All Eyes On 6th District Appeals Court For Polygamy/gay Marriage/adoption

[theDoctorisIn]

Yep.

The fact that "Ballot Initiatives" exist anywhere is ridiculous, in my opinion. California is the worst about it, too.

Yes, how completely silly it is for citizens to cast votes in order to self-rule! What does California think this country is? A democracy?

We're not a fucking Democracy. That's the whole point.

 

[Skylar]

Yes, how completely silly it is for citizens to cast votes in order to self-rule! What does California think this country is? A democracy?

Citizens can't vote away the rights of their fellow citizens. Its just not an authority they possess.

They can if they're about behaviors repugnant to the majority. Where in the constitution is sodomy expressly protected? Compulsive theft? Drug addiction? Rape?

Decriminalizing sodomy in Lawrence v Texas did not rewrite the constitution to say sodomy is specially protected behavior. It's legal to smoke cigarettes too. Just not everywhere all the time. A majority votes to say where and when your cigarette smoking is allowed or not allowed.

Marriage is a right. If you want to deny it to an individual, you need a good reason. And you don't have one. That you find gay sex 'icky' isn't a valid basis for denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.

And its that lack of a valid reason for abrogating that right that results in the near perfect string of losses in court for gay marriage ban advocates.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is a right. If you want to deny it to an individual, you need a good reason. And you don't have one. That you find gay sex 'icky' isn't a valid basis for denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.

And its that lack of a valid reason for abrogating that right that results in the near perfect string of losses in court for gay marriage advocates.

We deny marriage to polygamists. Why? Because it's icky? We deny marriage to brother/sister. Why? Because it's icky? We deny marriage to minors or between them. Why? Because it's icky?

We set standards for all these other qualifiers....but JUST LGBT [what is that exactly again?] has special priveleges to deny the majority their right to regulate marriage outside of race? [Loving v Virgina was about race]..

 

[Skylar]

You have no reason to deny it to gays and lesbians their right to marry. And that's why you fail.

 

[Silhouette]

You have no reason to deny it to gays and lesbians their right to marry. And that's why you fail.

You fail when you leave out other consenting adults in your fight for "marriage equality". Either you're a hypocrite or you openly and aggressively support polygamy too.

Which is it?

 

[Skylar]

You have no reason to deny it to gays and lesbians their right to marry. And that's why you fail.

You fail when you leave out other consenting adults in your fight for "marriage equality". Either you're a hypocrite or you openly and aggressively support polygamy too.

Which is it?

You're desperate to avoid the topic of gay marriage as you have no reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

And still don't.

 

[Silhouette]

You're desperate to avoid the topic of gay marriage as you have no reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry.

And still don't.

I'd say a very compelling reason is their 100% unanimity behind gay pride parades in front of kids and teaching kids to venerate Harvey Milk as a matter of law in California.

As yet, 0% of the membership of that cult has come forward to denounce either. You don't let people who are expressly or passively sympathetic to sex acts in front of or with children to be able to access them legally to adopt them. Marriage affords the cult of LGBT that legal access.

THERE'S YOUR REASON.

 

[Skylar]

d say a very compelling reason is their 100% unanimity behind gay pride parades in front of kids and teaching kids to venerate Harvey Milk as a matter of law in California.

And what, pray tell, do gay pride parades have to do with gay marriage? That's like saying we should deny gays and lesbians the right to marry because you don't like assless chaps.

If that's really the best you've got, how can you possibly be surprised by the near perfect record of failure among your ilk?

 

[Silhouette]

d say a very compelling reason is their 100% unanimity behind gay pride parades in front of kids and teaching kids to venerate Harvey Milk as a matter of law in California.

And what, pray tell, do gay pride parades have to do with gay marriage? That's like saying we should deny gays and lesbians the right to marry because you don't like assless chaps.

If that's really the best you've got, how can you possibly be surprised by the near perfect record of failure among your ilk?

"Near perfect failure"... It's that "near" part you should be paying close attention to..

