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

[JakeStarkey]

The Rabbi can't comprehend law, though he does count to ten.

SCOTUS is either 6 to 3 or 7 to 2 in favor of marriage equality.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Crickets.

 

[The Rabbi]

Darn I am really liking this Ignore feature on the new board. It used to be I could still see blather when others commented on it. But now I can truly Ignore the morons and fatheads. Like Jake Whatshisname.

 

[Syriusly]

It ain't over till the fat lady sings- I take nothing for granted.

But the more Silhouette and Rabbi make their hysterical arguments, the more confident I feel- if that is the best that the homophobes can come up with then the decision should be a slam dunk.

Since you do not understand the arguments I cant see how you can feel confident of anything.
Based on Windsor the Supreme Court will affirm that states have the power, under A10, to set marriage criteria.

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

Since you cannot comprehend my argument against gay marriage why do you think this will work out any better for you?

Since no one can comprehend your 'argument' I am not really concerned by whatever you think it is.

I am just pointing out the facts

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

No- I am very aware of the difference

This is part of an opinion- though it may be dicta

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393.

This is also part of the Windsor opinion:

I wasn't quoting any oral arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

The LGBT cultees here present the dissenting opinions as if they were the binding law and the actual Opinion, like Windsor 2013, was just a mere suggestion that the question of gay marriage is the "unquestioned authority" of the states...

Dissenting opinions?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
This is part of the opinion
Page 16 State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject
to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is
“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
province of the States.”

This is part of the syllabus
Page 3 Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area
that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the
States,”

And this is part of the opinion

The differentiation demeans the couple, whose
moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see
Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State
has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands
of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law
in question makes it even more difficult for the children to
understand the integrity and closeness of their own family
and its concord with other families in their community
and in their daily lives

And this is part of the opinion:

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex
couples. It raises the cost of health care for families
by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their
workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas.
Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter
Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998).

And it denies or reduces
benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse
and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family
security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security
Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a
surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

Those are all part of the opinion- none from the dissent.

 

[Syriusly]

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

The LGBT cultees here present the dissenting opinions as if they were the binding law and the actual Opinion, like Windsor 2013, was just a mere suggestion that the question of gay marriage is the "unquestioned authority" of the states...

All they seem to be capable of is making fun of people who disagree with them and quoting things that confirm their opinions.

I prefer to think that I am mocking you for your homophobic ways.

'making fun' sounds far too benign.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

The LGBT cultees here present the dissenting opinions as if they were the binding law and the actual Opinion, like Windsor 2013, was just a mere suggestion that the question of gay marriage is the "unquestioned authority" of the states...

All they seem to be capable of is making fun of people who disagree with them and quoting things that confirm their opinions.

I prefer to think that I am mocking you for your homophobic ways.

'making fun' sounds far too benign.

The Rabbi simply refuses to admit publicly that, although he admits it privately, is wrong on this issue and is going to lose.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

The LGBT cultees here present the dissenting opinions as if they were the binding law and the actual Opinion, like Windsor 2013, was just a mere suggestion that the question of gay marriage is the "unquestioned authority" of the states...

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Gov
ernment. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bollingv. Sharpe,
347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of
equality “must at the very least mean that a bare con-
gressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.
Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535
(1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an
improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an un-
usual character’” especially require careful consideration.
Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA
cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an
important indicator of the substantial societal impact the
State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual
tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of
marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the
benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal
recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a
law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that
class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law
here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate
status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex
marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of
the States.​

When you read the ONLY paragraph in the Windsor decision that contains the words "unquestioned authority", the context doesn't represent anything that (s)he tries to make it to mean.

(S)he always wants to ignore the first couple of sentences.

>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil has no intention of being honest about the bill: she will lose if she does that.

 

[Silhouette]

The bill? Windsor's "State's Choice" was used to strike down part of DOMA. What part of "choice" don't you get? The "no" part obviously..

 

[Silhouette]

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. ...

You know Syriusly, male/female marriage also "humiliates" 10s of millions of children of single parent households too. Don't forget about the rest of the kids who are missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time...

You always leave them out...why? Should states be in the business of incentivizing homes where children are missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time? No, of course not.
You select ONE line from Windsor that says "subject to certain constitutional guarantees..Loving v Virginia"... Keyword: "certain"...though they don't say which, or if any for sure. They're saying "if it is found LATER that Loving v Virginia applies not only to race but to sexual behaviors".

