Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[Silhouette]

According to the 6th Circuit judge Sutton, gay marriages are illegal that are being peformed in states that voted to keep marriage just between man/woman.

It's a procedural flaw. Sutton says that because Baker, 1971 and Windsor, 2013 both Uphold that states have the unquestioned authority of choice on this matter, that what other circuit courts have done is attempted to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath SCOTUS. This is something that is not allowed. So their decisions are not worth the paper they are written on. Any state whose AG is not following this or not protecting his voters' civil rights to have their vote count, needs to be fired:

Here's what Sutton had to say: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Page 8... of Opinion


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

Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..

..
now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations. Id. at 2691–92.

********

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

Though it has not been proven conclusively, the case of Thomas Lobel in California illustrates why states must not be stripped of the right to protect the best interests of children. It is the case of a boy who at age 8, living under the roof of two lesbians "as parents" decided he wanted to mutilate his own genitals and become a girl instead. Instead of becoming alarmed and trying to help the boy overcome his mental crisis, the two lesbian women started drugging him (with tacit or outright APA and AMA approval, I might add), to suppress his puberty so that "he can make the best choice" whether or not to proceed with amputating his healthy genitals with APA and medical approval.

Just mull this over when you're wondering how to vote on the poll above:

Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

In related news...

The APA has a "grassroots" fund lobbying gig going that reads like a playbook from scientology.

*********

In some instances legislators making policy decisions are not fully experienced in certain areas. Legislators, therefore, rely heavily on the expressed views of their constituents and information provided by experts – such as you. Through constituent letters, phone calls, and face-to-face meetings, legislators learn what's important to the “people back home.” As the legendary Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill often said, “all politics is local.”...

...It may surprise you to know that they not only rely heavily on what the voters think about an issue; in many cases they reach out to constituents who have expertise or knowledge in particular area and ask them for their help. Has that ever happened to you? If so, that's likely because you have been actively involved with grassroots. They know they can reach out to you when they need some assistance with a particular piece of legislation or even in the development of a proposed new policy initiative. In short: Members of Congress and their staff count on your letters and phone calls, your direct involvement, to help them know if they are "on the right track."...

...
However, no matter how involved you are as an individual, greater influence and impact is gained when large numbers of constituents speak with “one voice.” And how is this best accomplished? It is only possible through organized grassroots activities....

...
Inaugurated in December 2001, FEDAC is a campus-based nationwide, education advocacy grassroots network established to assist the APA Education Directorate and Public Policy-Education staff with efforts to gain federal support (funding) for psychology education and training. Although it is in its first years of development, when fully completed, the FEDAC network will include individuals representing the full spectrum of psychology
education/training (i.e., graduate, postgraduate, undergraduate, and pre-college). The FEDAC network also works collaboratively with other psychology grassroots networks whenever possible and appropriate.

The FEDAC grassroots network is vital to the success of Education Advocacy legislative initiatives (i.e., authorizing and appropriations). Thus, FEDAC Regional Coordinators have been actively seeking to recruit psychology representatives on campuses and training sites in across the nation. Currently, there are over 150 Campus-based Training Representatives (CTRs) at psychology programs and training sites nation wide. Most importantly, these CTRs are promoting and coordinating grassroots activities with their psychology faculty colleagues. P sychologists, students and faculty from hundreds of universities, colleges, professional schools, and secondary schools have the potential to unite and become a powerful voice on Capitol Hill for psychology education and training....

...Bottom line is grassroots activity is critical to sustaining support and gaining a "champion" – someone who will chose your issue as one of his/her top priorities. Thus, identifying psychologists who are willing to meet with their Member of Congress in their state or Washington, DC office is one of the most important aspects of our advocacy efforts....

...When you assist APA with its advocacy initiatives, we provide all the information you will need (e.g., sample letters, talking points, background briefing sheets) — whatever you would need to make an informed call or draft a letter. Further, should you agree to participate in a hill visit, we not only provide all the background materials you need, we also meet with you in advance and accompany you on your visit. So, you see, it's very easy… and rewarding... Grassroots...what s the big deal

********

After gay activists took over the power ranks at the APA back in the 1970s and 1980s, they adopted a new way of arriving at conclusions which gives preference to "CQR". CQR is a method of arriving at conclusions by "audited group-think". It encourages members to essentaily spy on each other's works in research and if those works conflict with pre-determined stances the APA holds, then the researcher is "audited" to come into line with the group-approved thinking.