LGBT is a cult. That cult has a messiah [Harvey Milk] and regular religious parades flaunting its dogma [gay pride parades]. Devotees are not allowed to denounce either the messiah or the parades or any of the evolving mores [or lack of them] as they grow closer and closer to adoptable orphans..

 

[Skylar]

"Near perfect failure"... It's that "near" part you should be paying close attention to..

That every federal court to hear the issue has ruled against it....save that guy in Louisiana. And he's almost certain to be overruled by a 3 judge panel. That the USSC has allowed to stand every lower court ruling that overrules gay marriage bans. Including the overturning of Prop 8. That gay marriages may begin as early as tomorrow for folks in Nevada.

For your side, that's a near perfect record of failure. For my side, its great news! And even on the off chance that the USSC does rule that gay marriage bans are constitutional, there's about zero chance they'll rule that interstate reciprocity of marriage recognition doesn't apply. Meaning that even in states like Utah and Idaho, gay marriage will be de facto legal. As any gay marriage performed in any State that allows gay marriage...must be honored by those States that don't.

So that's layers and layers of overwhelming probability of success for me. And virtually none for you and yours.

LGBT is a cult.

They're just people. And they should have the same rights and protections as everyone else.

 

[Silhouette]

That every federal court to hear the issue has ruled against it....save that guy in Louisiana. And he's almost certain to be overruled by a 3 judge panel. That the USSC has allowed to stand every lower court ruling that overrules gay marriage bans. Including the overturning of Prop 8. That gay marriages may begin as early as tomorrow for folks in Nevada....

No, actually Justice Kennedy just yesterday issued a stay in Idaho's case. Did you forget already? Justice Kennedy Halts Gay Marriage in Idaho Nevada US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Skylar]

That every federal court to hear the issue has ruled against it....save that guy in Louisiana. And he's almost certain to be overruled by a 3 judge panel. That the USSC has allowed to stand every lower court ruling that overrules gay marriage bans. Including the overturning of Prop 8. That gay marriages may begin as early as tomorrow for folks in Nevada....

No, actually Justice Kennedy just yesterday issued a stay in Idaho's case. Did you forget already? Justice Kennedy Halts Gay Marriage in Idaho Nevada US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Again, you don't know what a stay is. A stay doesn't overturn a lower court ruling. It simply delays implementation of it. You've made a series of inaccurate, utterly invalid claims about stays again and again. You claimed that they apply to every state. When obviously they only apply to the state that petitioned for them.....as Kennedy makes ludicrously clear in his explicit indication that the stay doens't apply to anywhere but Idaho. You've claimed that stays are the court saying that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Gay marriages in Nevada as soon as tomorrow undermine that claim as well.

The USSC has allowed every lower court ruling overruling gay marriage bans to stand. Including the federal court's overturning of Prop 8 as unconstitutional. And even gone so far as to rule that DOMA is unconstitutional. Indications are strong that the USSC will either overturn such bans permenantly, or allow the lower court rulings to stand as they've already done.

And in the unlikely event that they uphold such bans, gay marriage will be defacto legal in every state anyway. As there's virtually no chance that the courts are going to overturn 2 centuries of interstate reciprocity of marriage contracts. Meaning that all a couple in Idaho would have to do is go to a State where gay marriage is legal, get married....and Idaho has to treat their marriages like everyone else's.

Either way, you lose. Either way, I win. Well me, justice and the gays and lesbians.

 

[JoeB131]

I have this image of Sil drunk-calling Sean Penn at 2 AM in the morning and denouncing him for playing Harvey Milk sympathetically.

 

[Silhouette]

Again, you don't know what a stay is. A stay doesn't overturn a lower court ruling. It simply delays implementation of it. You've made a series of inaccurate, utterly invalid claims about stays again and again. You claimed that they apply to every state. When obviously they only apply to the state that petitioned for them.....as Kennedy makes ludicrously clear in his explicit indication that the stay doens't apply to anywhere but Idaho. You've claimed that stays are the court saying that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Gay marriages in Nevada as soon as tomorrow undermine that claim as well.

