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

[PaintMyHouse]

You lost Sil, Just take your homophobia and go home. The faggots won, sorry.

 

[Silhouette]

You lost Sil, Just take your homophobia and go home. The faggots won, sorry.

Sutton of the 6th Circuit disagrees:

**********
14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name, the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision. Hicks, 422 U.S. at 344. And Windsor, they say, together with Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996), permit us to cast Baker aside. But this reading of “doctrinal developments” would be a groundbreaking development of its own. From the perspective of a lower court, summary dispositions remain “controlling precedent, unless and until re-examined by [the Supreme] Court.”...the Court has told us to treat the two types of decisions, whether summary dispositions or full-merits decisions, the same, “prevent[ing] lower courts” in both settings “from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.”

 

[Skylar]

That was before Justice Kenndy thought about how his Decision would affect future generations of children and society at its core.

Says who? Who says that Justice Kennedy hadn't thought about how his decision would affect future generations of children and society at its core?

That would be you.....offering us more pseudo-legal gibberish based on nothing. You have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that Kennedy has never thought about the issue And are again projecting your personal beliefs onto a man you don't know, have never met, nor been in the same room with.

And then laughably insisting that you can tell us what he *thought*. And even more absurdly, when.

Sorry, Silo....but you're clueless. You don't know what you're talking about. Whereas Kennedy seemed pretty firm on his findings of the harm caused to children when the marriages of their parents aren't recognized:

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf

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

Now why would any rational person ignore Kennedy on what Kennedy believes, and instead believe you claiming to be able to read Kennedy's mind?

Especially after your absurd and laughably blunder about how the court's granting of a stay for Utah of implementation of a lower court ruling mandating gay marriage was a message from the courts that they supported gay marriage bans? You waxed eloquent telling us what the court 'really meant' by granting the stay, how gay marriage was no banned across the country, and again banned in California.

Until the stay was lifted. And every other stay barring the implementation of gay marriage was denied.

Remember, Silo...and this point is fundamental: You don't know what you're talking about. No really. You're genuinely making up this nonsense as you go along. And as history has demonstrated, your record of correctly predicting the future is worse than guessing.

But this time its different, huh?

 

[Silhouette]

Now why would any rational person ignore Kennedy on what Kennedy believes, and instead believe you claiming to be able to read Kennedy's mind?

Because of two assumptions.

1. That Kennedy has a mind that is pliable and that learns still, that researches and deliberates, even at his age still.

2. That Kennedy as a Supreme Court Justice when faced with a question of law so important as replacing the core of society (marriage) with a completely different description, where marriage is the nexus of all incentivized child development (society's future), would be capable of double-checking his assumptions, divorcing himself of kneejerk emotions, and be able to make a cold, rational, wise decision that he himself may even feel misgivings about, but that is one that is ultimately the best for the stability of a society and more importantly for democracy. That when a question of such importance involving human behaviors and lifestyles presents itself to him, that he recognize a dozen or so judges should not have power over 100s of millions of voters to force them to cleave to this new and untested "child rearing test tube". That he recognize that children are not guinea pigs to try out the new LGBT-lifestyle-as-"parents" on.

THAT is how I'm able to "read Kennedy's mind". If he does not meet those two assumptions, he has no business being a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Skylar]

Now why would any rational person ignore Kennedy on what Kennedy believes, and instead believe you claiming to be able to read Kennedy's mind?

Because of two assumptions.

1. That Kennedy has a mind that is pliable and that learns still, that researches and deliberates, even at his age still.

Kennedy's mind being 'pliable' and him never having thought about an issue are two entirely different things.
You have no idea what Kennedy has thought about. You're talking completely out of your ass, projecting your beliefs onto other people without the slightest evidence.

Worse, you're assuming that if Kennedy did 'think about' the issue you cited, that he'd suddenly agree with you. That too is utterly unfounded clap trap, backed by nothing but your ability to type the claim.

Kennedy has made his position quite clear. And its explicitly contrary to what you believe. You can't get around that.

2. That Kennedy as a Supreme Court Justice when faced with a question of law so important as replacing the core of society (marriage) with a completely different description, where marriage is the nexus of all incentivized child development (society's future), would be capable of double-checking his assumptions, divorcing himself of kneejerk emotions, and be able to make a cold, rational, wise decision that he himself may even feel misgivings about, but that is one that is ultimately the best for the stability of a society and more importantly for democracy.

That assumes that Kennedy frames the issue the same way you do with the exact same assumptions, conclusions, priorities and predictions. And Kennedy doesn't. He explicitly contradicts you.

You're again offering us Kennedy's decision if Kennedy thinks EXACTLY like you do. Which he doesn't. Rendering your latest post little more than fantasy based projection in startling and willful ignorance of reality.

