6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Plasmaball]

Texas Girl Was Taken Away From Parents Because They Smoked Pot Only To Be Killed in Foster Care Houston Press

because having gay parents is worse...**** you sil...**** you

i notice this was ignored so have another:
Scott McMillan s beating death just evilness prosecutor says - Newsday

 

[eagle1462010]

oops......................missed the race card.................part of your question.............

man and a woman is a different issue................not the same...............and not what we are arguing about.

There is no difference in discrimination based on race and discrimination based on gender.

Apples to oranges..............When I see a male eagle humping another male one maybe I'll listen to you..........

Morality is part of a Nation whether you like it our not..................Most in this country would reject gays if they weren't lying about it or they were not gay themselves.........In a Republic if enough of the people don't agree with what they consider IMMORAL then they have a right to push the issue that we will not change our laws to suit something that is against our culture and Morality.

That doesn't mean we are going to say they can't do their thing in private, it means we don't have to recognize it pertaining to marriage...........The Supremes have shot down DAPA in 2013 which was the law since Clinton was around.........but that doesn't mean we can challenge it from other angles just as the gays have done to get their way...........That is how a Republic works.............and we could change it via a Constitutional Convention if the VAST Majority decided we refuse to recognize it in our Society.

It may be necessary to do this against Sharia Law in the future as well..............different issue but common ground.

 

[Silhouette]

Texas Girl Was Taken Away From Parents Because They Smoked Pot Only To Be Killed in Foster Care Houston Press

because having gay parents is worse...**** you sil...**** you

i notice this was ignored so have another:
Scott McMillan s beating death just evilness prosecutor says - Newsday

We aren't talking about individuals we incentivize or don't. There are monsters in all walks of life. We are talking about states being able to disincentivize homes where 100% of the time, children will be missing one of their blood parents. That would be gay unions. Call them what you want. Just don't call it marriage.

Not sure how smoking pot fits into this topic. But you can try that strawman if you want.

I've always said this is going to come down to children vs gay civil rights. I maintain that the SUPREMES will find on behalf of state's rights to foresee general trends of disaster looming for children in which types of marriages they incentivize or don't.

Gotta hand it to you. You really did reach this time to try to reverse-demonize.

 

[Plasmaball]

Texas Girl Was Taken Away From Parents Because They Smoked Pot Only To Be Killed in Foster Care Houston Press

because having gay parents is worse...**** you sil...**** you

i notice this was ignored so have another:
Scott McMillan s beating death just evilness prosecutor says - Newsday

We aren't talking about individuals we incentivize or don't. There are monsters in all walks of life. We are talking about states being able to disincentivize homes where 100% of the time, children will be missing one of their blood parents. That would be gay unions. Call them what you want. Just don't call it marriage.

Not sure how smoking pot fits into this topic. But you can try that strawman if you want.

I've always said this is going to come down to children vs gay civil rights. I maintain that the SUPREMES will find on behalf of state's rights to foresee general trends of disaster looming for children in which types of marriages they incentivize or don't.

Gotta hand it to you. You really did reach this time to try to reverse-demonize.

The point is that your point about missing about on a father or mother is ******* stupid. Nor is it a justified reason to keep gays from being married.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is that your point about missing about on a father or mother is ******* stupid. Nor is it a justified reason to keep gays from being married.

Apparently you don't see, nor do you care to see the world from the eyes of a child. Here, let me help illustrate how a child might see the world deprived of one of the genders in his imprinting milieu:

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young.
Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...The mothers say that one of the first things Thomas told them when he learned sign language aged three - because of a speech impediment - was, 'I am a girl'. At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. This summer, he started taking hormone-blocking drugs, which will stop him from experiencing puberty. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

I imagine a boy who had zero male role modeling, seeing the manifest utter rejection of males by virtue of the fact that both of his "parents" are female, might begin to look between his legs and wonder why he was so rejectable as a male. This is how the child's mind sees the world; simply, linearly, logically. "Males don't matter so I don't matter because I'm male".

By age seven I'm sure he was trying to mutilate his own genitals. Anything to matter. Anything to be "closer to that which matters" [only female].

 

[Plasmaball]

because thats the samething

 

[Seawytch]

oops......................missed the race card.................part of your question.............

man and a woman is a different issue................not the same...............and not what we are arguing about.

There is no difference in discrimination based on race and discrimination based on gender.

Apples to oranges..............When I see a male eagle humping another male one maybe I'll listen to you..........

The discrimination is apples to apples...and homosexuality is found in nature..from birds to dolphins.