Meanwhile you leave out dozens of references and citations to states "unquestioned authority" on the question of gay marriage or not. Why do you always leave them out? Why? The "unquestioned authority" of the states on the gay marriage question left SCOTUS saying also in Windsor, as of its writing 'gay marriage...is only allowed in some states'. That's hardly a contemporary-finding FOR Loving as applies to sexual behaviors. Instead, that is a Finding that Loving does not apply as of the latest SCOTUS Opinion on the matter: Windsor 2013..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Some corrections for Sil.

The single parent home is the major failure of Sil's two parent argument. Equal protection incorporates the single parents as well marriage equality couples. Kennedy is not going to throw marriage equality children and the bath out because they have two parents. The justice will protect them.

No, Windsor cannot be used to argue that some states can have same sex marriage while others can’t.

Loving applies to marriage, as does Windsor, not sexual behaviors.

 

[Syriusly]

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, “regulation of domestic relations” is “an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States,” Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. ...

You know Syriusly, male/female marriage also "humiliates" 10s of millions of children of single parent households too. Don't forget about the rest of the kids who are missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time....

Feel free to try that line on Justice Kennedy- I am sure he will be as confused by whatever it is you think you are trying to say.

I am fine with single mothers getting married- to whomever they wish- their baby daddy, another man, or a woman. Given the economic realities a family with two parents will be much more likely to be financially stable than one with a single parent- though of course, the child is better with a single parent than no parent at all.

 

[Syriusly]

The bill? Windsor's "State's Choice" was used to strike down part of DOMA. What part of "choice" don't you get? The "no" part obviously..

State laws defining and regulating marriage, of
course, must respect the constitutional rights of persons,
see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); but, subject
to those guarantees, “regulation of domestic relations” is
“an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive
province of the States.”

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

Well ok... "Protecting" the purveyors of perverse reasoning is a threat to the security of the culture, striking at the heart of its very viability.

And this without regard to the 'feelings' of an old queen who happens to sit on the Supreme Court.

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%.

EXCELLENT demonstration of disordered reasoning! Nothing shows ignorance like an argument which appeals to misleading authority, popular whimsy and irrelevant precedent in the span of two short paragraphs.

Good stuff.

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...

BRILLIANT!

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.

No? Then why is the entire movement behind it based upon nothing but deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance?

A sound (non-Evil) endeavor would not rely upon such to advance itself.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Well ok... "Protecting" the purveyors of perverse reasoning is a threat to the security of the culture, striking at the heart of its very viability.

And this without regard to the 'feelings' of an old queen who happens to sit on the Supreme Court.

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%.

EXCELLENT demonstration of disordered reasoning! Nothing shows ignorance like an argument which appeals to misleading authority, popular whimsy and irrelevant precedent in the span of two short paragraphs.

Good stuff.

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...

BRILLIANT!

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.

No? Then why is the entire movement behind it based upon nothing but deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance?

A sound (non-Evil) endeavor would not rely upon such to advance itself.

Bat guano crazy

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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'.

ROFLMNAO! YEEeaaahhh.... because effeminate males married for decades, with extensive families so rarely have a cock on their mouths.

It's clear you've given this a LOT of thought.

FTR: I'm in the pool for how long it takes Stevens to 'come out', if he 'decides' that sexual abnormality is perfectly normal... at "10 minutes".

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

Well ok... "Protecting" the purveyors of perverse reasoning is a threat to the security of the culture, striking at the heart of its very viability.

And this without regard to the 'feelings' of an old queen who happens to sit on the Supreme Court.

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%.

EXCELLENT demonstration of disordered reasoning! Nothing shows ignorance like an argument which appeals to misleading authority, popular whimsy and irrelevant precedent in the span of two short paragraphs.

Good stuff.

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...

BRILLIANT!

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.

No? Then why is the entire movement behind it based upon nothing but deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance?

A sound (non-Evil) endeavor would not rely upon such to advance itself.

Your reply, keys, would be a marvelous exercise of "Find and Label The Heterofascist Errors of Logical Fallacy" in a high school composition class.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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'.

ROFLMNAO! YEEeaaahhh.... because effeminate males married for decades, with extensive families so rarely have a cock on their mouths.

It's clear you've given this a LOT of thought.

FTR: I'm in the pool for how long it takes Stevens to 'come out', if he 'decides' that sexual abnormality is perfectly normal... at "10 minutes".

You talk about natural morality, and based on your spirit and language, the early Christians would have tossed you out on your butt.

 

[Silhouette]

This isn't a topic about religion. It's one of secular concerns..