Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

Based on the Hearing, which way do you think Kennedy and/or Breyer will swing on this question?

  • Both Breyer and Kennedy will mandate gay marriage federally, shutting off the conversation.

    Votes: 9 69.2%
  • Both Breyer and Kennedy will reaffirm the power to the states on gay marriage yes/no

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Kennedy will go fed-mandate and Breyer will reaffirm the power to the states

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Breyer will go fed-mandate and Kennedy will reaffirm the power to the states

    Votes: 1 7.7%

  • Total voters
    13
I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

Of course he said nothing of the sort, but hey, when has that ever stopped you?

Your inability to read may be linked to your inability to recognize gender as well: and hence why you believe if you amputate genitals, you can change genders. I think it's a type of willful myopia; or it may be subconcious, or both: the complete inability to recognize what is right before your eyes. Read the part in bold again..
 
I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion.

The 14th amendment names no classes. The word 'race' never appears in the 14th amendment. The word 'gender' never appears in the 14th amendment. The words 'country of origin' never appear in the 14th amendment. The word 'religion' never appears in the 14th amendment.

You've hallucinated all of them. As we've already told you this. Yet you still make up your own version of the 14th amendment, affix it with whatever hapless bullshit you can imagine, and then demand that the courts use your delusion as the basis of their rulings.

No.

You're ill, Sil. Nothing you've hallucinated is actually real.
 
I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

Of course he said nothing of the sort, but hey, when has that ever stopped you?

Your inability to read may be linked to your inability to recognize gender as well: and hence why you believe if you amputate genitals, you can change genders. I think it's a type of willful myopia; or it may be subconcious, or both: the complete inability to recognize what is right before your eyes. Read the part in bold again..

Religion is an example of a protected class that isn't innate. Disproving your thesis that a trait must be innate in order to protected. And making your entire premise that unless homosexuality is innate it can't be protected.

The only one who has ever said that gays and lesbians are a 'religion' is you.
 
I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

Of course he said nothing of the sort, but hey, when has that ever stopped you?

Your inability to read may be linked to your inability to recognize gender as well: and hence why you believe if you amputate genitals, you can change genders. I think it's a type of willful myopia; or it may be subconcious, or both: the complete inability to recognize what is right before your eyes. Read the part in bold again..

You chiding anyone on their reading ability is downright hilarious. Almost everything you post about gays is grossly misrepresented to fit your narrative. If it doesn't fit your narrative you simply ignore it.
 
I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

Of course he said nothing of the sort, but hey, when has that ever stopped you?

Your inability to read may be linked to your inability to recognize gender as well: and hence why you believe if you amputate genitals, you can change genders. I think it's a type of willful myopia; or it may be subconcious, or both: the complete inability to recognize what is right before your eyes. Read the part in bold again..

You chiding anyone on their reading ability is downright hilarious. Almost everything you post about gays is grossly misrepresented to fit your narrative. If it doesn't fit your narrative you simply ignore it.

Sil just hallucinated his argument into the 14th amendment. And despite none of the categories he cites from his imaginary version of the amendment being in the actual amendment, he continues to argue for his delusion.

I'm not using the word 'insane' as a rhetorical contrivance or generic pejorative. Sil is ill. And he's literally arguing his hallucinations now.
 
I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

Of course he said nothing of the sort, but hey, when has that ever stopped you?

Your inability to read may be linked to your inability to recognize gender as well: and hence why you believe if you amputate genitals, you can change genders. I think it's a type of willful myopia; or it may be subconcious, or both: the complete inability to recognize what is right before your eyes. Read the part in bold again..

You chiding anyone on their reading ability is downright hilarious. Almost everything you post about gays is grossly misrepresented to fit your narrative. If it doesn't fit your narrative you simply ignore it.

Sil just hallucinated his argument into the 14th amendment. And despite none of the categories he cites from his imaginary version of the amendment being in the actual amendment, he continues to argue for his delusion.

I'm not using the word 'insane' as a rhetorical contrivance or generic pejorative. Sil is ill. And he's literally arguing his hallucinations now.

Yeah, I just read her post about the 14th Amendment and these alleged protected classes contained therein. Another Sil fantasy goes up in smoke.
 
Last edited:
I repeat....its irrelevant. You keep arguing that unless homosexuality is innate, they can't be protected. And we keep telling you that your premise is hopeless ignorance. Religion isn't innate. Yet you can't discriminate based on someone's religion. Disproving your entire premise..