Can Animals be Gay? (yes, they can)

Morality is part of a Nation whether you like it our not..................Most in this country would reject gays if they weren't lying about it or they were not gay themselves.........In a Republic if enough of the people don't agree with what they consider IMMORAL then they have a right to push the issue that we will not change our laws to suit something that is against our culture and Morality.

You think that 59% of the country is lying or gay? In U.S., Record High Says Gay and Lesbian Relationships Are Morally Okay

Sorry, Charlie, you're in the minority now. Most people don't think gays are immoral...and more and more of them are letting them worship with them.

That doesn't mean we are going to say they can't do their thing in private, it means we don't have to recognize it pertaining to marriage...........The Supremes have shot down DAPA in 2013 which was the law since Clinton was around.........but that doesn't mean we can challenge it from other angles just as the gays have done to get their way...........That is how a Republic works.............and we could change it via a Constitutional Convention if the VAST Majority decided we refuse to recognize it in our Society.

It may be necessary to do this against Sharia Law in the future as well..............different issue but common ground.

You may tilt at windmills all you want to, but 31 states are now marriage equality states. The anti gay ones are also, like you, in the minority. The tide has turned and your anti gay ship has sailed.

It actually sounds like you'd be happy in countries with Sharia Law...they make their gays stay closeted too.

 

[eagle1462010]

oops......................missed the race card.................part of your question.............

man and a woman is a different issue................not the same...............and not what we are arguing about.

There is no difference in discrimination based on race and discrimination based on gender.

Apples to oranges..............When I see a male eagle humping another male one maybe I'll listen to you..........

The discrimination is apples to apples...and homosexuality is found in nature..from birds to dolphins.

Can Animals be Gay? (yes, they can)

Morality is part of a Nation whether you like it our not..................Most in this country would reject gays if they weren't lying about it or they were not gay themselves.........In a Republic if enough of the people don't agree with what they consider IMMORAL then they have a right to push the issue that we will not change our laws to suit something that is against our culture and Morality.

You think that 59% of the country is lying or gay? In U.S., Record High Says Gay and Lesbian Relationships Are Morally Okay

Sorry, Charlie, you're in the minority now. Most people don't think gays are immoral...and more and more of them are letting them worship with them.

That doesn't mean we are going to say they can't do their thing in private, it means we don't have to recognize it pertaining to marriage...........The Supremes have shot down DAPA in 2013 which was the law since Clinton was around.........but that doesn't mean we can challenge it from other angles just as the gays have done to get their way...........That is how a Republic works.............and we could change it via a Constitutional Convention if the VAST Majority decided we refuse to recognize it in our Society.

It may be necessary to do this against Sharia Law in the future as well..............different issue but common ground.

You may tilt at windmills all you want to, but 31 states are now marriage equality states. The anti gay ones are also, like you, in the minority. The tide has turned and your anti gay ship has sailed.

It actually sounds like you'd be happy in countries with Sharia Law...they make their gays stay closeted too.

Whatever..............If we polled most of the U.S. the majority would disagree that they accept gays...........Most of this country don't believe in gays whether you like it or not..........

Most would say that's their business and what goes on behind closed doors is their business...............

Where the divide begins is when it's no longer behind closed doors...........the gay have pushed this public and demanded the institution of marriage to accept them and are pushing for the same benefits as NORMAL MARRIAGES get today under taxation and benefits...............

This is where the discussion gets into division............to whether we as a society must accept it by definition in the institution of marriage...............and many say yes they should even though they don't morally believe in it...................

Under Clinton they passed DOMA.............trying to avert this and protect the institution of marriage.............Yeah that's right Slick Willie signed this..................

Through the courts the gay movement finally won and overturned DOMA IN 2013....................and NOW ARE using the courts to force ALL STATES TO ACCEPT THIS..............

States are NOT COOPERATING..............Because fundamentally the people don't believe in it...............and therein lies the real debate.

 

[Seawytch]

oops......................missed the race card.................part of your question.............

man and a woman is a different issue................not the same...............and not what we are arguing about.

There is no difference in discrimination based on race and discrimination based on gender.

Apples to oranges..............When I see a male eagle humping another male one maybe I'll listen to you..........

The discrimination is apples to apples...and homosexuality is found in nature..from birds to dolphins.

Can Animals be Gay? (yes, they can)

Morality is part of a Nation whether you like it our not..................Most in this country would reject gays if they weren't lying about it or they were not gay themselves.........In a Republic if enough of the people don't agree with what they consider IMMORAL then they have a right to push the issue that we will not change our laws to suit something that is against our culture and Morality.