CQR openly flaunts group-opinion trumping data and facts. Exactly how a cult operates.

(more on CQR and links to actual APA info in the OP here Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum )

 

[Silhouette]

The APA has undoubtedly authored many an amicus brief to these lower circut activist courts that tried to overrule SCOTUS from underneath. As have many gay advocate-funded groups.

One of the big money-pumps going into this advocacy was Mr. Terry Bean of Oregon. He was just recently arrested for ...well...you can read yourself:

Terry Bean, a Portland power player in national Democratic politics and the gay rights movement, was arrested today on charges of sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy....

..Law enforcement sources familiar with the case say Bean will be charged with two counts of sodomy in the third degree, a felony, and sex abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor. He will be arraigned later in Lane County, where the crimes allegedly occurred in 2013. http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-32476-terry_bean_arrested_.html

It's nothing that Harvey Milk wouldn't approve of though. Milk famously serial- sodomized a minor teen who was on drugs, mentally ill and unstable. that's three felony counts in the states where he did this. Milk also transported the boy across state lines during the time of his crimes against the boy; which violates the federal MANN Act. Milk officiated as the boy's "father figure/guardian" while he was doing this.

Harvey Milk is celebrated by the LGBT culture worldwide for his open sexuality, which was in general terms as described in his biography, "...a penchant for young waifs with substance abuse problems". (Page 180 The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk, by Randy Shilts) As a matter of law in California, children in elementary schools there are required to celebrate the socio-sexual life of Harvey Milk each May in classrooms. The equivalent would be to require a women's organization to celebrate a serial rapist for "his socio-sexual achievements"...

 

[Derideo_Te]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

 

[Silhouette]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

Divorce is also granted for the sake of the children when the two blood parents fight too much and might cause them harm that way too.

It's a choice between the lesser of two evils at that point. The state isn't seeking perfection in setting up perks in marriage to incentivize both blood parents or opposite gender role models in the home, they are trying to get as many homes as possible close to the best model for the best sake of children. Marriage is an incentive program for kids and the state is very involved in that program for their behalf, even when it most unfortunately means divorce.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

Divorce is also granted for the sake of the children when the two blood parents fight too much and might cause them harm that way too.

It's a choice between the lesser of two evils at that point. The state isn't seeking perfection in setting up perks in marriage to incentivize both blood parents or opposite gender role models in the home, they are trying to get as many homes as possible close to the best model for the best sake of children. Marriage is an incentive program for kids and the state is very involved in that program for their behalf, even when it most unfortunately means divorce.

Suddenly there is an exception for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals?

You are FOS!

Your entire premise is based upon an irrational fear of gays and the 14th Amendment will ensure that there is nothing you can do about preventing gays from their right to be treated equally under the law.

 

[mdk]

I guess those other threads weren't receiving the proper traffic so Sil felt compelled to craft another using the exact same nonsense. I see the usual anti-gay talking points concerning the 6th Circuit, Blood parents, Milk, and the APA have already been bandied about. I am little gobsmacked that pictures from pride parade haven't entered the mix but I suppose the thread is still young.

 

[AmericanFirst]

According to the 6th Circuit judge Sutton, gay marriages are illegal that are being peformed in states that voted to keep marriage just between man/woman.

It's a procedural flaw. Sutton says that because Baker, 1971 and Windsor, 2013 both Uphold that states have the unquestioned authority of choice on this matter, that what other circuit courts have done is attempted to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath SCOTUS. This is something that is not allowed. So their decisions are not worth the paper they are written on. Any state whose AG is not following this or not protecting his voters' civil rights to have their vote count, needs to be fired:

Here's what Sutton had to say: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Page 8... of Opinion


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

Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..

..
now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations. Id. at 2691–92.

