LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[Silhouette]

The other thread is 117 pages & as arguments proceed, will likely turn into 300 or more....so..

Alabama, 9 States Join Utah Bid to Save Gay-Marriage Ban

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and five other states said they support Utah’s bid to reverse a lower-court ruling that overturned its ban on same-sex marriages as momentum increases to send the issue for another review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 10 states jointly filed legal arguments supporting Utah’s position today in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver. The filing was signed by attorneys general for the states, all of whom are Republicans, including those for Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

The states supporting Utah “have an interest in protecting state power to adhere to the traditional definition of marriage,” according to the filing...

...The appeals court ...scheduled oral arguments for April 10 Alabama, 9 States Join Utah Bid to Save Gay-Marriage Ban - Bloomberg

Calling it a "gay marriage ban" is a misnomer also. It is not limited to excluding JUST gays. "marriage is only legal between one man and one woman" excludes many other people than just gays... Many other people are also excluded because....


The thing is that marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. And as it turns out, making it a privelege directly benefits children, who are those most affected by and reliant upon the word and legal institution called "marriage".

[I will leave out of this OP a discussion of who the LGBT church looks up to and venerates as their iconic sex leaders. That alone is a topic for an entire other discussion that is also related to the wellbeing of children.]

Cult members of the church of LGBT [& ??] are not the only people denied marriage in the several states. Minors are. Polygamists are. Adult incest couples are. The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic. For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics] The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes; easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add. Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be. Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood]. It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can. Driving isn't a right in most states either. You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road. Does every driver drive perfectly every time? No. But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently. The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to qualify people before they are licensed to drive. And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The other thread is 117 pages & as arguments proceed, will likely turn into 300 or more....so..

Alabama, 9 States Join Utah Bid to Save Gay-Marriage Ban

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Indiana and five other states said they support Utah’s bid to reverse a lower-court ruling that overturned its ban on same-sex marriages as momentum increases to send the issue for another review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 10 states jointly filed legal arguments supporting Utah’s position today in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Denver. The filing was signed by attorneys general for the states, all of whom are Republicans, including those for Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

The states supporting Utah “have an interest in protecting state power to adhere to the traditional definition of marriage,” according to the filing...

...The appeals court ...scheduled oral arguments for April 10 Alabama, 9 States Join Utah Bid to Save Gay-Marriage Ban - Bloomberg

The thing is that marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. And as it turns out, making it a privelege directly benefits children, who are those most affected by and reliant upon the word and legal institution called "marriage".

[I will leave out of this OP a discussion of who the LGBT church looks up to and venerates as their iconic sex leaders. That alone is a topic for an entire other discussion that is also related to the wellbeing of children.]

Cult members of the church of LGBT [& ??] are not the only people denied marriage in the several states. Minors are. Polygamists are. Adult incest couples are. The grounds for denying are, respectively, a temporary disqualification [age], a disqualification on pluralism in marriage [a behavior], and genetic. For all the times you see LGBTers rant about how Loving v Virginia [race] "means gay marriage should be a right", they being behaviors actually have the least claim based on what was going on with Loving. [Genetics] The closest "legal relative" to Loving is incest couples, because they are being denied their consenting love union because of markers on their genes; easily proven in a lab and a blood test.

Marriage is not a right. It is a privelege. LGBT is about behaviors, very odd ones too I might add. Marriage is, among other things, society's way of stamping its approval on what a family should be. Not what it will always wind up to be, because circumstances sometimes dictate some families fall short of the mark [barreness, divorce, widowhood]. It is a standard society sets that entices people to strive towards it as best they can. Driving isn't a right in most states either. You have to show you can see and that you have the basic physical makeup to operate the pedals and follow the rules of the road. Does every driver drive perfectly every time? No. But if they don't, various headaches of falling short spur them to strive for the acme even more diligently. The point is we have a basic framework of hoops to qualify people before they are licensed to drive. And society has good reasons for this.

Society has a right to define its important functions, like marriage, or driving. It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity and in the best interest for those most affected by marriage: children. Allowing same sex couples to marry would hurt Utah in the sense as they've argued, that over time, their population would decline and the man/woman nuclear family would dissolve into a legal-precedent free for all [insert "consenting adults" here]; which ultimately hurts children. Utah has a vested interest in preserving the idea of marriage as a privelege, and not a right. And those that benefit the most from this preservation are the children. Being born to one's natural mother and natural father insures that those most natural protective reptilian instincts [speaking of "born that way"] of a natural parent of their natural child are set out as the acme of marriage. Introducing a level of dissonance to that ideal that eradicates one or the other of the natural parents from the equation [same sex marriage] attacks the ideal in such a fundamental way that the word "marriage" and what its best use is, ceases to exist.