So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment 1. Race 2. Gender 3. Country of origin and 4. Religion, you identify the LGBT cult with religion. Race is a fixed state of being. Gender is a fixed state of being. What country one was born in or derives ancestory from is a fixed state of being. The only one of the four that isn't a fixed inborn trait is one's religion. So, you are saying that LGBT is a religion of sorts. And I agree.

LGBTs have dogma, they evangelize to kids and they swiftly punish any and all heresy; even outside their fold.

Of course he said nothing of the sort, but hey, when has that ever stopped you?

Your inability to read may be linked to your inability to recognize gender as well: and hence why you believe if you amputate genitals, you can change genders. I think it's a type of willful myopia; or it may be subconcious, or both: the complete inability to recognize what is right before your eyes. Read the part in bold again..

Reading it again doesn't change the fact that it doesn't say what you claim. Pointing out that religion is not an innate trait is not saying homosexuality is a religion. Enjoying seafood is not an innate trait, but that doesn't make those who do part of the religion of the sea. As per usual, it is you who shows an appalling inability to comprehend what you are reading.

Oh, and you have once again assigned a belief to someone without that person actually claiming to hold such a belief; have I ever said that 'if you amputate genitals, you can change genders'?
 
SILHOUETTE SAID:

“So then you're saying that of the classes named in the 14th Amendment...”

There are no 'classes of persons' 'named' in the 14th Amendment.

There are classes of persons recognized by Constitutional jurisprudence, suspect and protected – homosexuals belong to the latter, where their rights are indeed protected from disadvantage by the Federal government, and immune from attack by state and local governments in accordance with the 14th Amendment.

In US v. Windsor the Supreme Court invalidated a provision of Federal law – DOMA – that violated the Fifth Amendment right of gay Americans to due process and equal protection of the law, having nothing to do with the 14th Amendment or 'states' rights,' as the conflict was between a private citizen and the Federal government, where Congress sought through force of law to disadvantage same-sex couples.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the consolidated cases currently before the Supreme Court, states sought to disadvantage same-sex couples by denying them access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment, having nothing to do with the Federal government, where the conflict is between the states and their gay residences denied access to marriage law.

Just as DOMA was ruled un-Constitutional because it violated the 5th Amendment right of same-sex couples, so too are the states denying gay Americans their 5th Amendment right to due process and equal protection of the law, where the Federal Constitution is applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.

In essence, the 14th Amendment acknowledges the inalienable nature of the liberties and protections enshrined in the Bill of Rights, applying most, but not all, of the Bill of Rights to the states, where just as the Federal government may not violate these fundamental and inalienable rights, so too are the states prohibited from doing so, as incorporated to the states by the 14th Amendment.
 
I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before. Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

Here here! :clap2:

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

Oh, yes. Let's hope the Justices revisit Lawrence v Texas and remember that it was about decriminalization; not the stamp of legitimacy..and for damn good reasons... (local regulation of behaviors, 1st Amendment rights to refuse to participate, the welfare of children...)


Surely it hurts their case if it isn't innate. But even if it is it does not necessarily follow that they should win this case.
 
I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before. Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

Here here! :clap2:

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

Oh, yes. Let's hope the Justices revisit Lawrence v Texas and remember that it was about decriminalization; not the stamp of legitimacy..and for damn good reasons... (local regulation of behaviors, 1st Amendment rights to refuse to participate, the welfare of children...)


Surely it hurts their case if it isn't innate. But even if it is it does not necessarily follow that they should win this case.

Its irrelevant. You're raising a distinction the court has never expressed the slightest interest in. Read Romer v. Evans. Whether homosexuality was innate or behavioral was gloriously irrelevant to the decision. Whether or not Colorado law had a legitimate legislative end or merely singled out a particular class of people for discrimination was.

And that class of people being cited in the Romer....were gays. You can ignore this. Its unlikely the courts will ignore themselves. Especially when its overwhelmingly likely that the same person will be writing both the Romer and Obergefell decisions.
 
I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before. Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

Here here! :clap2:

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

Oh, yes. Let's hope the Justices revisit Lawrence v Texas and remember that it was about decriminalization; not the stamp of legitimacy..and for damn good reasons... (local regulation of behaviors, 1st Amendment rights to refuse to participate, the welfare of children...)


Surely it hurts their case if it isn't innate. But even if it is it does not necessarily follow that they should win this case.

