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

[Syriusly]

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Not legally they can't. /QUOTE]

Yep- in 35 states homosexuals can legally marry now.

You pretending otherwise doesn't make it so.

 

[Syriusly]

In fact, what SCOTUS has done most recently in Windsor 2013 is to reaffirm the strength of states' role in setting standards for marriage. The underling federal judges KNOW this and KNEW this at the time they acted in full defiance of that knowledge. Your activist judges attempting a coup on SCOTUS' supreme authority in this regard does not make gay marriage legal in 35 of 50 states. Dream on girlfriend...

Wow....apparently you think the Supreme Court is really, really ignorant.

Because the Supreme Court had the opportunity to review and overturn those courts decisions.....but declined to do so.....apparently you think that the Supreme Court just isn't aware of this 'coup'.......

Meanwhile of course- couples are legally marrying in 35 states now.

 

[The Rabbi]

In fact, what SCOTUS has done most recently in Windsor 2013 is to reaffirm the strength of states' role in setting standards for marriage. The underling federal judges KNOW this and KNEW this at the time they acted in full defiance of that knowledge. Your activist judges attempting a coup on SCOTUS' supreme authority in this regard does not make gay marriage legal in 35 of 50 states. Dream on girlfriend...

Wow....apparently you think the Supreme Court is really, really ignorant.

Because the Supreme Court had the opportunity to review and overturn those courts decisions.....but declined to do so.....apparently you think that the Supreme Court just isn't aware of this 'coup'.......

Meanwhile of course- couples are legally marrying in 35 states now.

Wow did I call it or what?

 

[Syriusly]

In fact, what SCOTUS has done most recently in Windsor 2013 is to reaffirm the strength of states' role in setting standards for marriage. The underling federal judges KNOW this and KNEW this at the time they acted in full defiance of that knowledge. Your activist judges attempting a coup on SCOTUS' supreme authority in this regard does not make gay marriage legal in 35 of 50 states. Dream on girlfriend...

Wow....apparently you think the Supreme Court is really, really ignorant.

Because the Supreme Court had the opportunity to review and overturn those courts decisions.....but declined to do so.....apparently you think that the Supreme Court just isn't aware of this 'coup'.......

Meanwhile of course- couples are legally marrying in 35 states now.

Wow did I call it or what?

You are a veritable legend in your own mind.

 

[Skylar]

The state is about marriage. And it is so for one reason, it balances the freedoms in the Constitution by enticing the proper arrangement for the raising of children by bestowing certain priveleges onto men/women who come together in the only possible arrangement where blood children to them will result.

There are literally millions of exceptions to this rule. Infertile couples, couples who choose never to have children, those who choose to adopt. The institution can clearly survive exceptions by the millions. Leaving you without a valid basis to deny gays and lesbians a similar exemption.

Worse, the 'blood children' standard isn't one that limits anyone's access to marriage. Adoption, invitro fertalization, mixed marriages of divorce, etc have existed for quite a while. Each fails the 'blood children' standard. Each is perfectly valid as a basis of marriage.

Why then would we forbid gays and lesbians from marrying because they don't meet standards that apply to no one?

Infertile men/women do not interfere with the basic and very limited qualifiers for marriage.
They are a man and a woman. That does not tarnish the brass ring for the state incentive program/marriage perks.

Sure it does. As they can't have any children within their union. And infertile couples or couples to choose never to have children rate in the millions. So your 'very few' standard doesn't apply. The numbers are enormous.

Infertile and childless couples demonstrate, undeniably, that there is a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. And since the 'limited qualifiers' exist to be able to produce children in the union....and children aren't a requirement for any marriage, the qualifiers are invalid.

Their union, more than being infertile, could bring adopted kids into the fray where the children would see the daily interaction between "man" and 'woman" and find role modeling there and a sense of self reflection.

Gays and lesbians can adopt, fulfilling the exact same purpose. As for your 'daily interactions of man and woman' standard, its made up. And no part of our laws or the purpose of marriage in any state.

Leaving you without any valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....yet again.

We've seen what happens when sterile gay couples come together in this regard and his name is Thomas Lobel: Thomas Lobel had no adult male role model in his home. No man "as father". So his confusion is to be expected and anticipated.. Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum We would natually expect that any boy of a single mother would have struggles with coming to manhood. And in fact statistics bear this out.

Most transgender people come from straight 'man-woman' households. Meaning that if you believe the outcome demonstrates 'harm', then the harm is inflicted overwhelmingly by straights.

Since its clearly insufficient to negate a straight couple's right to marry, its clearly insufficient to negate a gay couples right to marry.

Leaving you without a valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. You're making a habit of that.

 

[Skylar]

Not legally they can't. And there are some activist federal judges that may find themselves soon on the impeachment chopping block. Have fun until January..

Sure they can. You yourself have admitted that the ruling of the 6th district appellant court is the law unless overruled by the Supreme Court. Why then wouldn't the rulings of the 4th or 9th appellant court be equally authoritative legally?

There is no reason they wouldn't be. Your own standards demonstrate the folly of your reasoning.

Read Judge Sutton's Opinion from the 6th circuit (link & excerpts on pages 12 & 13 here). He says that those courts that made up legal gay marriage (ie: illegal gay marriage) did so by improper procedure.