You think that 59% of the country is lying or gay? In U.S., Record High Says Gay and Lesbian Relationships Are Morally Okay

Sorry, Charlie, you're in the minority now. Most people don't think gays are immoral...and more and more of them are letting them worship with them.

That doesn't mean we are going to say they can't do their thing in private, it means we don't have to recognize it pertaining to marriage...........The Supremes have shot down DAPA in 2013 which was the law since Clinton was around.........but that doesn't mean we can challenge it from other angles just as the gays have done to get their way...........That is how a Republic works.............and we could change it via a Constitutional Convention if the VAST Majority decided we refuse to recognize it in our Society.

It may be necessary to do this against Sharia Law in the future as well..............different issue but common ground.

You may tilt at windmills all you want to, but 31 states are now marriage equality states. The anti gay ones are also, like you, in the minority. The tide has turned and your anti gay ship has sailed.

It actually sounds like you'd be happy in countries with Sharia Law...they make their gays stay closeted too.

Whatever..............If we polled most of the U.S. the majority would disagree that they accept gays...........Most of this country don't believe in gays whether you like it or not..........

"Believe in"? We're not unicorns or the Loch Ness Monster. Morally OK is what the poll showed, not acceptance, morally okay.

Most would say that's their business and what goes on behind closed doors is their business


Where the divide begins is when it's no longer behind closed doors...........the gay have pushed this public and demanded the institution of marriage to accept them and are pushing for the same benefits as NORMAL MARRIAGES get today under taxation and benefits

Yes, and? How does my being legally married to my life partner of 19 years tell you what goes on behind my closed doors? And yes, we do get the same benefits as you do for being legally married. Can you explain why your family deserves them and mine does not? My partner stayed at home and took care of our children while I deployed on a ship...can you explain why she is not deserving of the benefits of being a military spouse? Can you explain to our children why you don't think their parents deserved to be married, especially when most of their friend's parents are divorced?

This is where the discussion gets into division............to whether we as a society must accept it by definition in the institution of marriage...............and many say yes they should even though they don't morally believe in it...................

Under Clinton they passed DOMA.............trying to avert this and protect the institution of marriage.............Yeah that's right Slick Willie signed this..................

Through the courts the gay movement finally won and overturned DOMA IN 2013....................and NOW ARE using the courts to force ALL STATES TO ACCEPT THIS..............

States are NOT COOPERATING..............Because fundamentally the people don't believe in it...............and therein lies the real debate.

In 1967 the Supreme Court decided that "society" could not define marriage when it ran afoul of the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Do you know how people felt about interracial marriages in 1967?

 

[Silhouette]

Most would say that's their business and what goes on behind closed doors is their business...............

Where the divide begins is when it's no longer behind closed doors...........the gay have pushed this public and demanded the institution of marriage to accept them and are pushing for the same benefits as NORMAL MARRIAGES get today under taxation and benefits...............

This is where the discussion gets into division...........

Yep. They warned them in Lawrence v Texas that these behaviors and relationships may not force themselves into marriage. Yet here they are, as many predicted they would be once sodomy was decriminalized in Texas with the shoehorn of SCOTUS.

Personally, the way this Sutton Judge thinks, he should be the next Supreme Court Justice nominee. He's young too. Well, relatively.

 

[Silhouette]

Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit may have seen these trends. He expresses concern that a new culture is forcing a majority to submit to its bootheel. Regular old middle hites, hispanics and blacks are rejecting the democratic party. This COLLOSAL bloc of citizens in the 100s of millions are pulling back hard at their new halters. And I think I know why..

Exit polling shows racial polarization of the electorate has begun to cross party lines, with whites less likely to back Democratic candidates than they have been in the past. Across 21 states where Senate races were exit polled, whites broke for the Republican by a significant margin in all but four Exit polls show white voters turned away from Democrats - Central Maine

in California’s Central Valley, where House Democrats withdrew funding for challengers to Republicans Jeff Denham in the tenth district (40 percent Hispanic) and David Valadao in the 21st district (72 percent Hispanic). Environmental regulators’ cutoff of water to the Central Valley have hurt the area’s economy and apparently Hispanic voters don’t like that.
Hispanic voters also may not like some of the liberal causes championed... Are Hispanics Turning on Democrats National Review Online

The Coalition of African-American Pastors (CAAP) has an almighty bone to pick...."We were once proud of President Obama, but our pride has turned to shame," Rev. William Owens, president of CAAP, said in a press release E-mailed to Whispers. "The man holding the most powerful position in the world is stooping to lead the country down an immoral path."
CAAP, which has more than 1,300 members and believes in "traditional family values," has asked for a meeting with the president to try to change his mind, but the White House has yet to acknowledge the request. In May, Rev. Owens issued a statement that castigated Obama for comparing the gay rights movement to the African-American civil rights movement. Black Pastors Reject Obama Over Gay Marriage Support - US News

 

[JakeStarkey]

Judge Sutton voted in favor of ACA mandates, so, no, Sutton isn't worried about Sil's non-existent majority.