Its irrelevant. You're raising a distinction the court has never expressed the slightest interest in. Read Romer v. Evans. Whether homosexuality was innate or behavioral was gloriously irrelevant to the decision. Whether or not Colorado law had a legitimate legislative end or merely singled out a particular class of people for discrimination was.

And that class of people being cited in the Romer....were gays. You can ignore this. Its unlikely the courts will ignore themselves. Especially when its overwhelmingly likely that the same person will be writing both the Romer and Obergefell decisions.

I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.
 
I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before. Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

Here here! :clap2:

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

Oh, yes. Let's hope the Justices revisit Lawrence v Texas and remember that it was about decriminalization; not the stamp of legitimacy..and for damn good reasons... (local regulation of behaviors, 1st Amendment rights to refuse to participate, the welfare of children...)


Surely it hurts their case if it isn't innate. But even if it is it does not necessarily follow that they should win this case.

Its irrelevant. You're raising a distinction the court has never expressed the slightest interest in. Read Romer v. Evans. Whether homosexuality was innate or behavioral was gloriously irrelevant to the decision. Whether or not Colorado law had a legitimate legislative end or merely singled out a particular class of people for discrimination was.

And that class of people being cited in the Romer....were gays. You can ignore this. Its unlikely the courts will ignore themselves. Especially when its overwhelmingly likely that the same person will be writing both the Romer and Obergefell decisions.

I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

In terms of the likely legal outcomes, whether or not you've read Romer doesn't factor in. And the word innate doesn't even occur in Romer. Nor is it based on any immutable, inherent trait.

The entire premise is legally unfounded. Its a distinction the court has never mentioned. Nor have they ever put any weight in regarding gays. You might as well be talking their favorite flavor of icecream for as much legal relevance as 'innateness' has to do with any ruling regarding gays in the last generation.
 
I have proven you wrong on the Republic not a Democracy before. Whether this is a civil right is in part what we're arguing over .

If it is illegal discrimination...then it arises out of the definition of the word itself.....a non-discriminating word will have to be put in the place of the word marriage within state laws.

YOu are wrapped up in an emotional crusade and can't see the damage these court cases may do in other areas. We can only hope the Justices come at this with a little less emotional investment, as is their duty.

Here here! :clap2:

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

Oh, yes. Let's hope the Justices revisit Lawrence v Texas and remember that it was about decriminalization; not the stamp of legitimacy..and for damn good reasons... (local regulation of behaviors, 1st Amendment rights to refuse to participate, the welfare of children...)


Surely it hurts their case if it isn't innate. But even if it is it does not necessarily follow that they should win this case.

Its irrelevant. You're raising a distinction the court has never expressed the slightest interest in. Read Romer v. Evans. Whether homosexuality was innate or behavioral was gloriously irrelevant to the decision. Whether or not Colorado law had a legitimate legislative end or merely singled out a particular class of people for discrimination was.

And that class of people being cited in the Romer....were gays. You can ignore this. Its unlikely the courts will ignore themselves. Especially when its overwhelmingly likely that the same person will be writing both the Romer and Obergefell decisions.

I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

In terms of the likely legal outcomes, whether or not you've read Romer doesn't factor in. And the word innate doesn't even occur in Romer. Nor is it based on any immutable, inherent trait.

The entire premise is legally unfounded. Its a distinction the court has never mentioned. Nor have they ever put any weight in regarding gays. You might as well be talking their favorite flavor of icecream for as much legal relevance as 'innateness' has to do with any ruling regarding gays in the last generation.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this
 
Here here! :clap2:

And I repeat: a false premise that "LGBTs are innate" is crucial to understand. Because all their other arguments come after it. Behaviors have never before gotten special class status and protection from regulation by the majority. Sodomy was decriminalized in the privacy of a person's home. But the Justices warned at the time that that didn't mean this was society putting the stamp of legitimacy or special legal coddling for sodomites in any other area of life.

Most especially marriage: which is paramount about children. Never before in human history has a group forced so closely, manipulating that decriminalization into "a legitimate societal value" as today. Never before in human history have we considered forcing a majority of people to accept without their consent, two men or two women playing "mom and dad" to children who need the real McCoy of both.

Oh, yes. Let's hope the Justices revisit Lawrence v Texas and remember that it was about decriminalization; not the stamp of legitimacy..and for damn good reasons... (local regulation of behaviors, 1st Amendment rights to refuse to participate, the welfare of children...)


Surely it hurts their case if it isn't innate. But even if it is it does not necessarily follow that they should win this case.