********

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

Though it has not been proven conclusively, the case of Thomas Lobel in California illustrates why states must not be stripped of the right to protect the best interests of children. It is the case of a boy who at age 8, living under the roof of two lesbians "as parents" decided he wanted to mutilate his own genitals and become a girl instead. Instead of becoming alarmed and trying to help the boy overcome his mental crisis, the two lesbian women started drugging him (with tacit or outright APA and AMA approval, I might add), to suppress his puberty so that "he can make the best choice" whether or not to proceed with amputating his healthy genitals with APA and medical approval.

Just mull this over when you're wondering how to vote on the poll above:

Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I find it a slap in the face to the voters who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

Divorce is also granted for the sake of the children when the two blood parents fight too much and might cause them harm that way too.

It's a choice between the lesser of two evils at that point. The state isn't seeking perfection in setting up perks in marriage to incentivize both blood parents or opposite gender role models in the home, they are trying to get as many homes as possible close to the best model for the best sake of children. Marriage is an incentive program for kids and the state is very involved in that program for their behalf, even when it most unfortunately means divorce.

Suddenly there is an exception for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals?

You are FOS!

Your entire premise is based upon an irrational fear of gays and the 14th Amendment will ensure that there is nothing you can do about preventing gays from their right to be treated equally under the law.

Man and woman is good gay bastards are satans children. Cry babies.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I find it a slap in the face

Kinky!

 

[AmericanFirst]

I find it a slap in the face

Kinky!

Stupid response, but that is normal from the stupid left.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Man and woman is good gay bastards are satans children. Cry babies.

Deceleration Alert!

Statistikhengst Pogo Luddly Neddite

 

[Derideo_Te]

I find it a slap in the face

Kinky!

Stupid response, but that is normal from the stupid left.

The extremist right has zero sense of humor.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

According to homophobic Silhouette states must have the right to ban all divorces since that will "deprive children 100% of the time of one of their blood parents".

In fact States must have the right to genetically test all parents and children and ensure that they are only in the custody of their "blood parents" even if they are not married to one another but instead to other people.

Typical left wing stupidity and hypocrisy. Trying to justify a guaranteed bad thing by virtue of another potentially bad thing.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I find it a slap in the face

Kinky!

Stupid response, but that is normal from the stupid left.

The extremist right has zero sense of humor.

And the common left has zero IQ.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And the common left has zero IQ.

Ironic!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Should states being illegally-forced to accept gay marriages fire their AGs for inaction?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

States do not have the authority to deny citizens their civil rights. When the courts invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution, the fault lies solely with the states and their officers who should have never enforced such laws that are clearly un-Constitutional to begin with.

The states and their officers are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts, where state attorneys general are compelled to obey the decisions of Federal courts in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

 

[AmericanFirst]

"Should states being illegally-forced to accept gay marriages fire their AGs for inaction?"

This fails as a loaded question fallacy.

States do not have the authority to deny citizens their civil rights. When the courts invalidate laws repugnant to the Constitution, the fault lies solely with the states and their officers who should have never enforced such laws that are clearly un-Constitutional to begin with.

The states and their officers are subject to the Constitution, its case law, and the rulings of Federal courts, where state attorneys general are compelled to obey the decisions of Federal courts in accordance with Article VI of the Federal Constitution.

The voters voted to recognize marriage between man and woman in California but the 9th circus of idiots decided that didn't matter. The voters constitutional rights were overrun by a bunch of leftist retards.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The voters constitutional rights were overrun by a bunch of leftist retards.

More irony!

The Constitution protects individual rights from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Silhouette]

I guess those other threads weren't receiving the proper traffic so Sil felt compelled to craft another using the exact same nonsense. I see the usual anti-gay talking points concerning the 6th Circuit, Blood parents, Milk, and the APA have already been bandied about. I am little gobsmacked that pictures from pride parade haven't entered the mix but I suppose the thread is still young.

Yes, I know, a steady supply of arguments against gay marriage information from one poster on the internet with no sock puppets, compared to the LGBT propaganda-tsunami from 1,000s of LGBT blogger hired hands using multiple sock puppets must really be a bummer for you.