In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Pop23]

Why should traditional marriage need to be "upheld"?

In 2008, this nation entered an era where the norm became the exception and wrong suddenly became acceptable commonplace.

To think of Obama or his administration as being any semblance of authority or makers of rule is quite simply insanity defined.

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

I can think of at least one other definition "traditional marriage" used to have.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

To assume that loving did is to assume that Loving legalized incestuous marriage.

Can't do one without the other

 

[Skylar]

Considering LGBT is roughly 3 to 5% of population if you give them benefit of the doubt, Sil, heteros are divided about 1 to 1, with the millennials about 3 to 1.

You lose on the numbers.

Jake, the numbers are way more than you think they are. Support for gay marriage beats opposition by a margin of 12 to 19 points. Even factoring in your '3 to 5%', you're still looking at a significant lead for gay marriage support among heteros.

And if you look at it politically, its even worse. Conservatives are currently polling at about 35% support. While liberals and moderates....are pulling about 70% each. With millennial at 80% or higher. With all 4 state referendums on the legality of gay marriage in the last 3 years passing easily.

The public has definitely picked a side on the issue. And with a 50 to 2 record of federal court rulings in favor of gay marriage, so too have the courts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

To oppose gay marriage does not equal hate. Another fallicy in thinking is you weren't born that way either. You were inducted by the LGBT culture.

Yes it does. Without a valid reason to deny gays the right to same sex marriage, the only reason left is malice.

 

[Silhouette]

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

To assume that loving did is to assume that Loving legalized incestuous marriage.

Can't do one without the other

OMG! Logic! Quick...QUICK!!! ad hominems ...strawmen! Flame wars until the thread is locked!! Hurry!

Here, I'll get you started..."Pop23" is a bigoted homophobe HATER!! Meanwhile, I heard the price of apples will be coming down later this Fall....anyone? ANYONE????

 

[Skylar]

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

What Loving establishes is the Federal Government's authority to overrule a State definition of marriage that violates the rights of citizens. It reiterates marriage as a right. It also establishes that public support is irrelevant to the application of one's rights, as interracial marriage was polling at 80 - 20 against the year that Loving came down. A 60 point margin of opposition.

As a point of contrast, gay marriage enjoys a 12 to 19 point margin of support.

 

[Skylar]

Yes it does. Without a valid reason to deny gays the right to same sex marriage, the only reason left is malice.

I disagree. While malice is definitely a common motivation, it doesn't have to be. I think you could make a State's Rights argument on the issue or a religious conviction argument that involve no animus toward gays.

 

[Silhouette]

[

To oppose gay marriage does not equal hate. Another fallicy in thinking is you weren't born that way either. You were inducted by the LGBT culture.

Yes it does. Without a valid reason to deny gays the right to same sex marriage, the only reason left is malice.

Ah, well then you'll agree that since marriage allows a legal shoehorn into adoption for couples, lewd sex performers in front of children with 100% expressed/implied support or 0% denouncement from the LGBT subculture means that society can expect this group to be a danger to children.

That isn't hate. It's protecting children. Unless stating the obvious disturbing trends around kids in LGBT is now also a form of "hate"?

 

[Skylar]

We'll see about that Jake. Hey Jake....didn't you like how that judge's interpretation of Windsor 2013 was identical to mine? How would you say he made a "mistake" in interpreting Windsor Jake?

The obvious problem being......50 other rulings from the Federal Judiciary contradict you. 50 to 2 is not a ratio that inspires much confidence in the validity of your claims. Nor is the USSC's perfect record of preserving lower court rulings that overrule gay marriage bans. Or the USSC's recognition of gays as protectable under federal law. Nor was the court's overruling of key provisions of DOMA in Windsor as unconstitutional and discriminatory.

Virtually all of the rulings on this matter point in one direction: marriage equality.

 

[Skylar]

Ah, well then you'll agree that since marriage allows a legal shoehorn into adoption for couples, lewd sex performers in front of children with 100% expressed/implied support or 0% denouncement from the LGBT subculture means that society can expect this group to be a danger to children.

And what's the problem with gay adoption? That too enjoys strong support publicly. And legislatively. You don't like it. And.....so what?

As for your 'sex performers' claim, you've clearly never been to Pride. Else you'd know that most of the children there were brought by their straight parents. Which just destroys your latest made up excuse for denying gays and lesbians the right to marry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, he is just one against dozens of judges and benches who disagree with him.

Two, only in your head is it identical to your opinion.

Three, Sil, let Skylar be your guide because you really just don't get it.

I am sorry for what happened to you, but get over it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

How could the Supreme Court find those marriages Constitutional- if they were in violation of what the Supreme then declares to be valid state laws?

Far from being the only rational decision- it is the irrational decision. The Supreme courts has over-ruled State laws regarding marriage multiple times- most notably in Loving v. Virginia.

If these decisions were left to legislators and voters.....mixed race marriage might still be illegal in Virginia today.

