Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Skylar]

Gay marriage, teaching children homosexuality before they enter puberty and decide for themselves.

All the gays I know have straight parents. All the gay parents I know have straight kids. Your theory is malarkey.

Stastically speaking a gay parent having a gay child has to happen sometime.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet liberal after liberal can't answer a simple question. Name one. Name someone who being gay changes who they are allowed to marry. Who can they marry if they were straight they are prohibited from marrying because they were gay? Name one.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

 

[Skylar]

Comparing gay marriage to blacks is a false analogy.

The courts cited the Loving V. Virginia decision as an explicit example of the constitutional guarantees that state marriage laws are subject to in a discussion of gay marriage.

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian. Just as interracial marriage laws prevented a white man from marrying a black woman.

And you insist it failed the test. Indications are the court doesn't see things the way you do:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia
Dissent Windsor v. US

Despite Justice Scalia opposing gay marriage, he recognizes that the court's take on State prohibitions on same sex marriage is 'beyone mistaking'. With the Windsor court ruling against such bans on the basis of the Windsor ruling being 'inevitable'.

I'd say Scalia is in an excellent position to know what he's talking about on the majority's interpretation of key constitutional issues related to gay marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh but that is ending discrimination against that group- just as Loving v. Virginia ended discrimination towards another group.

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line.

You are an idiot

LOL....why am I not surprised that is your only answer to my post?

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line

You're making up strawman after strawman that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Why would I address that with more than, "you are an idiot?"

Oh but that is ending discrimination against that group- just as Loving v. Virginia ended discrimination towards another group.

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line.

You are an idiot

LOL....why am I not surprised that is your only answer to my post?

If it were up to you, women would still be waiting for the right to vote, because that would just be drawing a different line

You're making up strawman after strawman that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Why would I address that with more than, "you are an idiot?"

Well frankly, I suspect that I have been wasting my time posting anything more than 'you are an idiot' in reply to your posts.

So I will go back to pointing out that you just want to derail threads about same gender marriage with your usual anti-marriage bullshit.

Or, you could address things that I actually said instead of constantly putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, didn't mean and don't think. Ya think?

Just more of your usual BS trying to derail a thread about gay marriage because you are against all legal marriage.

 

[kaz]

Stastically speaking a gay parent having a gay child has to happen sometime.

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

My hypothesis would be that genes determine your gayness. Orientation is a normal distribution with the median being obviously on the side of straight. Everyone to the straight side of that is even more straight. As you go to the gay side of straight, near the median you are still straight but more open to it. As you go out however many standard deviations, you hit the fifty/fifty gay straight line, then beyond that you are more likely to be gay, the further you go the more certainly you are gay. From that distribution, your environment and behaviors make the determination. But usually, only people near the gay/straight line flip. Of course some are bisexual as well. It's a theory...

 

[kaz]

And yet liberal after liberal can't answer a simple question. Name one. Name someone who being gay changes who they are allowed to marry. Who can they marry if they were straight they are prohibited from marrying because they were gay? Name one.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

Still no answer to the question...

 

[Skylar]

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

 

[kaz]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

 

[kaz]

Just more of your usual BS trying to derail a thread about gay marriage because you are against all legal marriage.

Yes, you want gay marriage to be legal marriage. I am against legal marriage. You don't get the connection between those, LOL.

 

[Skylar]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

And no white man could marry a black woman. Restricting who can marry whom in both cases.

The restrictions themselves must meet constitutional standards. It must meet a specific legislative end, have a very good reason and serve a valid state interest.

Gay marriage bans can do none of these things. Nor could interracial marriage bans.

 

[Seawytch]

And yet liberal after liberal can't answer a simple question. Name one. Name someone who being gay changes who they are allowed to marry. Who can they marry if they were straight they are prohibited from marrying because they were gay? Name one.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

Still no answer to the question...

It was, you just don't like it. There is no rational basis for your wish to discriminate anymore that there was a rational basis for anti miscegenation laws. Anti gay laws will fall the same way they did as a result. I'm sorry, I should have said ARE falling.

 

[Seawytch]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

They can now. Discrimination fail.

 

[kaz]

Overwhelmingly probably true, but you can't conclude that without knowing the actual cause of gayness. In theory, it could not be behavioral or genetic but have a psychological root based on relationships to heterosexual parents. Like if you are a girl, something about your relationship with your male and female parents makes you desire women not men. And vice versa. I'm not arguing that, I'm just saying we don't know what causes gay, so we can't be certain about anything until we do.

That's somewhat reasonable. With one caveat: we don't have a definitive answer. But we do have quite a bit of evidence that indicates that children of same sex parents aren't any more likely to be gay than straight parents.