Which might explain why your predictions of future outcomes are so consistently inaccurate.

THAT is how I'm able to "read Kennedy's mind".

Save of course that you're not. You're offering us your fantasy of what you wish Kennedy would believe. And ignoring his actual position. Which is silly. Your fantasies don't impact the USSC's rulings in the slightest. Nor have any particular relevance to the outcome of any case.

Remember when Kennedy granted a stay on the implementation of gay marriage, and you offered us your 'reading of Kennedy's mind' again, telling us what he 'really meant' and what he 'really believed'. You were wrong. Straight up wrong. Not a single thing you offered us turned out to be accurate. As the stay was lifted shortly afterward and gay marriage proceed in States like Utah.

You're using the exact same imaginary process again. And you're just as clueless this time as you were last.

 

[Syriusly]

So then if marriage isn't about children, LGBTs won't be bringing them up either I suppose?

Probably not, other than in response to the claims of the homophobes

 

[Syriusly]

If LGBT's bring up children, wouldn't that indicate that children are harmed by not granting their parents a recognizable marriage.

Justice Kennedy (aka Mr. Swing Voter) certainly thought so.

That was before Justice Kenndy thought about

You don't know what Justice Kennedy is thinking. None of us do.

All we can do is go by what his actual words have been.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

You can pretend your can hear Kennedy's inner thoughts- but that statement is not helpful to your cause of keeping the children of gay parents from having married parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Which might explain why your predictions of future outcomes are so consistently inaccurate.

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

 

[Skylar]

Which might explain why your predictions of future outcomes are so consistently inaccurate.

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

Yes really. As Justice Kennedy isn't on the 6th circuit federal appeals court. And its his mind you imagine you can read.

We have 6 federal circuit courts in favor of gay marriage. 1 against. With the USSC preserving every single one of the 6 federal rulings in favor of gay marriage. And overturning the provisions of DOMA that don't recognize gay marriage

 

[Syriusly]

Which might explain why your predictions of future outcomes are so consistently inaccurate.

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

Yes really. As Justice Kennedy isn't on the 6th circuit federal appeals court. And its his mind you imagine you can read.

We have 6 federal circuit courts in favor of gay marriage. 1 against. With the USSC preserving every single one of the 6 federal rulings in favor of gay marriage. And overturning the provisions of DOMA that don't recognize gay marriage

I think it is dangerous to try to 'read the minds' of any Supreme Court Justices- but taking into account Kennedy's statement about Prop 8 and the children- and reading his dissent- remember he did not vote with the majority in Prop 8- I think that Kennedy thought that the citizen's of California deserved to have the case heard on its merits.

I think that the majority voted to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing because that was how Roberts and Scalia could prevent the court from ruling conclusively in favor of marriage equality for homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

I think it is dangerous to try to 'read the minds' of any Supreme Court Justices- but taking into account Kennedy's statement about Prop 8 and the children- and reading his dissent- remember he did not vote with the majority in Prop 8- I think that Kennedy thought that the citizen's of California deserved to have the case heard on its merits.

I think that the majority voted to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing because that was how Roberts and Scalia could prevent the court from ruling conclusively in favor of marriage equality for homosexuals.

That is an extremely funny statement coming from the cult that assures us that not only can they read each mind of each Supreme, but that they can predict and state with finality the end vote on the ultimate gay marriage-forced-on-unwilling-states question pending this next year. I cannot tell you how many times one of your cult's inductees has assured me that they know precisely how Kennedy will vote on the question. And how Sotomayor will vote and Kagen, and Ginsburg, even Roberts! (heard that once also that he is leaning towards forcing gay marriage on the unwilling states).

Now suddenly you folks take umbrage with anyone making predictions how a Justice might vote. Denial and cult-myopia apparently affects the ability to see oneself in the mirror..

 

[Skylar]

That is an extremely funny statement coming from the cult that assures us that not only can they read each mind of each Supreme, but that they can predict and state with finality the end vote on the ultimate gay marriage-forced-on-unwilling-states question pending this next year.

What 'cult' are you referring to? Again, Silo....disagreeing with you don't make one a 'cultist'. In most cases, disagreeing with you simply signifies being informed.

I cannot tell you how many times one of your cult's inductees has assured me that they know precisely how Kennedy will vote on the question. And how Sotomayor will vote and Kagen, and Ginsburg, even Roberts! (heard that once also that he is leaning towards forcing gay marriage on the unwilling states).

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

Remember when Kennedy granted a stay for the implementation of gay marriage....and you waxed long and eloquently about how this as the USSC telling us that they supported gay marriage bans, that gay marriage was now banned across the country, and Prop 8 was no in effect in California. All over ONE stay .