Sotomayor-Ginsburg-Roberts-Kennedy are now ready to move forward with putting a stake through the heart of the opposition to both marriage equality and ACA.

 

[Silhouette]

Judge Sutton voted in favor of ACA mandates, so, no, Sutton isn't worried about Sil's non-existent majority.

Sotomayor-Ginsburg-Roberts-Kennedy are now ready to move forward with putting a stake through the heart of the opposition to both marriage equality and ACA.

Wow are you delusional. You think Roberts is behind forcing states to incentivize "marriages" where 100% of the time the children in them will be missing one of their blood parents? Think again. He's not going to hang that albatross on the word "conservative".

BTW, those articles citing whites, hispanics and blacks leaving the democratic party aren't mine. You'll notice the links in them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I know that you do not have an understanding at all of SCOTUS alliances on these issues, Sil.

The more the GOP and the Dems reach out to all segments, the better off is the country.

You don't have a majority, and you certainly don't have the argument.

 

[Silhouette]

I know that you do not have an understanding at all of SCOTUS alliances on these issues, Sil.

The more the GOP and the Dems reach out to all segments, the better off is the country.

You don't have a majority, and you certainly don't have the argument.

"all segments"...you mean like a tapeworm? I agree with the analogy anyway. And YOU have an understanding of SCOTUS alliances? I thought SCOTUS Justices were supposed to be unbiased. Do tell where your inside info is coming from that Roberts would saddle the conservative image with the looney left gay albatross. Can't wait to hear this one...

 

[Silhouette]

I know that you do not have an understanding at all of SCOTUS alliances on these issues, Sil.

The more the GOP and the Dems reach out to all segments, the better off is the country.

You don't have a majority, and you certainly don't have the argument.

"all segments"...you mean like a tapeworm? I agree with the analogy anyway. And YOU have an understanding of SCOTUS alliances? I thought SCOTUS Justices were supposed to be unbiased. Do tell where your inside info is coming from that Roberts would saddle the conservative image with the looney left gay albatross. Can't wait to hear this one...

Also, more importantly than that, I'd like to hear how you think Roberts would argue against Sutton's conclusions. And on that point, I want to hear specifics..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You just said that defining gay marriage shouldn't be up to the states. Only approving gay marriage should be. That's saying "states only have the right to say yes to gay marriage". That is fascism "toxic".

States define and regulate marriage, so long as the states regulations are not contrary to the U.S. Constitution.

Not that complicated.

Correct.

And so long as the states don't seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in.

 

[bripat9643]

In answer to the poll, of course not.

Marriage is not the business of government, local or national.

If its between consenting adults and harms no one, MYOB.

So why do those same consenting adults suddenly need a piece of paper from government to be legitimate?

Why hasnt this thread been merged with the other on the same topic?

Unfortunately, because of issues like child custody, child support and inheritance, government will always be involved in marriage. Of course, all these issues stem from the facts of reproduction, so it's difficult to understand why it should have anything to do with gays whatsoever.

 

[Silhouette]

Correct.

And so long as the states don't seek to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're currently eligible to participate in.

According to Baker, 1971, which has yet to be overturned by SCOTUS, they do not have access to marriage in the states that defined them and polygamists and incest out of participation...

As you are aware by now, after reading Sutton's citation of Baker, and the rules of the federal appeals up through SCOTUS, no lower court may overturn any ruling of the SCOTUS. Only SCOTUS can do that. And they haven't. So gay marriage is still illegal in the various states being told by lower courts that it is legal. One case appealed directly in an emergency to a Justice of the US Supreme Court and sweeping stays would go across all those states in the interim. And I suggest this happens quickly, for a number of reasons...

They could cite Judge Sutton's reasoning. AGs of Utah? Idaho? Kansas? Oklahoma? Got a minute? For that matter, a registered voter in a state with initiative law like California that trumps legislative law, could do an emergency petition, with standing I might add, for violation of their civil right for their vote to count...in the interim...

Hey Jake {below} vv You realize that bripat and I aren't Judge Sutton, right? Might want to read his review and comment instead on how you think HE is "stumbling around"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil and bripat stumble around. The constitution, the law, and the majority are against them, period.