Are Children A Part Of The Gay Marriage Conversation?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

We are following the proper course. When your civil rights are being violated, you get to petition the courts.

Straights can marry the same sex too so your "gays get special rights" is pathetic.

You still can't name a single gay who has different rights than they would if they were straight.

Using the same logic blacks and whites had the same right to marry under anti interracial marriage laws.

I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black man. How is discrimination based on gender different than race?

It isn't.


Again, the civil rights violation manifests when a couple eligible to participate in marriage is indeed disallowed to enter into a marriage contract because of the composition of that couple, whether the couple is interracial or same-sex makes no difference, where either couple's right to equal protection of the law is violated.

 

[Seawytch]

First of all, that was a statement to liberals in general, not just about this case. But on this case, liberals want gays to have something straights don't have. They are saying they should be able to government marry the same sex. I would not say that if they went to the legislature, but they are going to the courts. The courts rule on literal, they do not make law legally.

Democrats are demanding they make law because liberals don't like the law as it's written and they can't be bothered to do it the right way. It's not a sweeping statement that gay marriage is better than straight marriage, it is referring to how they are going about it. We don't like that law, the courts need to fix the law. That is how they think they are superior. They don't have to follow the course the rest of us do.

If the majority goes left, game over, they win. If they majority does not go left, then the courts fix it. Game over, they win.

We are following the proper course. When your civil rights are being violated, you get to petition the courts.

Straights can marry the same sex too so your "gays get special rights" is pathetic.

You still can't name a single gay who has different rights than they would if they were straight.

Using the same logic blacks and whites had the same right to marry under anti interracial marriage laws.

I don't want to marry a man just as Mildred Loving didn't want to marry a black man. How is discrimination based on gender different than race?

No, that's not the same logic. Actually, I used logic, you used emotion. What you did isn't logic at all.

How is discrimination based on gender different than discrimination based on race? And no, you aren't using logic. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice isn't logical, it's purely emotional.

 

[kaz]

How is discrimination based on gender different than discrimination based on race?

What discrimination based on gender? Men and women are the same in man/woman government marriage. Don't know what you're talking about.

And no, you aren't using logic. Denying gays and lesbians the right to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice isn't logical, it's purely emotional.

LOL, arguing with the conservative voices in your head again. This has like three strawmen in it.

And you're a hypocrite too. You are the one who denies government marriage to people of their choice. I say open it to everyone or no one. You are the one who doesn't.

Your emotional line cracked me up.

You: I want gay marriage! I can't marry my girlfriend and get party gifts and have government pat me on the back and tell me I'm OK. Heteros have it, I don't, I want it too! I want mine baby and YOU are keeping it from me.

Me: Why does anyone need government marriage?

You: OMG, Oh My Fucking God! You have lost it! You are ranting! YOu are so fucking emotional! YOu are not calm and logical like me, you're an emotional wreck!!!!!

LOL, yeah.

 

[Seawytch]

How is discrimination based on gender different than discrimination based on race?

What discrimination based on gender? Men and women are the same in man/woman government marriage. Don't know what you're talking about.

I cannot marry the gender I want just as the Lovings couldn't marry the race they want. The discrimination is the same. I know you're smart enough to understand that. You're willfully trying not to. Why?

LOL, arguing with the conservative voices in your head again. This has like three strawmen in it.

And you're a hypocrite too. You are the one who denies government marriage to people of their choice. I say open it to everyone or no one. You are the one who doesn't.

Go ahead. I'm saying I don't care. If YOU want to "open it to everyone", go for it. Your'e not working very hard for either, opening or closing. Called any legislators yet?

Your emotional line cracked me up.

You: I want gay marriage! I can't marry my girlfriend and get party gifts and have government pat me on the back and tell me I'm OK. Heteros have it, I don't, I want it too! I want mine baby and YOU are keeping it from me.

Me: Why does anyone need government marriage?

You: OMG, Oh My Fucking God! You have lost it! You are ranting! YOu are so fucking emotional! YOu are not calm and logical like me, you're an emotional wreck!!!!!

LOL, yeah.

Me: You are civilly married to the partner of your choice and get all the goodies, how come I can't.?
You: I don't like marriage
Me: You are civilly married to the partner of your choice and get all the goodies, how come I can't.?
You: I don't like marriage
Me: You are civilly married to the partner of your choice and get all the goodies, how come I can't.?
You: gay isn't the same as race.

and I'm the wreck.

