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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

For political reasons many on both sides of the issue would like to have a ruling on or before June 30, 2015, as to be resolved well before the advent of the 2016 primary season.

Suffice it to say that where the court were to rule in favor of the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality, the Democrat Party could save itself a lot of money by just staying out of the 2016 campaign, given that there would be very few seats remaining in the hand of the DNC come January of 2017... .

 

[Syriusly]

MIght want to do some research on the SCOTUS. There are two ways that a SCOTUS precedent becomes inactive. One the SCOTUS directly setting aside a prior judge. The second is doctrinal changes that render a prior ruling inapplicable anymore. As noted in the Circuit Court rulings by the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuit Courts - that while the SCOTUS has not directly set aside Baker (from 1971) there have been a number of doctrinal changes that have occured which have changed the legal landscape... If it was as you said, all the court need to do was accept the case, reiterate the Baker position - and this would be all done with. But they didn't, they let the Circuit Court ruling stand.

Judge Sutton did some research...did they let Sutton's ruling recently stand?

They have neither allowed Sutton's ruling to stand or overruled the ruling. You really have no concept of how the court works do you?

In the cases from the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th Circuits the bans were ruled unconstitutional. Those supporting keeping the bans in place then had to request a stay from the next higher court (i.e. the SCOTUS) to prevent SSCM's from starting. The SCOTUS refused in every case to issue the stay and so SSCM's could start in those states as the Circuit Court rulings went into effect.

In cases in the 6th Circuit the bans were upheld and pending appeal no stay is needed. At this point THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION by the SCOTUS. The cases are being appealed (writ's being received just in the last week). Because of the split between the 10th, 9th, 7th, 4th and with only the decent coming from the 6th the SCOTUS has very little choice but to accept an appeal for review. During that period SSCM's will continue in the states under the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th and not be allowed in the 6th pending the SCOTUS final ruling - probably in late June of 2015.

*****************************

Here is a very simply idea to try to keep straight Sil, the SCOTUS doesn't "let a ruling stand" until either: (A) they reject an appeal (which they did with the 10th, 9th, 7th, and 4th's cases), or (b) they accept a case for review, hold oral arguments and obtain all the briefs, and then issue a final decision (none of which has happened with the cases from the 6th Circuit yet.)

Stays neither "let a ruling stand" or "overturn a ruling" - stays are simply a pause to allow the process to continue.




>>>>

The SCOTUS isn't going to here the case until there is an executive administration in place which will execute based upon their decision.

So... you can relax until early to mid 2016. At which time... Mom and Dad will walk in the door and the Gay party will be OVER!

The 'executive' i.e. the President has nothing to do with executing same sex marriage bans or overturning them.

God these folks are stupid.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

d give Kennedy the odds of 70/30 to recognize that there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against same-sex couples.

I'd give Kennedy more like 80 to 20 if not higher. The author of Lawerence, Romer AND Windsor, striking down sodomy laws in the first, protecting gay rights in the second, and striking down DOMA's anti-gay provisions in the third? No justice has written more relevant and more frequently the decisions that protect gays and lesbians than Kennedy.

"We come in too soon and too broad, we terminate" the democratic debate, Justice Kennedy said. On the other hand, he said, "suppose you have a person with an injury, a person is hurting. He comes to court seeking relief." The court could say, "You go away for 10 years, then I'll see you," Justice Kennedy said. "That would be maybe better for the court," but the individual might be denied his or her rights in the interim.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304500404579125862192123886

Kennedy immediately connects the gay marriage debate to harm and injury. He's clearly reluctant to rule so quickly....but I think its just as clear that he recognizes an injury.

d give Kennedy the odds of 70/30 to recognize that there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against same-sex couples.

I'd give Kennedy more like 80 to 20 if not higher. The author of Lawerence, Romer AND Windsor, striking down sodomy laws in the first, protecting gay rights in the second, and striking down DOMA's anti-gay provisions in the third? No justice has written more relevant and more frequently the decisions that protect gays and lesbians than Kennedy.

"We come in too soon and too broad, we terminate" the democratic debate, Justice Kennedy said. On the other hand, he said, "suppose you have a person with an injury, a person is hurting. He comes to court seeking relief." The court could say, "You go away for 10 years, then I'll see you," Justice Kennedy said. "That would be maybe better for the court," but the individual might be denied his or her rights in the interim.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304500404579125862192123886

Kennedy immediately connects the gay marriage debate to harm and injury. He's clearly reluctant to rule so quickly....but I think its just as clear that he recognizes an injury.

Well I doubt Kennedy has not gone more than 24 hours in the last 60 years without a cock in his mouth, so that serves reason. Thus proving the collective justification for discriminating against homosexuality at large.

Oh well, this is nothing that won't be solved once nature sets its longstanding cure for such 'disagreements'.

Nothing cleans out a culture like the fires of war. It's been a long time coming and I expect that at this point, there's not much that could be done to stop it, even if we wanted to.

 

[Syriusly]

d give Kennedy the odds of 70/30 to recognize that there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against same-sex couples.

