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

[bripat9643]

Doesn't matter, bripat, at all.

You want to end adoptions or blended marriages.

Grow up and end your idiotic assertions.

"Blended marriages? We're talking about two guys or to women getting married, not people from two different races.

And I certainly would like to prevent homosexual couples from adopting. At the very least, they should go to the back of the line.

 

[Silhouette]

"Blended marriages? We're talking about two guys or to women getting married, not people from two different races.

And I certainly would like to prevent homosexual couples from adopting. At the very least, they should go to the back of the line.

Yes, it's like changing the word "car" to mean "cat" and then saying "OK, you have to let us drive now!".

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, it is not.

You are trying to redefine words.

Marriage is marriage: two people, one to another.

 

[bripat9643]

No, it is not.

You are trying to redefine words.

Marriage is marriage: two people, one to another.

Marriage is two people of the opposite sex. That's the way it has been for 10,000 years. Any other arrangement is nonsensical.

 

[The Rabbi]

This is what I actually said, asshole. Stop putting words into my mouth. You hope a page bleeds over and you can remake the conversation to your liking without answering to the questions put to you... Here is what was said:

This isn't a question of the small number of children "needing the benefits of marriage" from gay arrangements today...or rather it is that question actually...
It's this small number's "rights" vs the overwhelming numbers of future children that can be predicted to suffer if gay marriage is incentivized by the various states to be missing one of their blood parents/the complimentarty gender 100% of the time. Children of single mothers would like those same benefits too. Do you hate them? Or are you now arguing that single mothers or fathers must be considered married (to themselves) also?

Syriously hates children. That much is obvious.

Well that makes as much sense as your arguments that children of heterosexual couples deserve protection but children of homosexual couples do not.

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

Gays are big into pretending. That's why Halloween became a big gay holiday.

 

[Silhouette]

No, it is not.

You are trying to redefine words.

Marriage is marriage: two people, one to another.

Two or three people? Four? How can you be sure? Would you argue tradition? Might want to see what Judge Sutton had to say about your "argument"

Here: (page 30) 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

"Consider also the number of people eligible to marry. As late as the eighteenth century, “[t]he predominance of monogamy was by no means a foregone conclusion,” and “[m]ost of the peoples and cultures around the globe” had adopted a different system. Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9 (2000). Over time, American officials wove monogamy into marriage’s fabric. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the federal government “encouraged or forced” Native Americans to adopt the policy, and in 1878 the Supreme Court upheld a federal antibigamy law. Id. at 26; see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The Court has never taken this topic under its wing. And if it did, how would the constitutional, as opposed to policy, arguments in favor of same-sex marriage not apply to plural marriages?...

..(pages 22=23)

... Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails. "

 

[Syriusly]

Syriously hates children. That much is obvious.

Well that makes as much sense as your arguments that children of heterosexual couples deserve protection but children of homosexual couples do not.

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

Gays are big into pretending. That's why Halloween became a big gay holiday.

LOL.....so is Halloween such a big straight holiday because they are really gay......or they are as into pretending as gays?

Halloween Retailing A Boo-ming Business Specialty Retail Report

 

[The Rabbi]

Well that makes as much sense as your arguments that children of heterosexual couples deserve protection but children of homosexual couples do not.

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

Gays are big into pretending. That's why Halloween became a big gay holiday.

LOL.....so is Halloween such a big straight holiday because they are really gay......or they are as into pretending as gays?

Halloween Retailing A Boo-ming Business Specialty Retail Report

You just dont get this logic thing, do you?

 

[Syriusly]

No, it is not.

You are trying to redefine words.

Marriage is marriage: two people, one to another.

Two or three people? Four? How can you be sure? Would you argue tradition? Might want to see what Judge Sutton had to say about your "argument"

You might want to see what Judge Crabb had to say about your argument

Finally, defendants express concern about the legal precedent that allowing same-sex
marriage will set. Dfts.’ Br., dkt. #102, at 55 (“Extending the fundamental right to marriage
to include same-sex couples could affec[t] other legal restrictions and limitations on
marriage.”). In other words, if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then how can
prohibitions on polygamy and incest be maintained?

I make three observations in response to defendants’ concern about the slippery slope.
First, and most important, the task of this court is to address the claim presented and not
to engage in speculation about issues not raised that may or may not arise at some later time
in another case. Socha v. Pollard, 621 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2010) (“If [an] order
represents a mere advisory opinion not addressed to resolving a ‘case or controversy,’ then
it marks an attempted exercise of judicial authority beyond constitutional bounds.”).

Thus,the important question for this case is not whether another individual’s marriage claim may
be analogous to plaintiffs’ claim, but whether plaintiffs’ claim is like the claims raised in cases
such as Loving, Zablocki, Turner and Windsor. I have concluded that it is. When the
Supreme Court struck down the marriage restrictions in those other cases, it did not engage
in hypothetical discussions about what might come next. See also Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d
259, 287-88 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) (“It is . . . unnecessary for us
to consider here the question of the constitutional rights of polygamists to marry persons of
their choosing. . . . One issue of fundamental constitutional rights is enough for now.”).
Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net.