Its irrelevant. You're raising a distinction the court has never expressed the slightest interest in. Read Romer v. Evans. Whether homosexuality was innate or behavioral was gloriously irrelevant to the decision. Whether or not Colorado law had a legitimate legislative end or merely singled out a particular class of people for discrimination was.

And that class of people being cited in the Romer....were gays. You can ignore this. Its unlikely the courts will ignore themselves. Especially when its overwhelmingly likely that the same person will be writing both the Romer and Obergefell decisions.

I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

In terms of the likely legal outcomes, whether or not you've read Romer doesn't factor in. And the word innate doesn't even occur in Romer. Nor is it based on any immutable, inherent trait.

The entire premise is legally unfounded. Its a distinction the court has never mentioned. Nor have they ever put any weight in regarding gays. You might as well be talking their favorite flavor of icecream for as much legal relevance as 'innateness' has to do with any ruling regarding gays in the last generation.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this

Quote the parts of Romer that DON'T make any reference to innate or immutable traits regarding homosexuality?

That would be the entire ruling.

You don't seem to follow my argument; this court has never put any weight on innate anything regarding homosexuality. They've never cited homosexuality as an inherent or innate trait, nor based on ruling on the idea. The entire concept is legally unfounded regarding gays.

If you believe 'innateness' is going to be relevant to their ruling, show me. But don't expect any help from Romer v. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas or Windsor v. US. As they never so much as mention the 'innateness' of homosexuality. Let alone base a ruling on it.
 
Last edited:
Surely it hurts their case if it isn't innate. But even if it is it does not necessarily follow that they should win this case.

Its irrelevant. You're raising a distinction the court has never expressed the slightest interest in. Read Romer v. Evans. Whether homosexuality was innate or behavioral was gloriously irrelevant to the decision. Whether or not Colorado law had a legitimate legislative end or merely singled out a particular class of people for discrimination was.

And that class of people being cited in the Romer....were gays. You can ignore this. Its unlikely the courts will ignore themselves. Especially when its overwhelmingly likely that the same person will be writing both the Romer and Obergefell decisions.

I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

In terms of the likely legal outcomes, whether or not you've read Romer doesn't factor in. And the word innate doesn't even occur in Romer. Nor is it based on any immutable, inherent trait.

The entire premise is legally unfounded. Its a distinction the court has never mentioned. Nor have they ever put any weight in regarding gays. You might as well be talking their favorite flavor of icecream for as much legal relevance as 'innateness' has to do with any ruling regarding gays in the last generation.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this

Quote the parts of Romer that DON'T make any reference to innate or immutable traits regarding homosexuality?

That would be the entire ruling.

You don't seem to follow my argument; this court has never put any weight on innate anything regarding homosexuality. They've never cited homosexuality as an inherent or innate trait, nor based on ruling on the idea. The entire concept is legally unfounded regarding gays.

If you believe 'innateness' is going to be relevant to their ruling, show me. But don't expect any help from Romer v. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas or Windsor v. US. As they never so much as mention the 'innateness' of homosexuality. Let alone base a ruling on it.
HOw do they get to protected class under Romer
 
Good article with a study that shows robots are better at predicting supreme court outcomes than legal experts.. AND
article concludes that the political views of the justices mean more than the legal details.
In a few outcomes where things dont seem to be based on the Justices politics.....they say other variables seem to matter like origin of the underlying case. Why would that matter?....the article didnt say but one can imagine it has something to do with where the justices came from and parochialism.

Robots are better than humans at predicting Supreme Court decisions - Vox
 
I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

It's true.

That will present a real problem for the LGBT cult, considering what they've admitted about themselves already: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Good article with a study that shows robots are better at predicting supreme court outcomes than legal experts.. AND
article concludes that the political views of the justices mean more than the legal details.
In a few outcomes where things dont seem to be based on the Justices politics.....they say other variables seem to matter like origin of the underlying case. Why would that matter?....the article didnt say but one can imagine it has something to do with where the justices came from and parochialism.
Robots are better than humans at predicting Supreme Court decisions - Vox

That's why the Justices are chosen for their long-seeing wisdom. They pay the least attention of any court to "rigid legal interpretation slavish to previous case law". Their job is to back way the hell up, see how this will affect future litigation and make the most wise decision to resolve the matter in the here and now. Ironically in this case, the wisdom might be that "here and now" demand an extension of the conversation with the participation of the states' voters.

LGBT has yet to authentically win the hearts and minds of the governed on their cult movement. So far they've resorted to brow-beating and legal-force. I think the Court is going to find that a cult who doesn't even understand its own behaviors, must not be allowed to spread without winning the hearts and minds through a more compassionate and legitimate PR campaign.