Until that stay was lifted. And your every prediction was demonstrated to be meaningless twaddle. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?

I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?

I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?

More adults around is usually always better, as long as they get along. More money, more attention, more likely that someone will be home when the kids are. That part isn't rocket-science and has been looked into.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?

I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?

The research shows that being raised in a same sex household has no particular effect on a child's well being or development. I've never seen a study directly comparing same sex households with single parent, but you could make some pretty reasonable extrapolations.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?

I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?

More adults around is usually always better, as long as they get along. More money, more attention, more likely that someone will be home when the kids are. That part isn't rocket-science and has been looked into.

Yup. You either get two bread winners, which means more resources and stability for the kids. Or you get a full time caretaker, which means more attention and emotional support.

Its a win, win either way. Just like in hetero led families.

 

[Syriusly]

I think it is dangerous to try to 'read the minds' of any Supreme Court Justices- but taking into account Kennedy's statement about Prop 8 and the children- and reading his dissent- remember he did not vote with the majority in Prop 8- I think that Kennedy thought that the citizen's of California deserved to have the case heard on its merits.

I think that the majority voted to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing because that was how Roberts and Scalia could prevent the court from ruling conclusively in favor of marriage equality for homosexuals.

That is an extremely funny statement coming from the cult that assures us that not only can they read each mind of each Supreme, but that they can predict and state with finality the end vote on the ultimate gay marriage.

What cult are you speaking of?

First of all homosexuals are not a cult- not by any definition other than that of a very confused mind- and secondly, I am not a homosexual. I just happen to believe in equal rights.

I think that how certain judges will vote on this issue is somewhat predictable- the most conservative justices will vote against marriage equality and the most liberal will vote for it. But I wouldn't put money on that.

The Justices I am most uncertain about are Roberts- and Kennedy.

But they are guesses. I would never however, pretend I can 'read' their minds and know how they will actually think- only I can guess on how they will vote.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.
.

Fact:

Your bizarre opinion does not equal a fact. Gay marriage doesn't guarantee anything regarding children. It is likely most married gay couples will not even have children.

The only thing that preventing them from marrying guarantees is that any children that they do have, will not have married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh, I can tell you what I think is likely, based on his past rulings. Your assessment is based on what you imagine Kennedy HASN'T considered, based on your imagination. Which is mindlessly speculative claptrap. As you have no idea what you're talking about. You have no idea what Kennedy has or hasn't considered.

I can quote Kennedy on what he's already said. You quote yourself AS Kennedy, attributing to him positions he's never uttered, prioritizes he's never voiced, and conclusions he's never used in any argument. All that just happen to match your beliefs perfectly.

That's silly. You imagining Kennedy believes the exact opposite of what he's already stated is meaningless. And has resulted in your absymal record of prediction....which is essentially worse than guessing.

I know two things about Kennedy:

1. He is a Supreme Court Justice and as such he...

2. Should damned well better not be in the business of "believing"; and instead he should be in the business of weighing despite his beliefs...

And as it happens he is famous for being unpredictable. Which means he is probably one of the best Justices of the Nine. It's an old fashioned notion that a wise and seasoned judge should be one who rules against his own convictions when swayed by cold logic.

Enter, cold logic:

Gay marriage guarantees the lack of the complimentary gender as role model and one blood parent to children in that formative environment 100% of the time.

That is a cold FACT that nobody can dispute.

You promote that we should use children as guinea pigs in experimenting with gay-lifestyle "marriages". I'm saying we have enough evidence already to show us that for the untold 100s of millions of future children, having both genders as parents and preferably blood parents is in their and society's best interest.

And of course, gay marriage is going to take children out of good, two parents of opposite gender households, right?

I could, perhaps, see your argument as having some merit if we weren't already a country filled with single parent homes and some pretty high divorce rates. What, I wonder, is the research on the difference between being raised by two same gender parents as opposed to one parent?

More adults around is usually always better, as long as they get along. More money, more attention, more likely that someone will be home when the kids are. That part isn't rocket-science and has been looked into.

Yup. You either get two bread winners, which means more resources and stability for the kids. Or you get a full time caretaker, which means more attention and emotional support.

Its a win, win either way. Just like in hetero led families.

I am always in awe of a single parent who manages to do that job well all by his or herself.

That said- two parents of the same gender is no more off balance than a single parent household- and is far less likely to suffer from financial insecurity.

Assuming everything else is equal- two parent households will be better for children. Assuming everything else is equal- married parents are better for children than unmarried parents.

Silhouette just wants to guarantee that the children of gay parents never have married parents.