That's why the barn door will open and the slippery legal slope is real. Once you allow this fundamental assault on children, by removing the icon of their natural parents being that which is strived [rewarded: marriage & benefits] for, you remove the incentive for two natural parents who are genetically the most protective of their offspring, to unite together for the best sake of their children. Men and women who marry and are barren are allowed because they still adhere to the ideal that others like them will succeed at. ie: their being uniquely one man and one woman does not interfere with the Gold Standard where one man and one woman does result in chilldren. ie: they don't sully the legal definition and best description of marriage which results most often in natural children born to both parents.

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

Actually the right to marital privacy has been a part of the US Constitution since Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

I mean, that's a long time. 50 years next year, and somehow people are still having this right peed upon by others.

Those who are denied marriage. Children. Yeah, because right and responsibilities are limited in minors. I don't see gay people having their rights and responsibilities limited, they can own guns, they can work, they can do just about everything everyone else can do, but not marry.

Incest is something that is known to harm babies who are produced from incest.

Polygamy is banned, however this is equal for all.
All individuals should be free to choose to marry whoever they like. The law states one person at a time, white people, women, black people and everyone else is limited to marrying one person. You can argue the toss over whether this should be like this or not, but it's FAIR for all. Banning gay marriage prevents individuals marrying a consenting adult of their choice.
But, from the LEGAL point of view and a CONSTITUTIONAL point of view (you remember the constitution?), the 14 amendment has an "equal protection of the laws" clause, ie, you can't stop individuals being able to have equal protection. Two consenting adults can marry who they choose and get all sorts of laws in their favor, tax breaks or whatever, gay people cannot. It goes against the constitution.

Important functions like marriage and driving? Are you kidding me and putting these two on the same level?
Actually, the US govt DOESN'T control all driving. You can drive on your own land how the hell you like, as long as you don't hurt someone. So can I marry who I like on my own land? er... no. Not if I were gay.

Now here's the really funny part.

"It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity"

Straight marriage has nigh on 50% divorce rate. Integrity? I think not.

Now you want marriage about best interests. I'm sorry, but when a couple gets married, the US govt, nor state govts, don't say "is this in the best interests of the state for you two to be married?"

Then you go and talk about POPULATION DECLINE. Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. (I hate that phrase but whatever).
7 BILLION people on the planet, TOO MANY. 300 million in the US, TOO many. And you're worried we won't be producing children enough.

And then you think if gay people don't marry they'll go marry a straight person, just to marry. Sorry, they'll still be shagging their same sex people.

You say the family nucleus will go into a free for all. Sorry, for a large part it's already there. 40% of first marriages end in divorce, plenty of kids are in single parent families, plenty of kids are in families with two parents (straight) which are abusive.

You think the barn door will open? Sorry, straight people kicked the damn thing open and broke it down in their rush for MONEY and MATERIAL ITEMS and CHEAP SEX. You know married people sometimes cheat on their partners and then get kicked out of the house? I saw it happen last week.

 

[The Rabbi]

^^Latest Lo-Lo poster.

 

[Silhouette]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

No, most of the states say that. For sure the ones petitioning with Utah in this case say it. Would they amount to 10s of millions of people? I think that's about how many are saying it, give or take.

If marriage wasn't a privelege then polygamists, incest, minors, anyone could get legally married. But that's not the case, is it? And your basis for only including LGBTs as people who want a special "right" to marry is? What again? Belligerence? The ability to be shrill, nagging or forceful?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

No, most of the states say that. For sure the ones petitioning with Utah in this case say it. Would they amount to 10s of millions of people? I think that's about how many are saying it, give or take.

If marriage wasn't a privelege then polygamists, incest, minors, anyone could get legally married. But that's not the case, is it? And your basis for only including LGBTs as people who want a special "right" to marry is? What again? Belligerence? The ability to be shrill, nagging or forceful?

Like I said, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) they claimed the right of privacy from the US Constitution and a "right to marital privacy" at that. This is the Supreme Court and this has held in the Supreme Court since then.

 

[The Rabbi]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

No, most of the states say that. For sure the ones petitioning with Utah in this case say it. Would they amount to 10s of millions of people? I think that's about how many are saying it, give or take.

If marriage wasn't a privelege then polygamists, incest, minors, anyone could get legally married. But that's not the case, is it? And your basis for only including LGBTs as people who want a special "right" to marry is? What again? Belligerence? The ability to be shrill, nagging or forceful?

Like I said, in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) they claimed the right of privacy from the US Constitution and a "right to marital privacy" at that. This is the Supreme Court and this has held in the Supreme Court since then.