Who knows? Maybe putting the boy scouts in a gay pride parade is exactly how they can start 'winning the hearts and minds" of the current younger generations who have been trained-up to see these types of displays including children " as normal, healthy, desired"?
 
Last edited:
Its irrelevant. You're raising a distinction the court has never expressed the slightest interest in. Read Romer v. Evans. Whether homosexuality was innate or behavioral was gloriously irrelevant to the decision. Whether or not Colorado law had a legitimate legislative end or merely singled out a particular class of people for discrimination was.

And that class of people being cited in the Romer....were gays. You can ignore this. Its unlikely the courts will ignore themselves. Especially when its overwhelmingly likely that the same person will be writing both the Romer and Obergefell decisions.

I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

In terms of the likely legal outcomes, whether or not you've read Romer doesn't factor in. And the word innate doesn't even occur in Romer. Nor is it based on any immutable, inherent trait.

The entire premise is legally unfounded. Its a distinction the court has never mentioned. Nor have they ever put any weight in regarding gays. You might as well be talking their favorite flavor of icecream for as much legal relevance as 'innateness' has to do with any ruling regarding gays in the last generation.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this

Quote the parts of Romer that DON'T make any reference to innate or immutable traits regarding homosexuality?

That would be the entire ruling.

You don't seem to follow my argument; this court has never put any weight on innate anything regarding homosexuality. They've never cited homosexuality as an inherent or innate trait, nor based on ruling on the idea. The entire concept is legally unfounded regarding gays.

If you believe 'innateness' is going to be relevant to their ruling, show me. But don't expect any help from Romer v. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas or Windsor v. US. As they never so much as mention the 'innateness' of homosexuality. Let alone base a ruling on it.
HOw do they get to protected class under Romer

Read the ruling:

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'.

There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.
 
I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

It's true.

That will present a real problem for the LGBT cult, considering what they've admitted about themselves already: A Legal Fork for SCOTUS How to Arrange Alphabet Soup Into a Viable Static Class. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Nope. More pseudo-legal gibberish. There's no requirement that gays demonstrate that homosexuality is a 'static trait'. As its not the basis of any ruling in which they are protected. You make up the pseudo-legal standard. You made up the pseudo-legal requirement. All pulled from your pseudo-legal imagination.

And your imagination obligates no one to do anything.
 
I dont believe I have read Romer or if I have its been a while but

The "class of people" argument I believe is based in part on innateness.... I believe the twisting of the burden of proof is based in part on innateness.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this.

In terms of the likely legal outcomes, whether or not you've read Romer doesn't factor in. And the word innate doesn't even occur in Romer. Nor is it based on any immutable, inherent trait.

The entire premise is legally unfounded. Its a distinction the court has never mentioned. Nor have they ever put any weight in regarding gays. You might as well be talking their favorite flavor of icecream for as much legal relevance as 'innateness' has to do with any ruling regarding gays in the last generation.

Why dont you quote us the parts of Romer that develop this

Quote the parts of Romer that DON'T make any reference to innate or immutable traits regarding homosexuality?

That would be the entire ruling.

You don't seem to follow my argument; this court has never put any weight on innate anything regarding homosexuality. They've never cited homosexuality as an inherent or innate trait, nor based on ruling on the idea. The entire concept is legally unfounded regarding gays.

If you believe 'innateness' is going to be relevant to their ruling, show me. But don't expect any help from Romer v. Evans, Lawerence v. Texas or Windsor v. US. As they never so much as mention the 'innateness' of homosexuality. Let alone base a ruling on it.
HOw do they get to protected class under Romer

Read the ruling:

Romer Governor of Colorado et al. v. Evans et al. 517 U.S. 620 1996 .

With special attention to the very last 2 paragraphs. Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long.

And in the entire ruling you'll notice no mention of 'innateness of homosexuality' being the basis of the ruling. Or the 'immutability of homosexuality'. Or that homsexuality is a 'static trait'.

There's simply no mention of any of it in any ruling on homosexuality by this court.



quote "Its not a difficult read. One of those paragraphs is only 5 words long." <--evidence you're a pompous ass

you are the one acting as an expert on the law....bring out the specific areas you say show them to be a protected class.

just because it not mentioned doesnt mean that rational isnt used, or in the back of the mind of the judge , see the study I referred to that shows judges opinions can be often be predicted by party.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top