylar]

It made no ruling of merit on Prop 8. Don't be dishonest. It was a procedural ruling.

Ah, but the federal judiciary did. And ruled that it was invalid and unconstitutional. With the USSC preserving that ruling and ending the legal challenges.

And you just answered without realizing it how Prop 8 is still law. You quoted Windsor: "..as of this writing, 11 other states ...decided that same-sex couples should have the right to marry..." The readers here will notice that the Court didn't say "as of this writing all 50 states have to recognize gay marriage". At the end of the only Decision that day on the merits of forcing states to have gay marriage or not, the Court Declared that it was only legal 'in some states'.

And where, pray tell, did the USSC state that state gay marriage bans are valid....as you have claimed?

Just quote that passage or us. Its only been 6 months of you failing utterly to back your claim.

And those only states are those that ratified it themselves without federal interference. No California judge or California Supreme Court judge nor federal circuit judge may erase the applicability of a state law that has been affirmed as "a choice of the states" (Windsor 2013) that California enacted via its initiative system. Period. The only way to erase the potency of that law is for the voters themselves to put a new intiative out that revokes it.

Nope. The courts never said this. In fact, they specifically indicated that state marriage laws are subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And actually cited a case in which the federal government did exactly what you insist the courts can't do: overturn state marriage laws:

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor V. US
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Where in Loving v. Virginia, the federal courts overturned state marriage laws that violated the constitution. Exactly what you said the court can't do. And you know this already. We've quoted this passage to you at least a dozen times.

Making your latest misrepresentation so....pointless.

Since that has not happened, Prop 8 is still the law.

Says you. And as an actual citation of the Windsor decision demonstrates so elegantly, you have no idea what you're talking about. The courts clearly recognize the authority of the USSC to overturn state marriage laws if those laws violate 'certain constitutional guarantees'.

Your made up pseudo legal standard doesn't exist. And thus, any 'legal' conclusion you draw on such a fallacy is equally invalid.

So we have the highest Court in our nation affirming that gay marriage as of Windsor 2013 is up to each individual state, as you yourself just quoted and affirmed Worldy. And we have the way CA makes its laws as dominant via the intiative system.

The court says no such thing. If you believe it does, quote the Windsor ruling say as much. You can't. As the court never affirms the validity of gay marriage bans in Windsor. Or even mentions them.

ERGO, Prop 8 is still the valid and enforceable law in CA as are all the other similar laws passed in other states currently being duped into believing they have to allow gay marriage by seditious activist lower circuit federal judges currently in contempt of Windsor 2013...and who are quite likely on the chopping block for impeachment in *checks watch* about 30 days or less..

Several major problems:

First, you don't know what you're talking about. As the passage from the Windsor ruling that affirms your beliefs doesn't actually exist. Second, the courts instead explicitly contradict you, with their citation of the Loving ruling. Next, the imaginary standard you've cited as being violated by the lower courts doesn't exist in law. And finally federal judiciary has already ruled that Prop 8 is invalid. With the USSC preserving that ruling.

Oh, and there will be no impeachments based on Prop 8. In 30 days or otherwise. As remember, you're clueless....literally making up this silly nonsense as you go along.

So you didn't get a single thing right. And in 30 days, I'm going to take my bookmark of this thread and mock you mercilessly for about a day on the worthlessness of your predictions.

 

[Skylar]

Having been able to follow the children of quite a few gay couples to adulthood my observation is that the children of same sex couples suffer from the same kind of emotional and social dysfunctions as any child raised in a single parent household.

I've seen none of that. My experience has been that the children grow up well adjusted and healthy. In fact, I've observed noticeably greater rates of such outcomes with same sex couples than with hetero couples.

When trying to glean the reason why, the best I was able to come up with is that there are no shotgun weddings among same sex couples. All children are born on purpose. Giving the parents a chance to ensure financial stability and emotional maturity to a much greater degree than many hetero couples are granted when the stick turns up blue.

I've observed that children growing up with same sex "parents" are wildly dysfunctional and often become serial killers.

The difference between us being I actually know such families and have baby sat for their kids. And you're making shit up as you go along.