So we do have some pretty strong indications of what the cause isn't; exposure to gay people.

I agree on that, I find it highly unlikely that heterosexual parents would influence a kid to be gay unless the kid really is on the line between straight and gay anyway.

What is a downside though for gay adoption is that people evolved with a mother and father who have clearly different personalities and roles in child raising. It's ideal a child have both a male and female parent to gain both experiences. The same experience with two parents of the same sex does not make up for one relationship with each of two sexes.

I am not saying the kids of gay parents are any more likely to fail in life any more than single parent children. My father was a dead beat, left when I was five. My sister has a PhD in Math, my brother went to the Naval academy and has a masters in statistics. I have an MBA and a masters in Computer science and own my own business. We are not failures. But I still see the effects of overcoming not having had a father in the house. Particularly since I am the oldest. My brother and sister both have me as a father figure. Particularly my sister, and she's older than my brother.

 

[Syriusly]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian

 

[kaz]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

And no white man could marry a black woman. Restricting who can marry whom in both cases.

The restrictions themselves must meet constitutional standards. It must meet a specific legislative end, have a very good reason and serve a valid state interest.

Gay marriage bans can do none of these things. Nor could interracial marriage bans.

Word games aside, again, being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't. That is irrefutable.

 

[Syriusly]

Just more of your usual BS trying to derail a thread about gay marriage because you are against all legal marriage.

Yes, you want gay marriage to be legal marriage. I am against legal marriage. You don't get the connection between those, LOL.

So instead of fighting to eliminate legal marriage, you are here arguing that in the meantime, same gender couples should be denied the same treatment as opposite gender couples.

 

[kaz]

And yet liberal after liberal can't answer a simple question. Name one. Name someone who being gay changes who they are allowed to marry. Who can they marry if they were straight they are prohibited from marrying because they were gay? Name one.

Anti miscegenation laws discriminated based on race. Anti gay marriage laws discriminate based on gender. Both rooted solely in animus (hence the reason they lost and are losing)

Note you still couldn't answer the simple question, so you deflected with a false analogy.

But I don't want to marry a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man. Neither of us were prevented from marrying. (Thanks to the courts we both got to marry the non familial consenting partner of our choice) Ain't America grand?

Discrimination based solely on animus is discrimination based solely on animus. You have no rational basis to discriminate which is why you're losing.

Still no answer to the question...

It was, you just don't like it. There is no rational basis for your wish to discriminate anymore that there was a rational basis for anti miscegenation laws. Anti gay laws will fall the same way they did as a result. I'm sorry, I should have said ARE falling.

The question was to name one, name someone who is gay and not allowed to marry someone they would be allowed to marry if they were straight. You give lots of words, and no answer...

 

[kaz]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

They can now. Discrimination fail.

swish...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It should be a state issue mandated by public voting

-Geaux
------------------------------------------

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling
BY JONATHAN KAMINSKY

Tue Jan 27, 2015 6:54pm EST


n">(Reuters) - In a move viewed skeptically by legal experts, the socially conservative chief justice of Alabama's Supreme Court on Tuesday encouraged judges in his state to ignore a federal ruling last week striking down its ban on gay marriage.

Justice Roy Moore, in a letter addressed to Alabama Governor Robert Bentley, said Friday's federal ruling, which was put on hold for two weeks and could be superseded by a U.S. Supreme Court decision on gay marriage due by the end of June, violates the state constitution.

"I am dismayed by those judges in our state who have stated they will recognize and unilaterally enforce a federal court decision which does not bind them," Moore wrote. "I would advise them that the issuance of such licenses would be in defiance of the laws and constitution of Alabama."

Alabama Supreme Court chief justice encourages defiance on gay marriage ruling Reuters

Refreshing... It's always good to see an American on the bench.

 

[Syriusly]

OK, let's subject it to the test. Being black changed who you can marry, a violation of the 14th amendment. Being gay doesn't change who you can marry. Oops, we subjected gay marriage to the test, and it failed...

The same sex marriage bans absolutely changes who you can marry. As a lesbian couldn't marry another lesbian.

No, a straight woman cannot marry another woman either. The law is applied equally. Fail.

And no white man could marry a black woman. Restricting who can marry whom in both cases.

The restrictions themselves must meet constitutional standards. It must meet a specific legislative end, have a very good reason and serve a valid state interest.

Gay marriage bans can do none of these things. Nor could interracial marriage bans.

Word games aside, again, being black changed who you could marry, being gay doesn't. That is irrefutable.

Being black meant Mildred Loving could not marry the person she wanted to marry.
Being gay meant that you would have denied Edith Windsor marriage to the person she wanted to legally marry.