 

[Silhouette]

Me: You are civilly married to the partner of your choice and get all the goodies, how come I can't.?
You: I don't like marriage
Me: You are civilly married to the partner of your choice and get all the goodies, how come I can't.?
You: I don't like marriage
Me: You are civilly married to the partner of your choice and get all the goodies, how come I can't.?
You: gay isn't the same as race.

and I'm the wreck.

The jury is out on that last part but what is clear is that you live in and claim to be "legally gay married' in a state whose populace defined marriage in their Constitution's law as only "between a man and a woman". Windsor 2013 Upheld your state's right to do that. And yet somehow you remain confident that neither California's intiative law nor the SCOTUS decision supporting it in 2013 are viable.

That's called living in la-la land. So maybe that poster has a point?

 

[Silhouette]

...Again, the civil rights violation manifests when a couple eligible to participate in marriage is indeed disallowed to enter into a marriage contract because of the composition of that couple, whether the couple is interracial or same-sex makes no difference, where either couple's right to equal protection of the law is violated.

You're talking about polygamists or homosexuals? And what was the reasoning for polygamists not enjoying the fruits of this next SCOTUS lawsuit again?

..oh...wait...I think I remember the old talking points from the LGBT propaganda machine. It was that polygamy would predictably be "bad for children".

And somehow, gay marriage wouldn't be?...

 

[RKMBrown]

...Again, the civil rights violation manifests when a couple eligible to participate in marriage is indeed disallowed to enter into a marriage contract because of the composition of that couple, whether the couple is interracial or same-sex makes no difference, where either couple's right to equal protection of the law is violated.

You're talking about polygamists or homosexuals? And what was the reasoning for polygamists not enjoying the fruits of this next SCOTUS lawsuit again?

..oh...wait...I think I remember the old talking points from the LGBT propaganda machine. It was that polygamy would predictably be "bad for children".

And somehow, gay marriage wouldn't be?...

Sil you are so gay... constantly posting gay pictures.

 

[Silhouette]

I cannot marry the gender I want just as the Lovings couldn't marry the race they want. The discrimination is the same. I know you're smart enough to understand that. You're willfully trying not to. Why?

Wrong, you not being able to legally marry the same gender in California is not just like someone not being able to marry another race. A race is an inborn physical characteristic. And different races still contain men and women. Who are the only ones qualified to marry in California and most other states [all but three according to how Windsor defines the process of legality re: "gay marriage"]. Sexual behaviors are behaviors picked up along the way. Even if they feel compulsive and unchangeable. We know they do change. Take Anne Heche for example.

Legally they are as different as apples and zebras. Good try though.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Who are the only ones qualified to marry in California and most other states [all but three according to how Windsor defines the process of legality re: "gay marriage"].

"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."

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


Except Windsor recognized 13 legal entities in the United States where SSCM was legal, not 3.

Of those legal entities SSCM has been achieved at the States (and DC Level) by State judicial action, State (and District) legislative action, and State ballot action.

Later that day it became 14 when the SCOTUS issued a ruling in the separate case of Prop 8, dismissing it for standing but leaving the District Court Judges ruling in place without vacating it.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

"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."

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

>>>>

Yes, it's odd for the same Court's writing to say that it's the unquestioned authority of the states' discreet communities to define marriage to include or exclude gays and polygamists. Then at the same time to say that the fed can have a hand in that definition, as would be the case in I think it's 8 of those 11 states they declared as having "legal gay marriage" at that time...

Curiously, those 11 states did not include California, which was the 12th state gays were claiming at the time that had "legal gay marriage". Wonder why the SCOTUS disincluded California in that weird tally? Personally, I think the Justices did it to placate the liberals in their midst. You cannot at once declare "oh, states have the right to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage and the fed has to abide by that ....and so we're striking down that part of DOMA...and then in the next breath say "oh, but the lower federal courts DO get to override what states have said about gay marriage..", so in a way we are upholding DOMA saying it's actually defending gay marriage now federally.