Please post where the Supreme Court over ruled state laws regarding marriage since Loving. We'll wait.

 

[The Rabbi]

Go read the ruling before you post more nonsense.

Then perhaps you could educate us all and show us where in the Windsor ruling it says that gay marriage bans are constitutional and that Prop 8 is reauthorized.

Unless you haven't actually read the ruling and you're once again talking out of your ass about a topic you know nothing about. Then you might find it a bit more difficult.

Go ahead and read the ruling. Get an adult to explain it.

 

[Silhouette]

One, he is just one against dozens of judges and benches who disagree with him.

Precisely how do they disagree with him Jake? I'd like to see your dissertation on that. Name how they are right and he is wrong with regards to Windsor and all the rest?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why should traditional marriage need to be "upheld"?

In 2008, this nation entered an era where the norm became the exception and wrong suddenly became acceptable commonplace.

To think of Obama or his administration as being any semblance of authority or makers of rule is quite simply insanity defined.

This black skinned community organizer has set our country aflame.

I can think of at least one other definition "traditional marriage" used to have.

Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Loving only addressed race, an obvious trait. It would have been impossible for loving to have addressed same sex marriage as none existed prior to the ruling.

To assume that loving did is to assume that Loving legalized incestuous marriage.

Can't do one without the other

Translation: I, Pop, know I am wrong but I will blab and blab.

 

[Skylar]

Please post where the Supreme Court over ruled state laws regarding marriage since Loving. We'll wait.

You seem confused. He didn't say there were multiple Supreme Court rulings on marriage 'since Loving'. He said 'The Supreme courts has over-ruled State laws regarding marriage multiple times- most notably in Loving v. Virginia.'

And I'm still waiting for you to show us where in the Windsor decision the courts state that gay marriage bans are constitutional or that Prop 8 is reauthorized. Given that your first step would be to actually read the Windsor decision, I won't hold my breath.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not once has Sil provided any proof for "lewd sex performers in front of children with 100% expressed/implied support or 0% denouncement from the LGBT subculture means that society can expect this group to be a danger to children."

This is indeed a statement by Sil loaded with malice.

And if Sil can dig out one, where is two or three or a thousand, to make sure that it is not a hastily generalization.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, he is just one against dozens of judges and benches who disagree with him.

Precisely how do they disagree with him Jake? I'd like to see your dissertation on that. Name how they are right and he is wrong with regards to Windsor and all the rest?

By the fact they ruled the other way.

Look, Sil, I know you are losing real emotional balance on this issue but that was stupid by even your standards.

 

[Skylar]

Precisely how do they disagree with him Jake? I'd like to see your dissertation on that. Name how they are right and he is wrong with regards to Windsor and all the rest?

Depending on the ruling, they've overruled gay marriage bans as lacking a valid state interest or a rational reason, found them unconstitutionally discriminatory or found that they violate equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

The record is currently 50 for gay marriage....2 against. With both of those 2 being lone judges at the lowest level of the federal courts. Every quorum to hear the issue has overruled gay marriage bans. Every circuit appeals court to hear the issue has overruled gay marriage bans. With the USSC preserving every lower court ruling that overrules gay marriage bans.

 

[Skylar]

This is indeed a statement by Sil loaded with malice.

Oh, that Silo is malice motivated is pretty obvious. He's lamented in long posts about homosexuals. Calling them a cult, deviants, repugnant, and implied that they want to molest and harm children.

And while malice is the motivation for quite a bit of the opposition to gay marriage, it doesn't have to be. You could make a reasonable States Rights argument or a religious argument that would be malice free. Neither hold up well in court, but the do form a malice free basis for opposition to gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Not really. The Court could delcare that anyone married under the law at the time is still validly married but going forward no more.
It's the only rational decision. States traditionally have been the arbiters of marriage laws and these decisions should be made by legislators and voters, not judges.

How could the Supreme Court find those marriages Constitutional- if they were in violation of what the Supreme then declares to be valid state laws?

Far from being the only rational decision- it is the irrational decision. The Supreme courts has over-ruled State laws regarding marriage multiple times- most notably in Loving v. Virginia.

If these decisions were left to legislators and voters.....mixed race marriage might still be illegal in Virginia today.

Please post where the Supreme Court over ruled state laws regarding marriage since Loving. We'll wait.

Was that supposed to be a challenge that you think I couldn't handle?

Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that Wisconsin Statutes §§ 245.10 (1), (4), (5) (1973) violated the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause. Section 245.10 required noncustodial parents who were Wisconsin residents attempting to marry inside or outside of Wisconsin to seek a court order prior to receiving a marriage license. In order to receive such a court order, the noncustodial parent could not be in arrears on his or her child support, and the court had to believe that the child(ren) would not become dependent on the State.[1]

Turner v. Safley
Supreme Court overturned state prison rules which prohibited marriage between inmates

And of course Loving v. Virginia.

Three examples of the Supreme Court over-ruling State laws on Constitutional grounds