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexual couples don't have children.

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

Gays are big into pretending. That's why Halloween became a big gay holiday.

LOL.....so is Halloween such a big straight holiday because they are really gay......or they are as into pretending as gays?

Halloween Retailing A Boo-ming Business Specialty Retail Report

You just dont get this logic thing, do you?

The irony of you saying that to me......precious.....

 

[Syriusly]

No, it is not.

You are trying to redefine words.

Marriage is marriage: two people, one to another.

Marriage is two people of the opposite sex. That's the way it has been for 10,000 years. Any other arrangement is nonsensical.

In 31 states what you consider nonsensical, the law considers marriage.

 

[The Rabbi]

And our children, the children of my same sex partner and I, laughed out loud at the silly man on the internet.

So those children each have genes from both of you?

Seriously?

Gays are big into pretending. That's why Halloween became a big gay holiday.

LOL.....so is Halloween such a big straight holiday because they are really gay......or they are as into pretending as gays?

Halloween Retailing A Boo-ming Business Specialty Retail Report

You just dont get this logic thing, do you?

The irony of you saying that to me......precious.....

I dont think the word means what you think it means.
You are the one who proved he could not understand a pretty simple argument.

 

[The Rabbi]

No, it is not.

You are trying to redefine words.

Marriage is marriage: two people, one to another.

Marriage is two people of the opposite sex. That's the way it has been for 10,000 years. Any other arrangement is nonsensical.

In 31 states what you consider nonsensical, the law considers marriage.

Democratic fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

 

[Syriusly]

Doesn't matter, bripat, at all.

You want to end adoptions or blended marriages.

Grow up and end your idiotic assertions.

"Blended marriages? We're talking about two guys or to women getting married, not people from two different races.

And I certainly would like to prevent homosexual couples from adopting. At the very least, they should go to the back of the line.

So you think that homosexual couples should be required to sit at the back of the adoption bus....if they are allowed on it at all?

Because the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents.......can only be trusted with other heterosexual parents?

 

[Syriusly]

Parenting is not only or just, or at times, even biological, in immediate context and nuance.

And man can be a father, while it takes a real man to be a daddy.

The anti-argument by Sil and bri-pat just don't cut it.

But a man is never a mother. A woman is never a father.

States must not be forced to incentivize a negative situation for the most important people in marriage: children.

100% of the time in "gay marriage" a child will be missing one of its biological parents.

And of course that is just another homophobic lie.

Most 'gay marriages' will not have any children.

However- if a homosexual couple does have children- and is missing 'one of its biological parents'- like thousands and thousands of heterosexual couples raising children 'missing one of its biological parents'- Silhouette doesn't believe that the children of gay couples deserve to have married parents.

Even if the only difference is circumstance is between the two couples is that one of the partners is not a man.

 

[Syriusly]

According to whom, bripat?

Biology. A state incentivizing gay marriage is a state incentivizing the absence of one of the children's blood parents 100% of the time/opposite gender role model missing also 100% of the time.

So would be the state allowing a heterosexual couple to marry where one of the couple is sterile.

Seriously all you keep doing is demonstrating that the only argument against same gender marriage is because you want to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil is simply unhappy, nothing new here.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil is simply unhappy, nothing new here.

If you can make the argument about the man and not the substance (ad hominem), then the substance isn't as threatening...right?

Let's return to the substance, shall we?

No, it is not.
You are trying to redefine words.
Marriage is marriage: two people, one to another.

Two or three people? Four? How can you be sure? Would you argue tradition? Might want to see what Judge Sutton had to say about your "argument"

Here: (page 30) 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

"Consider also the number of people eligible to marry. As late as the eighteenth century, “[t]he predominance of monogamy was by no means a foregone conclusion,” and “[m]ost of the peoples and cultures around the globe” had adopted a different system. Nancy F. Cott, Public Vows: A History of Marriage and the Nation 9 (2000). Over time, American officials wove monogamy into marriage’s fabric. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the federal government “encouraged or forced” Native Americans to adopt the policy, and in 1878 the Supreme Court upheld a federal antibigamy law. Id. at 26; see Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878). The Court has never taken this topic under its wing. And if it did, how would the constitutional, as opposed to policy, arguments in favor of same-sex marriage not apply to plural marriages?...

..(pages 22=23)

... Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails. "

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, you have no substance.

Your arguments have been constitutionally, legally, morally, and philosophically rebutted irrefutably.

You are simply unhappy you are not going to get your way.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, you have no substance.

Your arguments have been constitutionally, legally, morally, and philosophically rebutted irrefutably.

You are simply unhappy you are not going to get your way.

Those are arguments made and written up in legal Opinion by Judge Sutton of the 6th circuit federal appeals court. I didn't write them. Direct your criticism at him, not me. Unless the ad hominem nature of your posts require you to derail them every single post you make. I would've banned you ages ago for your disruptive behavior on these boards.