And his reasoning has no validity or authority outside the 6th circuit court. The only ruling that can invalidate the rulings in those circuit courts is the USSC. And they have declined to do so every time, preserving every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans.

Judges below the SCOTUS are not allowed to overturn their rulings from underneath. All they can do is sustain a person's right to appeal by finding in favor of existing law.

Obvious nonsense. The upper courts can absolutely overturn rulings from lower courts. You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Properly, until this question falls before SCOTUS, no single state whatsoever has legal gay marriage unless they voted or enacted it in.

Properly, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about. If a law is overturned by a federal court, its unenforceable and invalid. Federal court rulings can be appealed to higher federal courts until they reach the full quorum of the district courts. Beyond this, there is only the USSC. If the SCOTUS refuses to hear and appeal to a federal court ruling, then the federal court ruling stands.

Gay marriage is thus legal in 35 of 50 States, as the federal judiciary overturned 24 bans, the legislature voted gay marriage in, or the people did directly. Your determination of what is 'proper' is simply your ignorance of the judicial process or how law works. And is consequently meaningless.

 

[The Rabbi]

In fact, what SCOTUS has done most recently in Windsor 2013 is to reaffirm the strength of states' role in setting standards for marriage. The underling federal judges KNOW this and KNEW this at the time they acted in full defiance of that knowledge. Your activist judges attempting a coup on SCOTUS' supreme authority in this regard does not make gay marriage legal in 35 of 50 states. Dream on girlfriend...

Wow....apparently you think the Supreme Court is really, really ignorant.

Because the Supreme Court had the opportunity to review and overturn those courts decisions.....but declined to do so.....apparently you think that the Supreme Court just isn't aware of this 'coup'.......

Meanwhile of course- couples are legally marrying in 35 states now.

Wow did I call it or what?

You are a veritable legend in your own mind.

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases
2) Everyone ought to be able to marry
3) If you disagree with me you're stupid.
Those are your entire arguments. You repeat them endlessly and cannot cope wth any contrary information. This marks you as stupid.

 

[Skylar]

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

2) Everyone ought to be able to marry

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

 

[bripat9643]

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Like most children, he finds difference and change threatening. That's all.

Only a moron wouldn't find the destruction of our fundamental social institutions threatening.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Like most children, he finds difference and change threatening. That's all.

Only a moron wouldn't find the destruction of our fundamental social institutions threatening.

And the Drama Queen corps speaks.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

2) Everyone ought to be able to marry

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. The measures have largely failed in the court of public opinion.
No one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

Agan, same arguments over and over. And they fail every time.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

2) Everyone ought to be able to marry

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. The measures have largely failed in the court of public opinion.
No one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

Agan, same arguments over and over. And they fail every time.

The arguments that have failed are yours actually, in 35 of 50 states now, but I suspect you will still be screaming bloody murder down to number 50. You have a gift for banging your tiny mind against the walls it would seem...

 

[Syriusly]

So marriage has nothing to do with rights? It's merely a benefit society bestows at its whim? If so, then why should we bestow it on gays?

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Like most children, he finds difference and change threatening. That's all.

Only a moron wouldn't find the destruction of our fundamental social institutions threatening.

Only a moron would think that my marriage of 20 plus years is affected in the least by allowing same gender couples the same happiness.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ah, but that's where you get the whole thing wrong. A societal benefit doesn't have to be ascribed in order for a group to have access to equal rights. In fact, in order to deny those rights, you must ascribe a societal harm in allowing it. You can't which is why gays can now be civilly married in 35 out of 50 states.

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Like most children, he finds difference and change threatening. That's all.

Only a moron wouldn't find the destruction of our fundamental social institutions threatening.

Only a moron would think that my marriage of 20 plus years is affected in the least by allowing same gender couples the same happiness.

If you dont agree with me you're stupid.
Argument #3, yet again.

 

[Syriusly]

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

2) Everyone ought to be able to marry

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. .

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

 

[Syriusly]

Gays have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as straight people. Why is this difficult to understand? Is it because you pretend that a man is a woman and vice versa?

Gays can marry the non familial consenting adult of their choice in 35 out of 50 states...why would they marry a person they aren't in love with or attracted to?

I don't know what role playing games YOU play but both my partner and I are happy to be women. We're not attracted to men, why would either of us pretend to be one?

Like most children, he finds difference and change threatening. That's all.

Only a moron wouldn't find the destruction of our fundamental social institutions threatening.

Only a moron would think that my marriage of 20 plus years is affected in the least by allowing same gender couples the same happiness.

If you dont agree with me you're stupid.
Argument #3, yet again.

Since you like it so much- I am glad to repeat it

Only a moron would think that my marriage of 20 plus years is affected in the least by allowing same gender couples the same happiness

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

2) Everyone ought to be able to marry

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. .

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

 

[Syriusly]

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

2) Everyone ought to be able to marry

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. .

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yup, right on plan.
1) We won lots of court cases

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

2) Everyone ought to be able to marry

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. .

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

 

[Syriusly]

Its a demonstration that the legal reasoning we support works in court. And equally, the reasoning used by your ilk rarely does.

More accurately, gays and lesbians should be able to marry too. I can't speak to 'everyone'.

Marriage is a fundamental right. If you're going to deny it, you'll need a very good reason. And you don't have one.

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. .

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.