A right of privacy is not a right of marriage. That you cannot distinguish them indicates you are stupid. But I knew that from your first post here.
It happens the states are correct. Anything that requires a permit is a privilege, not a right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

A right of privacy is not a right of marriage. That you cannot distinguish them indicates you are stupid. But I knew that from your first post here.
It happens the states are correct. Anything that requires a permit is a privilege, not a right.

Sigh. You got your insult in right near the top of your short post huh? And you also have a permanent insult below all of your posts.

Griswold v. Connecticut | LII / Legal Information Institute

Try reading that.

Here's some important parts:

"The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights."

ie, just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it isn't a right, and doesn't mean it isn't protected by the constitution. They include plenty of other examples should you choose to spend less time insulting and more time using your brain.

"MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.

I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy,"

What do you think "martial privacy" means?

"I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, [n1] is supported both by numerous [p487] decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, ante at 484. I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding."

"The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. "

Marriage?

"The entire fabric of the Constitution and the purposes that clearly underlie its specific guarantees demonstrate that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected."

You can read the rest for yourself. If you wish.

However it is clear that the Supreme Court is talking about the rights to marital privacy, and also the right to marry and the right to raise a family.

You think that isn't privacy? You think it's up to the US govt to tell you who to marry? Or is it none of their business?

(thanks for the negative rep too with your comment of "dunce")

 

[Silhouette]

A right of privacy is not a right of marriage. That you cannot distinguish them indicates you are stupid. But I knew that from your first post here.
It happens the states are correct. Anything that requires a permit is a privilege, not a right.

Sigh. You got your insult in right near the top of your short post huh? And you also have a permanent insult below all of your posts.

Griswold v. Connecticut | LII / Legal Information Institute

Try reading that.

Here's some important parts:

"The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights."

ie, just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it isn't a right, and doesn't mean it isn't protected by the constitution.

So then all consenting people who want to marry will be thrilled now that your argument above "proves" that marriage is a right. Polygamists, incest...they cannot be arbitrarily denied their "rights", right? After all, marriage isn't about children [the way you pitch it]. It's about consenting people wanting to do anything they like and call it "marriage"...and to have that "marriage" newly qualify them to adopt children... I wonder. Do children have righs in all of this talk?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So then all consenting people who want to marry will be thrilled now that your argument above "proves" that marriage is a right. Polygamists, incest...they cannot be arbitrarily denied their "rights", right? After all, marriage isn't about children [the way you pitch it]. It's about consenting people wanting to do anything they like and call it "marriage"...and to have that "marriage" newly qualify them to adopt children... I wonder. Do children have righs in all of this talk?

Er.... simples of rights. They don't protect everything. The right to free speech doesn't mean you can commit treason, libel, slander etc.

But yes, marriage ISN'T about the children. People don't get married just for the children. People DO get married when they can't have children and they do stay married even if they don't have children.

Do children have rights? Maybe you should ask those kids who are in single parent families from the 50% of marriages that end in divorce if they have rights.

Yep, FIFTY PERCENT of marriages that end in divorce, or those in Nevada which has the highest divorce rate in the US which is more than double (nearly triple) Massachusetts' divorce rate.

Information on Divorce Rate and Statistics

Actually, I found this site which suggests:

"50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri."

but also:

"The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%"

 

[TheOldSchool]

Silhoutte's gettin smoked by a newb

Carry on

 

[Silhouette]

But yes, marriage ISN'T about the children. People don't get married just for the children. People DO get married when they can't have children and they do stay married even if they don't have children.

Wanna bet? Make it interesting? That very question is before the 10th circuit. Utah is arguing that marriage is about the children who benefit most from the institution. Are you saying you're sure they will lose on those grounds?

The french believe marriage is about children. Here's a rally showing their feelings about what is best for children:

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Best not to follow the French, We ended up with Vietnam last time.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wanna bet? Make it interesting? That very question is before the 10th circuit. Utah is arguing that marriage is about the children who benefit most from the institution. Are you saying you're sure they will lose on those grounds?

What i'll say is this.

Some people don't want gay marriage and they will make any old excuse to get what they want.
Federal Court justices sometimes are trying to make it to the Supreme Court and they want to be noticed, others believe they should try and put their thinking into politics, so they might go one way or the other based on their beliefs.

If it makes it to the Supreme Court it won't stand up. That's what I will say. I don't know much about the 10th circuit court to make a prediction.

 

[OKTexas]

So gays are special, they can't be restricted to marriage to the opposite sex like every one else. Like I've always said, they have equal rights, they want special treatment because of their mental disorder.

 

[KNB]

What if the Bible is wrong?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So gays are special, they can't be restricted to marriage to the opposite sex like every one else. Like I've always said, they have equal rights, they want special treatment because of their mental disorder.

