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

[Syriusly]

LOL- I actually think that the Supreme Court will consider the substance of all arguments- and while I agree with the substance of the rulings that have ruled for marriage equality, I don't presume to know how the Supreme Court will rule.

But considering your near perfect failure record of predictions, your usual keen analysis makes me more hopeful.

See, right now there are four states where gay marriage, along with polygamy and others are excluded by law. .

LOL- I actually think that the Supreme Court will consider the substance of all arguments- and while I agree with the substance of the rulings that have ruled for marriage equality, I don't presume to know how the Supreme Court will rule.

But considering your near perfect failure record of predictions, your usual keen analysis makes me more hopeful.

Near perfect isn't going to cut it. You will have to make sure I fail 100% of the time. ..

I don't have to do anything- your arguments fail 100% of the time because you have absolutely no understanding of the law or the judicial system.

BUT- I make no claim whether the Supreme Court will agree with 1 Appellate Court or the other Appellate Court's reasonings.

But whatever the Supreme Court considers- it will have nothing to do with your arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

The substance of the pro marriage equality courts is far more coherent and consistent with Windsor than the nonsense the 6th and Sil are handing out.

Horseshit. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

The term is marriage- and in 31 states that term includes same gender couples.

 

[Syriusly]

The substance of the pro marriage equality courts is far more coherent and consistent with Windsor than the nonsense the 6th and Sil are handing out.

Horseshit. The term "gay marriage" is an oxymoron.

How does gay marriage harm people? It harms children by depriving them of one of their blood parents 100% of the time. ..

Like I said- your arguments are 100% wrong.

Marriage between a same gender couple doesn't deprive any children of 'one of their blood parents"

No marriage- gay or straight- is guaranteed to have children.
No parents- gay or straight are required to get married.

Same gender marriage has absolutely no effect on whether children are raised by 'one of their blood parents 100% of the time'- just a stupid lie promoted by homophobes to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

If gay marriage was such a sure thing, why don't you put it to state votes?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues.

 

[Syriusly]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

Yeah, right, you commie propaganda posting nitwit.

So says the fascist bigot.......

 

[Syriusly]

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

From Sutton's Opinion: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court’s decision four years earlier in
Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which invalidated Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages, did not change this conclusion. “n commonsense and in a constitutional sense,” the state court explained, “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Baker
, 191 N.W.2d at 187...

]

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

From Sutton's Opinion: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court’s decision four years earlier in
Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which invalidated Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages, did not change this conclusion. “n commonsense and in a constitutional sense,” the state court explained, “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Baker
, 191 N.W.2d at 187...

]

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

Badly flawed argument.
The proponents of gay marriage are not proposing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If what they want passes any two men or any two women could get marred regardless of sexual orientation.
That's a fail.

 

[Syriusly]

Seawytch, you're group is going to come up against this rationale in the final Hearing:

***********
"Any other reading of
Windsor

Silhouette seems to want to ignore the opinions of the other Appellete Courts- and just assumes the only opinion worth considering is that of Sutton.


From the opinion of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals

We recognize that same-sex marriage makes some people deeply uncomfortable.

However, inertia and apprehension are not legitimate bases for denying same-sex couples due process and equal protection of the laws.

Civil marriage is one of the cornerstones of our way of life. It allows individuals to celebrate and publicly declare their intentions to form lifelong partnerships, which provide unparalleled intimacy, companionship, emotional support, and security.

The choice of whether and whom to marry is an intensely personal decision that alters the course of an individual's life. Denying same-sex couples this choice prohibits them from participating fully in our society, which is precisely the type of segregation that the Fourteenth Amendment cannot countenance

 

[The Rabbi]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

If gay marriage was such a sure thing, why don't you put it to state votes?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues.

What part of the Constitution deals with marriage? Oh yeah, the 10th Amendment.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

 

[Syriusly]

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

From Sutton's Opinion: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court’s decision four years earlier in
Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which invalidated Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages, did not change this conclusion. “n commonsense and in a constitutional sense,” the state court explained, “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Baker
, 191 N.W.2d at 187...

]

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

Badly flawed argument.
The proponents of gay marriage are not proposing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If what they want passes any two men or any two women could get marred regardless of sexual orientation.
That's a fail.

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

 

[Syriusly]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

If gay marriage was such a sure thing, why don't you put it to state votes?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues.

What part of the Constitution deals with marriage? Oh yeah, the 10th Amendment.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

 

[The Rabbi]

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

From Sutton's Opinion: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court’s decision four years earlier in
Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which invalidated Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages, did not change this conclusion. “n commonsense and in a constitutional sense,” the state court explained, “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Baker
, 191 N.W.2d at 187...

]

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

Badly flawed argument.
The proponents of gay marriage are not proposing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If what they want passes any two men or any two women could get marred regardless of sexual orientation.
That's a fail.