That's the part you and I are in agreement needs clarification BIG TIME. The Court cannot enjoy the luxury of finding that "because states get the unquestioned authority say-so on gay marriage, the fed has to abide by what they say" while simultaneously finding "oh but if the fed wants to step in and change that definition before a determination has been made on Loving or the 14th, they can". Because if the fed IS allowed to define marriage outside state boundaries, then Windsor didn't win and should return the benefits she was awarded by that non-victory.

I argue that the interim status on the legality of gay marriage defaults to state's choice while appeals to overturn that must be heard FIRST before the civil rights of each state's voters get trampled on by activist judges in the mean time. Either the states won the right to define marriage for themselves in the Windsor Decision or they didn't. And it's about high time the population of the US had at the very least, interim-clarification on that point.

My suspicion is that the stays granted the various AGs that pled on those exact arguments are the interim-clarification. Lower court judges need to pay heed to the direction of the Senior Court to that effect.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes, it's odd for the same Court's writing to say that it's the unquestioned authority of the states' discreet communities to define marriage to include or exclude gays and polygamists.

They didn't as has been pointed out numerous times before, and you ignore, that's not what the SCOTUS said. They did not say they States have unquestioned authority to say yes or no to marriage equality for same-sex couples.

What the court said was:

"The avowed purpose and practical effect of the lawhere in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separatestatus, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."​

That is the ONLY "unquestioned authority" to appear in the opinion of the court and clearly indicates that when the State says "yes", then the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages. It does not address whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples and say no.

Curiously, those 11 states did not include California, which was the 12th state gays were claiming at the time that had "legal gay marriage". Wonder why the SCOTUS disincluded California in that weird tally?

Again, as has also been explained to you numerous times - the Hollingsworth v. Perry decision had not been issued at the time that the Windsor case was being written.

The court said:

"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.​

The decisions was being written weeks and months prior to the decision being issued, as of the time of the writing of Windsor.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

They didn't as has been pointed out numerous times before, and you ignore, that's not what the SCOTUS said. They did not say they States have unquestioned authority to say yes or no to marriage equality for same-sex couples...

...That is the ONLY "unquestioned authority" to appear in the opinion of the court and clearly indicates that when the State says "yes", then the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages. It does not address whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples and say no.

If a state [vs the Fed] has the "Unquestioned authority" on the definition of marriage, how can that "unquestioned authority" not be [federally] valid when that state says "no" to polygamy and gay marriage? Either the state has the authority, unquestioned, or it doesn't. Which is it?

You are aware that a choice involves more than one option? A yes or no choice involves BOTH yes AND no.

 

[WorldWatcher]

They didn't as has been pointed out numerous times before, and you ignore, that's not what the SCOTUS said. They did not say they States have unquestioned authority to say yes or no to marriage equality for same-sex couples...

...That is the ONLY "unquestioned authority" to appear in the opinion of the court and clearly indicates that when the State says "yes", then the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages. It does not address whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples and say no.

If a state has the "Unquestioned authority" on the definition of marriage, how can that "unquestioned authority" not be valid when that state says "no" to polygamy and gay marriage? Either the state has the authority, unquestioned, or it doesn't. Which is it?

They didn't say the state has unquestioned authority to define marriage. The statement you are misapplying says that States have unquestioned authority to say "yes" and that if they do - then the Federal government cannot choose not to honor that action the State.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

<<SNIP>>

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."​

As the court clearly, and repeatedly states in Windsor, the States don't have "unquestioned authority" pertaining to Civil Marriage, they are subject to Constitutional guarantees that protect the rights of persons. Whether those rights extend to discriminating against same-sex couples - the Court hasn't ruled on that yet.


>>>>

 

[RKMBrown]

They didn't as has been pointed out numerous times before, and you ignore, that's not what the SCOTUS said. They did not say they States have unquestioned authority to say yes or no to marriage equality for same-sex couples...

...That is the ONLY "unquestioned authority" to appear in the opinion of the court and clearly indicates that when the State says "yes", then the Federal government must recognize those Civil Marriages. It does not address whether States can discriminate against same-sex couples and say no.

If a state has the "Unquestioned authority" on the definition of marriage, how can that "unquestioned authority" not be valid when that state says "no" to polygamy and gay marriage? Either the state has the authority, unquestioned, or it doesn't. Which is it?

They didn't say the state has unquestioned authority to define marriage. The statement you are misapplying says that States have unquestioned authority to say "yes" and that if they do - then the Federal government cannot choose not to honor that action the State.