Yeah, just like black people can marry any person of the same color but can't marry someone of a different color?

How'd you think that one would go down?

You talk about mental disorders. Do you know what due process is?

It means an insane people cannot have their rights restricted until the courts say this individual is in fact insane.

So, to prevent a gay person marrying you have to get a judge to say this person is in fact gay and that gay is a mental disorder, which in the US it is not.

So, gay people can marry a consenting adult of their choice until you have them found with a mental disorder where they can't make choices of their own and declared in a court.

You've done that yet?

 

[OKTexas]

So gays are special, they can't be restricted to marriage to the opposite sex like every one else. Like I've always said, they have equal rights, they want special treatment because of their mental disorder.

Yeah, just like black people can marry any person of the same color but can't marry someone of a different color?

How'd you think that one would go down?

You talk about mental disorders. Do you know what due process is?

It means an insane people cannot have their rights restricted until the courts say this individual is in fact insane.

So, to prevent a gay person marrying you have to get a judge to say this person is in fact gay and that gay is a mental disorder, which in the US it is not.

So, gay people can marry a consenting adult of their choice until you have them found with a mental disorder where they can't make choices of their own and declared in a court.

You've done that yet?

No in MOST states they can marry any consenting adult of the opposite sex, just like every one else. That is due process and equal treatment under the law. You want something else, give it a name and sell it to the state legislatures. You also might want to check out the difference between a simple mental disorder and true insanity.

 

[The Rabbi]

A right of privacy is not a right of marriage. That you cannot distinguish them indicates you are stupid. But I knew that from your first post here.
It happens the states are correct. Anything that requires a permit is a privilege, not a right.

Sigh. You got your insult in right near the top of your short post huh? And you also have a permanent insult below all of your posts.

Griswold v. Connecticut | LII / Legal Information Institute

Try reading that.

Here's some important parts:

"The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents' choice -- whether public or private or parochial -- is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights."

ie, just because something isn't mentioned, doesn't mean it isn't a right, and doesn't mean it isn't protected by the constitution. They include plenty of other examples should you choose to spend less time insulting and more time using your brain.

"MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN join, concurring.

I agree with the Court that Connecticut's birth control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy,"

What do you think "martial privacy" means?

"I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights. My conclusion that the concept of liberty is not so restricted, and that it embraces the right of marital privacy, though that right is not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, [n1] is supported both by numerous [p487] decisions of this Court, referred to in the Court's opinion, and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment. In reaching the conclusion that the right of marital privacy is protected as being within the protected penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights, the Court refers to the Ninth Amendment, ante at 484. I add these words to emphasize the relevance of that Amendment to the Court's holding."

"The protection guaranteed by the [Fourth and Fifth] Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. "

Marriage?

"The entire fabric of the Constitution and the purposes that clearly underlie its specific guarantees demonstrate that the rights to marital privacy and to marry and raise a family are of similar order and magnitude as the fundamental rights specifically protected."

You can read the rest for yourself. If you wish.

However it is clear that the Supreme Court is talking about the rights to marital privacy, and also the right to marry and the right to raise a family.

You think that isn't privacy? You think it's up to the US govt to tell you who to marry? Or is it none of their business?

(thanks for the negative rep too with your comment of "dunce")

Again, you think because something can be construed to be a right, suddenly it is. There is no right to wear a hat. There is no right to wash your hands. There is no right to get married. Again, anything that requires a permit ipso facto is not a right.
Marital privacy, which applies to people who are not married, is not the same as a right to marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

So gays are special, they can't be restricted to marriage to the opposite sex like every one else. Like I've always said, they have equal rights, they want special treatment because of their mental disorder.

Yeah, just like black people can marry any person of the same color but can't marry someone of a different color?

How'd you think that one would go down?

You talk about mental disorders. Do you know what due process is?

It means an insane people cannot have their rights restricted until the courts say this individual is in fact insane.

So, to prevent a gay person marrying you have to get a judge to say this person is in fact gay and that gay is a mental disorder, which in the US it is not.

So, gay people can marry a consenting adult of their choice until you have them found with a mental disorder where they can't make choices of their own and declared in a court.

You've done that yet?

This isn't about black people. Black people oppose gay marriage by overwhelming numbers. And I'll bet they take umbrage at seeing their moral high ground appropriated in support of a deviant lifestyle.

 

[KNB]

And if you extend marriage to homosexual and lesbian couples, then they would also be entitled to marital privacy, correct? Then you're excluding homosexual and lesbian couples from their freedom to marital privacy by not allowing them to be legally married.

Why are Conservatives so interested in homosexuals' and lesbians' private lives? Isn't that what big government liberals do?