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

No, they are asking for special rights not available. If they wanted to marry someone of the opposite sex there would not be an objection. No gay person was ever denied a marriage license under those circumstances.
The reasoning that people are discriminate against based on sexual orientation is flawed: even two straght men who wanted to marry would be denied a license.

 

[The Rabbi]

Near perfect record of failures by Sil and bripat and others will indeed not cut it.

The end game is now in play.

If gay marriage was such a sure thing, why don't you put it to state votes?

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues.

What part of the Constitution deals with marriage? Oh yeah, the 10th Amendment.

For the same reason we didn't put bans on mixed race marriage to the vote.

Until about 1990 most Americans believed mixed race marriage was wrong.

It is a constitutional issue, and the courts are an appropriate venue to decide constitutional issues

It's not the same reason. It's not even close. The circumstances are completely different.
The reason gay marriage went to the courts is because it failed politically.

 

[Syriusly]

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

No- I am not getting the flawed argument you are trying to make.

Yes- most heterosexuals people who marry do have children. But heterosexual people have children without getting married. And heterosexual people get married with no intention or ability to have children.

States make no linkage between the right to marry- and the responsibilities of raising children. They don't require married parents to stay together, they don't require unmarried parents to marry.

We don't know whether or not gay married couples tend to have children or not- since we have no science to support it yet- but we do know that gay parents have children.

You apparently believe that the children of gay parents do not deserve married parents- you don't believe that those children do not deserve the benefits of marriage that the children of heterosexual parents get.

Why do you think that the children of gay parents should be treated like second class citizens?

 

[Syriusly]

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

From Sutton's Opinion: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

The Supreme Court’s decision four years earlier in
Loving v. Virginia
, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), which invalidated Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages, did not change this conclusion. “n commonsense and in a constitutional sense,” the state court explained, “there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex.”
Baker
, 191 N.W.2d at 187...

]

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

Badly flawed argument.
The proponents of gay marriage are not proposing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If what they want passes any two men or any two women could get marred regardless of sexual orientation.
That's a fail.

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

No, they are asking for special rights not available..

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states.

 

[The Rabbi]

Straight couples generally and characteristically have children.
Gay couples generally and characteristically do not have children.
THe fact that some few do not follow these general characteristics is irrelevant for public policy.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor

Doesnt matter.
Most straight couples who marry have children
Most gay couples who marry do not have children.
That is simply fact and no amount of wriggling will change it.

And is irrelevant - both to the argument- and to the post I was responding to.

Your reasoning would be the basis of discriminating against infertile couples- since most straight couples can have children.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Rights are not enforced simply because a group is more likely to have children than another group.

Don't believe me?

The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners in prison have the right to marry- and most prisoners in prison to do not have children while in prison.

You're just not getting this.
It is not a test whether two people can marry as to whether they can produce children. It is a statment of fact that generally and characteristically heterosexual people who marry do in fact produce children. Thus the state has an interest in fostering that relationship. Thus the state awards benefits for that relationship.
Generally and characteristically gay people do not produce chidlren. Ergo the state has no reason to favor that relationship.

No- I am not getting the flawed argument you are trying to make.

Yes- most heterosexuals people who marry do have children. But heterosexual people have children without getting married. And heterosexual people get married with no intention or ability to have children.

States make no linkage between the right to marry- and the responsibilities of raising children. They don't require married parents to stay together, they don't require unmarried parents to marry.

We don't know whether or not gay married couples tend to have children or not- since we have no science to support it yet- but we do know that gay parents have children.

You apparently believe that the children of gay parents do not deserve married parents- you don't believe that those children do not deserve the benefits of marriage that the children of heterosexual parents get.

Why do you think that the children of gay parents should be treated like second class citizens?

OK, I see the problem.
Like most libs you live in a binary world. Something is either totally forbidden or completely permitted without restriction.
But real life isn't like that.
I've tried explaining this to you three times and you still dont get it. WHy would a fourth time be any better?

 

[The Rabbi]

From Sutton's Opinion: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

]

From the Wisconsin decision:

Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners). Although defendants say that their argument is
“consistent” with Loving, Zablocki and Turner because those cases did nothing more than
“recognize a negative right,” Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 10, defendants do not explain why
marriage is a “positive right” when the state discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
but a “negative right” when it discriminates on the basis of race, custody or financial status

Badly flawed argument.
The proponents of gay marriage are not proposing to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. If what they want passes any two men or any two women could get marred regardless of sexual orientation.
That's a fail.

I am not even sure what your point is supposed to be.

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

No, they are asking for special rights not available..

Proponents of 'gay marriage' i.e. same gender couples being legally allowed to marry- are asking to be treated like any opposite gender couple- regardless of sexual orientation.

Rights available now in 31 states.

That wasnt what you quotd. The opinion you quoted spoke about discrimination against people based on sexual orientation as an inappropriate reason to deny marriage.
But it is not discrimination based on sexual orientation. Any two men or any two women who wanted to marry would be denied, regardless of their sexual orientation.