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States.”

<<SNIP>>

"Against this background DOMA rejects the long established precept that the incidents, benefits, and obligations of marriage are uniform for all married couples within each State, though they may vary, subject to constitutional guarantees, from one State to the next."

<<SNIP>>

"The States’ interest in defining and regulating the marital relation, subject to constitutional guarantees, stems from the understanding that marriage is more than a routine classification for purposes of certain statutory benefits."​

As the court clearly, and repeatedly states in Windsor, the States don't have "unquestioned authority" pertaining to Civil Marriage, they are subject to Constitutional guarantees that protect the rights of persons. Whether those rights extend to discriminating against same-sex couples - the Court hasn't ruled on that yet.


>>>>

Translated for Sil: The states can't do just any shit they want, they are part of the USA, yo.

 

[OODA_Loop]

10th AMND plain and simple

 

[RKMBrown]

10th AMND plain and simple

The 10th amendment was circumvented by the 14th due process and equal protection clauses.

 

[Silhouette]

They didn't say the state has unquestioned authority to define marriage. The statement you are misapplying says that States have unquestioned authority to say "yes" and that if they do - then the Federal government cannot choose not to honor that action the State.

...As the court clearly, and repeatedly states in Windsor, the States don't have "unquestioned authority" pertaining to Civil Marriage, they are subject to Constitutional guarantees that protect the rights of persons. Whether those rights extend to discriminating against same-sex couples - the Court hasn't ruled on that yet.


>>>>

The fed SCOTUS asserted that New York through long and careful deliberation with the participation of registered voters there in their "discreet community" enacted legal gay marriage and then the fed has to abide by that. United States v. Windsor [page 14 of the Opinion] Along with their assertions and reiterations that states have always had the say on marriage since day one of the Country. That "unquestioned authority".

From that, somehow, you dissolved Windsor into the fed somehow saying "state's only have the right to ratify gay marriage and never to regulate against it or polygamy". And yes, from now on I will always refer to gay marriage as "gay marriage and polygamy" since they are legally an inseparable logical legal argument.

You're saying Windsor in essence was the "States can only say yes" Decision and not the "States' choice" Decision?

I think you're going to be shown in the near future that you are wrong about that. A decision by an entity with "unquestioned authority" to decide something means that no other authority may decide that for them. In California for example, the initiative system is a mandate that no authority there has the luxury of 1. Ignoring or 2. Overturning without a federal writ to do so. The only options that authorities have in that state is to seek the voters' approval to overturn an intiative statute or failing that, they must enforce it to the letter of the law. That's how their constitution is written. The voters' rights may not be disenfranchised by an oligarchy or sedition...which is what's currently going on there..

Given that SCOTUS has GRANTED Utah's request for a stay on gay marriage, that is your "interim vote of no confidence" on the 14th or any other Constitutional provision outweighing a state's "unquestioned authority" on gay marriage. Ergo we know that no one state may get preferential treatment over the other 49. So we have a situation of implied-upholding of Prop 8 in California in the interim. That would be an affirmation that California had and has the right to say "no" to gay marriage and polygamy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The fed SCOTUS asserted that New York through long and careful deliberation with the participation of registered voters...

LOL

You are the one that keeps claiming there are only 3 states (those who had ballot initiatives that approved SSCM) - New York wasn't one of the 3 you claim.


Sorry - your analysis of legal decisions hasn't shown a lot of credibility.


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

LOL

You are the one that keeps claiming there are only 3 states (those who had ballot initiatives that approved SSCM) - New York wasn't one of the 3 you claim.


Sorry - your analysis of legal decisions hasn't shown a lot of credibility.


>>>>

We'll see about that. Refer to my last post. The conversation is less about what states SCOTUS erroneously and arbitrarily has said it will recognize as having legal gay marriage in the interim and more about how it will have to make a clear and concise definitive yardstick to measure what constitutes "legally arrived at gay marriage" in its Windsor decision weighed against any new ones...like the stay granted for Utah for example...

 

[Silhouette]

Worldy, why do you supposed the SCOTUS granted the stay on gay marriage and polygamy in Utah when Utah's AG pled on the grounds that not to do so would harm their democratic process and rights....citing Windsor 2013 as he did so?