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

[bodecea]

You have no compelling argument to deny gay Americans their 14th Amendment rights.

This "think of the children" emotive plea is about as desperate and shallow as it gets. In essence you are alleging that gays are "inferior parents" with zero substantiation for that claim. Furthermore you are corrupting the results of that study. Kids do better in a 2 parent household than a single parent household, period. The genders and relationships are utterly irrelevant. Children can be raised by a father and grandmother, a mother and her maiden aunt, an unmarried couple, a pair of divorced fathers, the combination doesn't matter at all. What matters is that two parents are better than one therefore gay marriage is better than single parenthood,

Children do better with both blood parents in the home.

Tell you what, get your buddies over at the APA to cook up some "data" that supports your stance and then get back to us here. Get the APA to say, in publication, that children would do just as well in homes without both blood parents as with, post the link here and I'll check it out. OK?

Then I'll submit that data to the new Congress in January so they can better review the APA's funding. They can have an independent research group or groups compare results with the APA's "new findings" and see if they cut the muster. Until that point, we will rely on the old and true science in default to the best security of children and say that we know for a FACT that children do better in married homes with both blood parents. We will err on the side of caution when children are involved and not on "experimentation".

So...what have YOU done to make that law?

 

[Syriusly]

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.m

LOL....Silhouette and her perverse legal illogic......

 

[Syriusly]

We go round and round the block with this one derideo, but the thread is about the lower courts circumventing process when they forced the various states to allow gay marriage against their Will. So any of those court decisions are not worth the paper they're written on. Gay marriage is not and never has been valid or legal in those states therefore.

You have had this explained to you before but you are either too stupid to understand or just delusional.

Sutton's opinion only applies to the courts under the jurisdiction of the 6th Appellate Court.
4 other Appellate courts have ruled otherwise- and the Supreme Court left those rulings stand- same gender marriage is legal in those states affected.

You are either stupid or delusional....and probably both.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Where is marriage spoken of as a "right" in the US constitution? And before you cite Loving, be sure to note that LGBT are lifestyles and not race.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[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.

Wrong....and this is not the first time that Propositions in CA have been clearly unConstitutional and shot down in the federal courts.

Not wrong which you just contradicted your stupid self. Prop 8 was voted o n and passed by California voters but the cry babies had the courts overturn it.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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

Where is marriage spoken of as a "right" in the US constitution? And before you cite Loving, be sure to note that LGBT are lifestyles and not race.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is the loon OP of the day, offered by a poster who sounds like a segregationist.

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

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Not one homosexual has ever been denied the ability to marry.

 

[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.

Not one homosexual has ever been denied the ability to marry.

So now we can add liar to your arrogant racist bigot resume?

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Not one homosexual has ever been denied the ability to marry.

So now we can add liar to your arrogant racist bigot resume?

It's not a lie. They may be limited on who they can marry but that isn't denying them the ability to marry. Nothing is absolute. I'm denied the ability to open carry a gun. That doesn't take away my right to own one just limits where and how I can carry it. Learn the difference unless you want to claim marriage as an absolute right. I find that with people like you it's OK to limit things you think should be limited yet if it's something you support, it should be unlimited. If you think marriage is a right and people should be able to marry whomever they want, do you agree that brothers and sisters should be able to marry?

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

Not one homosexual has ever been denied the ability to marry.

So now we can add liar to your arrogant racist bigot resume?

It's not a lie. They may be limited on who they can marry but that isn't denying them the ability to marry. Nothing is absolute. I'm denied the ability to open carry a gun. That doesn't take away my right to own one just limits where and how I can carry it. Learn the difference unless you want to claim marriage as an absolute right. I find that with people like you it's OK to limit things you think should be limited yet if it's something you support, it should be unlimited. If you think marriage is a right and people should be able to marry whomever they want, do you agree that brothers and sisters should be able to marry?

The state has the right to regulate marriages as long as they don't violate the federal constitution. Your red herrings are puerile.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

Your religious beliefs are in no way 'the truth,' they're subjective, personal, and legally irrelevant.

That you perceive your beliefs to be 'true' in no way authorizes you to seek to deny any class of persons their civil rights.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

What you believe is utterly irrelevant when it comes to the Constitutional rights of everyone having equal protection under the law.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

Your religious beliefs are in no way 'the truth,' they're subjective, personal, and legally irrelevant.

That you perceive your beliefs to be 'true' in no way authorizes you to seek to deny any class of persons their civil rights.

Only in your narrow mind. I didn't say that gays can't legally marry. I said marriage is between man and woman anything else is an abomination.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Where is marriage spoken of as a "right" in the US constitution? And before you cite Loving, be sure to note that LGBT are lifestyles and not race.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

As a man who has been happily married to my wife for over 20 years, I see nothing 'sick' about same gender couples enjoying the same legal recognition has we have.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That is what every religious person believes. Doesn't mean we are obligated to indulge in those beliefs.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey, the thread isn't about religion. It's about the welfare of kids and why states incentivize marriages as man/woman only. Check the OP

 

[Silhouette]

Of course flame wars and diversions always help shut threads down that are too threatening for public exposure...