I'd give Kennedy more like 80 to 20 if not higher. The author of Lawerence, Romer AND Windsor, striking down sodomy laws in the first, protecting gay rights in the second, and striking down DOMA's anti-gay provisions in the third? No justice has written more relevant and more frequently the decisions that protect gays and lesbians than Kennedy.

"We come in too soon and too broad, we terminate" the democratic debate, Justice Kennedy said. On the other hand, he said, "suppose you have a person with an injury, a person is hurting. He comes to court seeking relief." The court could say, "You go away for 10 years, then I'll see you," Justice Kennedy said. "That would be maybe better for the court," but the individual might be denied his or her rights in the interim.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304500404579125862192123886

Kennedy immediately connects the gay marriage debate to harm and injury. He's clearly reluctant to rule so quickly....but I think its just as clear that he recognizes an injury.

The Kennedy quotes about how the same gender marriage bans hurt the children of homosexual couples is striking to me every time.

Considering how much the homophobes create their argument around 'protecting the children'

 

[Syriusly]

d give Kennedy the odds of 70/30 to recognize that there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against same-sex couples.

I'd give Kennedy more like 80 to 20 if not higher. The author of Lawerence, Romer AND Windsor, striking down sodomy laws in the first, protecting gay rights in the second, and striking down DOMA's anti-gay provisions in the third? No justice has written more relevant and more frequently the decisions that protect gays and lesbians than Kennedy.

"We come in too soon and too broad, we terminate" the democratic debate, Justice Kennedy said. On the other hand, he said, "suppose you have a person with an injury, a person is hurting. He comes to court seeking relief." The court could say, "You go away for 10 years, then I'll see you," Justice Kennedy said. "That would be maybe better for the court," but the individual might be denied his or her rights in the interim.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304500404579125862192123886

Kennedy immediately connects the gay marriage debate to harm and injury. He's clearly reluctant to rule so quickly....but I think its just as clear that he recognizes an injury.

d give Kennedy the odds of 70/30 to recognize that there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against same-sex couples.

I'd give Kennedy more like 80 to 20 if not higher. The author of Lawerence, Romer AND Windsor, striking down sodomy laws in the first, protecting gay rights in the second, and striking down DOMA's anti-gay provisions in the third? No justice has written more relevant and more frequently the decisions that protect gays and lesbians than Kennedy.

"We come in too soon and too broad, we terminate" the democratic debate, Justice Kennedy said. On the other hand, he said, "suppose you have a person with an injury, a person is hurting. He comes to court seeking relief." The court could say, "You go away for 10 years, then I'll see you," Justice Kennedy said. "That would be maybe better for the court," but the individual might be denied his or her rights in the interim.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304500404579125862192123886

Kennedy immediately connects the gay marriage debate to harm and injury. He's clearly reluctant to rule so quickly....but I think its just as clear that he recognizes an injury.

Well I doubt Kennedy has not gone more than 24 hours in the last 60 years without a cock in his mouth, so that serves reason. Thus proving the collective justification for discriminating against homosexuality at large.

Oh well, this is nothing that won't be solved once nature sets its longstanding cure for such 'disagreements'.

Nothing cleans out a culture like the fires of war. It's been a long time coming and I expect that at this point, there's not much that could be done to stop it, even if we wanted to.

You are truly insane.

 

[Skylar]

That just leaves Kennedy and Roberts. I'd give Kennedy the odds of 70/30 to recognize that there is no compelling government interest in discriminating against same-sex couples.

There is substantial interests in the people discriminating against the sexually abnormal and, that interest is that the entire advocacy to normalize sexual abnormality rests in deceit and specifically in fraudulent science.

There's no interest in discriminating against gays. Kennedy has explicitly recognized them as protected and discrimination against them unconstitutional.

Its a dead end argument legally.

To allow the perverse reasoning to become culturally normalized is to subject the culture to the certain ramifications of faulty, disordered reasoning.

Nonsense. Interracial marraige was considered 'perverse' and 'against the will of god' for generations. Interracial sex was a felony. Discarding that useless relic of bigotry didn't have any particular ramifications save for a slow and steady move away from opposition of interracial marriage by the public.

Gay marriage is even easier, as the public support precedes the changes, with a solid majority of the population behind the legal recognition of gay marriage. Support leads opposition by 12 to 19 points. Among moderates and liberals (the overwhelming majority of the electorate) support is closer to 60 to 70%.

Not the least of which is presented in the attempt by the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality to illicitly use the police powers of the state to ruin innocent people; effectively usurping the means of those innocents to freely exercise their religion.

They can exercise their religion just fine. They just can't use their religion to justify discrimination in business against gays anymore than against blacks or Catholics. 'We don't serve blacks at the lunch counter' may have worked for Woolworths in the 50s. But its not an acceptable business practice today. Nor is discriminating against gays and lesbians.

As far as religious practice, discriminate to your heart's content. No one gives a shit.

To decide in favor of such not only serves to promote injustice, it serves to ENCOURAGE a deviant reasoning which runs counter to the laws of nature, the long standing traditions of the people of the United States and the moral foundation of the very concept of America itself.