Why would Kennedy delay the implementation of gay marriage in Idaho? What possible gain would he be seeing in doing that? I thought your argument was irreparable harm done to gays by denying them marriage immediately. Why Idaho? What makes their protests against forced gay marriage on their state so special vs all the other states just as usurped?

 

[Skylar]

Again, you don't know what a stay is. A stay doesn't overturn a lower court ruling. It simply delays implementation of it. You've made a series of inaccurate, utterly invalid claims about stays again and again. You claimed that they apply to every state. When obviously they only apply to the state that petitioned for them.....as Kennedy makes ludicrously clear in his explicit indication that the stay doens't apply to anywhere but Idaho. You've claimed that stays are the court saying that gay marriage bans are constitutional. Gay marriages in Nevada as soon as tomorrow undermine that claim as well.

Why would Kennedy delay the implementation of gay marriage in Idaho? What possible gain would he be seeing in doing that? I thought your argument was irreparable harm done to gays by denying them marriage immediately. Why Idaho? What makes their protests against forced gay marriage on their state so special vs all the other states just as usurped?

The same gain received when a stay was issued for Utah......before Utah's appeal was denied by the USSC. Appeals from the 4th, 7th and 10th appeals court were all turned down by the USSC, meaning that all lower court rulings in those districts are authoritative. Just like in California.

Remember all the elaborate bullshit you made up over the stay in Utah? How the SCOTUS had ruled with that stay that gay marriage bans were legal? How that stay applied to all of the United States and that gay marriage was again illegal in California? You weren't just wrong. You were gloriously wrong. Spectacularly wrong. I'd suggest you not make the same mistake again.

Here's the best answer either of us can give on why Kennedy issued the stay:

Dunno.

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the best answer either of us can give on why Kennedy issued the stay:

Dunno.

Not good enough when it comes to legal questions. "I dunno" does not give an exception/privelege to just one state to be able to self-rule on the question of gay marriage, even for 5 days, while the other 49 states do not enjoy that constitutional right. You know that cannot be. So "I dunno" isn't going to cut it.

And BTW, how long is the stay in Idaho good for? Aren't stays usually granted when appeals are in progress? Isn't that Kennedy saying to the lower courts, "hey, head's up, this thing isn't over and we will be hearing it"?

The sixth has not weighed in yet to my knowledge. There cannot be separate civil rights for separate states; either the civil right that we know for a fact exists for a majority to self-rule or for the proposed/hoped for "civil right" for people who do "LGBT" to gain federal protection to access marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Not good enough when it comes to legal questions.

Sure it is. A stay is by definition, temporary. And the USSC doesn't have to explain why they issue them. Or why the refuse to grant cert. So you're left with 'I dunno'. And sorry, Silo...but you dunno.

"I dunno" does not give an exception/privelege to just one state to be able to self-rule on the question of gay marriage, even for 5 days, while the other 49 states do not enjoy that constitutional right. You know that cannot be. So "I dunno" isn't going to cut it.

It can absolutely be. As the stay is temporary and part of due process. It happens all the time. Remember when Utah got its stay, and you insisted that the stay applied to the entire United States, making gay marriage illegal in California? How'd that work out again?

Ah yes. Gays in California got married all the same. And Utah's appeal was eventually denied. Demonstrating yet again that the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you type has no effect on the actual world. What you say can't be, can. What you say may not happen, happens. What you say is now legally allowed, isn't.

As you simply define nothing in the law. Get used to the idea.

 

[Silhouette]

Why grant a stay if you're not going to hear the case? Answer the question.

 

[Skylar]

Why grant a stay if you're not going to hear the case? Answer the question.

For the same reason that a stay was granted for Utah before the appeal was rejected.

They need more time to talk about it, maybe?

 

[JoeB131]

Why grant a stay if you're not going to hear the case? Answer the question.

For the same reason that a stay was granted for Utah before the appeal was rejected.

They need more time to talk about it, maybe?

I think the supremes are just messing with people like Sil.

"Oh, look. Look. We found some inbred state where we will uphold a gay ban!. Nope, just kidding!"