There's nothing inherently evil about homosexuality. Its wrong because some book said it was. It doesn't actually cause any particular harm. Murder causes actual harm. Theft causes actual harm. Consensual sex between adults? Nope.

And 'its wrong because we say it is' is just arbitrary nonsense. Take a long hard look at Lawerence V. Texas to get an idea of how little play you're view is going to get in the USSC.

This is all very basic stuff... the only way that the court decides in favor of such is where the court itself is already infected with such reasoning and where that should turn out to be the case, the United States, as it was constituted, would be over and that... THAT would be BAD!

Or if the court doesn't accept you as the arbiter of good, evil, morality, objectivity, truth, or nature. Which no rational person ever would.

It really is quite basic.

 

[Skylar]

Well I doubt Kennedy has not gone more than 24 hours in the last 60 years without a cock in his mouth, so that serves reason. Thus proving the collective justification for discriminating against homosexuality at large.

Yeah, nothing says 'cock in the mouth' like being married for 40 years and having 3 kids. But you don't let something like a complete lack of evidence get in the way of a good rant, do you?

So much for your 'reason'.

Oh well, this is nothing that won't be solved once nature sets its longstanding cure for such 'disagreements'.

Laughing...and what solution would that be? More of your petty threats of violence if we don't do what you want? If your logic and reason were sound, you wouldn't need the threats to hurt people.

Nothing cleans out a culture like the fires of war. It's been a long time coming and I expect that at this point, there's not much that could be done to stop it, even if we wanted to.

Save we're not having a war because you don't like gays. No one is shedding a drop of blood for your personal animus. Not even you, my little arm chair general.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kansas Supreme Court allows more gay marriages - Yahoo News

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — The Kansas Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for additional gay marriages in the state's most populous county while declaring that it would defer to the federal courts on whether Kansas' ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional.

 

[Skylar]

Kansas Supreme Court allows more gay marriages - Yahoo News

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — The Kansas Supreme Court cleared the way Tuesday for additional gay marriages in the state's most populous county while declaring that it would defer to the federal courts on whether Kansas' ban on same-sex marriages is constitutional.

Looks like Dorothy really is going over the rainbow!

 

[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.

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.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

 

[JakeStarkey]

bripat is not an American citizen, so weight his comments accordingly.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

 

[The Rabbi]

And how does a gay couple marrying in any way prevent you from marrying?

You can't even give us a reason gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. Let alone a way this impacts you or prevents you from exercise your right to marry.

Where are gays not alllowed to marry? You make this claim over and over and yet fail to back it up.

I know, right?

She pretends, to the point of demonstrating delusion that homosexuals are in ANY WAY being precluded from marriage, when no homosexual has ever been denied a license to marry on the basis that they're a sexual deviant.

So now you're claiming that same sex marriage has always been legal?

Well that was easy.

Who claimed that?
for starters, no homosexual has ever been denied a marriage license and many of them have them.
Second, no homosexual couple has ever been prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want.
So that looks like two strikes against your statement. The fact that this has been pounded many times over and you still choose to repeat lies speaks to your inability to learn.

Who has said anything about gays being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want? You just refuted a claim no one has made. There's a word for that: strawman.

And since you've just admitted that same sex unions haven't always been legal, then its clear you comprehend the nature of the legal battle that gays have fought and won in 32 of 50 states.

So what else have you got?

What?
That made no sense, even for you.
Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.
But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

That is absurd. There is no such thing as "more equal." Something is eiterh equal or it isnt.

 

[Silhouette]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children? The fact that gay marriage insitutionalizes children missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time? Children missing the complimentary gender as vital role model 100% of the time? What state would be acting in its best interest incentivizing children who are maladjusted in this way towards society at large (that they learn to interact with in their formative years via the parental example)?

 

[Skylar]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

 

[Skylar]

That is absurd. There is no such thing as "more equal." Something is eiterh equal or it isnt.

Sure there is. Equality is a state of sameness and uniformity. As the application of marriage becomes uniform, it becomes more equal.

Its not a terribly complicated concept.

 

[Skylar]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second.

Says who? If marriage is about children first, why is there no requirement for children for a marriage to be valid. A marriage puts adults first, with children being an addition that can be added later if the adults choose. Or not at all if they choose not to.

Adults must exist in any marriage. Children don't. Establishing an undeniable hierarchy of who comes first and is most important.

The fact that gay marriage insitutionalizes children missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time?

No more so than adoption or mixed families from divorces or artificial insemination from donor eggs or sperm. Yet remarriage, adoption and artificial insemination are all perfectly legitimate within the bounds of a valid marriage. Why would it be any different for gays than it is straights?

You're imagining a standard that doesn't exist. Then bizarrely exempting all straights from it. Then applying it exclusively to gays to exclude them from marriage.

Um, no. We're not doing any of that.

 

[The Rabbi]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

 

[Seawytch]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

Blacks and whites weren't prevented from marrying either, just each other. Same tired arguments from different bigots.