All Eyes On 6th District Appeals Court For Polygamy/gay Marriage/adoption

[JoeB131]

Well as soon as children are protected from a cult that displays its unapologetic zeal to include children in lewd displays of sex in public, I'll stop talking about it? Or maybe if you get an LGBT person of note to step up in mainstream news interviews to denounce pride parades and Harvey Milk, I'll stop? Deal? Until then, someone needs to point out that the emperor has no clothes..

Why should they? Milk was someone who took courageous stands and it ultimately cost him his life when someone who thinks like you do shot him. Pride Parades are mostly sober affairs, but you'll focus on the one drunk who gets silly, like Columbus Day and St. Paddy's Day and Madri Gras don't have those.

FRankly, you seem like a person who spends a lot of time trying to rationalize your homophobia.

 

[Silhouette]

..Milk was someone who took courageous stands and it ultimately cost him his life when someone who thinks like you do shot him. Pride Parades are mostly sober affairs, but you'll focus on the one drunk who gets silly, like Columbus Day and St. Paddy's Day and Madri Gras don't have those.

FRankly, you seem like a person who spends a lot of time trying to rationalize your homophobia.

Well there's more than just one peson in the pictures I've shown of "pride" parades. Harvey Milk was shot with the mayor of SF by a fellow democrat over a political disagreement that had nothing to do with Harvey Milk being gay.

Was it courageous of Harvey Milk to exploit young teen and minor teen boys on drugs to sodomize? I guess in addition to retooling the word "marriage" in the dictionary, LGBTs are after retooling the word "courageous" as well..

 

[Sebastian Mack]

Sutton's statement that gays should back away from forcing their ilk on the majority and instead 'win the hearts and minds' state by state", is ridiculous to me. He stated we should endear ourselves. Please! That seems to be a fall-back defense by many opponents of gay marriage and even Equal Rights' movements. That echoes what I mentioned about the majority referring to movements seeking equal rights as "special rights." That's a hypocritical viewpoint since "special rights" would belong exclusively to the majority. With regards to Sutton, he was critical of both sides during the August 6, 2014 hearing. Equality On TrialSixth Circuit Court of Appeals hears marriage cases Equality On Trial

"It doesn't look like the sky has fallen."

-- U.S. Appellate Judge Martha Daughtrey, responding to a Michigan lawyer's claim that "it's too early to tell" if allowing same-sex couples to marry harms society. The exchange took place yesterday in Cincinnati, Ohio, where the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in cases challenging marriage bans in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. Daughtery also countered Sutton's assertion of "endearing ourselves" state by state, mentioning the length of time that did and could take now. The quest for marriage equality and equal rights by the gay community isn't new.

Silhouette, you seem to think it's a guarantee that the 6th District Court of Appeals. He's the swing vote so the judges' ruling could go either way.

Opponents of repealing anti-miscegenation laws whined about the causes being crammed down their throat too. Starting in the 1950s they were repealed state by status, but the South continued to enforce them. In 1967, SCOTUS ruled that these laws were unconstitutional in 1967 in the case of Loving vs Virginia

Yes, states have sovereignty but are not immune to their laws/amendments being struck down or repealed. The argument against striking down the bans that states laws should be decided by voters, not judges who weren't appointed by them doesn't make sense. I'm not aware court judges ever the inability to overrule a state law/amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Well there's more than just one peson in the pictures I've shown of "pride" parades. Harvey Milk was shot with the mayor of SF by a fellow democrat over a political disagreement that had nothing to do with Harvey Milk being gay.

Who cares? Your personal obsession with Harvey Milk has nothing to do with the rights of gays and lesbians, their right to marriage, or their ability to adopt under the law.

 

[Silhouette]

Silhouette, you seem to think it's a guarantee that the 6th District Court of Appeals. He's the swing vote so the judges' ruling could go either way.

Opponents of repealing anti-miscegenation laws whined about the causes being crammed down their throat too. Starting in the 1950s they were repealed state by status, but the South continued to enforce them. In 1967, SCOTUS ruled that these laws were unconstitutional in 1967 in the case of Loving vs Virginia

Yes, states have sovereignty but are not immune to their laws/amendments being struck down or repealed. The argument against striking down the bans that states laws should be decided by voters, not judges who weren't appointed by them doesn't make sense. I'm not aware court judges ever the inability to overrule a state law/amendment.

Are we talking about race or just some [but not all] sexually deviant behaviors repugnant to the majority?

Do you have a formula the 6th circuit and SCOTUS can use to tease out which repugnant fetishes are allowed to marry and which aren't?

 

[Skylar]

Sutton's statement that gays should back away from forcing their ilk on the majority and instead 'win the hearts and minds' state by state", is ridiculous to me?" He stated we should endear ourselves. Please! That seems to be a fall-back defense by many opponents of gay marriage and even Equal Rights' movements.

C'mon, man. Gays and Lesbians exercising their fundamental rights makes some straight people uncomfortable. I mean, it has no actual impact on these straight folk's lives, doesn't effect their rights or freedoms in anyway. And in no way impedes their ability to get married. But shouldn't their feelings trump your rights?

After all, its only considerate.

 

[Skylar]

Are we talking about race or just some [but not all] sexually deviant behaviors repugnant to the majority?

Did it matter in the Romer V. Evans decision? Not a bit. Gay folks need not be a 'race' or a 'religion' to have their rights protected under the law. You're tossing up yet another set of irrelevant criteria and then demanding gays meet them or relinquish their fundamental rights.

Um, no. Your made up criteria have no legal relevance. And in no way effect the rights, privileges and immunities of gays and lesbians. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians a right, you'll need a good reason.

And you have none. All you have is a bucket load of personal baggage with gay folks. Which no one really cares about but you.

 

[Sebastian Mack]

And by the way Silho, you have an inflated ego and are delusional if you think or have proof that 0% of the LGBT haven't denounced Harvey Milk. Whether your opinion of my posts and links is that they lack merit, I still urge you to provide links and references to so called facts and statistics you so adamantly use towards your arguments. I'm gay and I've kept current on gay marriage. I've at least done some research. Keep skewing quotes and inventing statistics. It just drives home my opinion that you have nothing substantial to say. I suspect your trend will continue

 

[Sebastian Mack]

Silhouette, you seem to think it's a guarantee that the 6th District Court of Appeals. He's the swing vote so the judges' ruling could go either way.

Opponents of repealing anti-miscegenation laws whined about the causes being crammed down their throat too. Starting in the 1950s they were repealed state by status, but the South continued to enforce them. In 1967, SCOTUS ruled that these laws were unconstitutional in 1967 in the case of Loving vs Virginia

Yes, states have sovereignty but are not immune to their laws/amendments being struck down or repealed. The argument against striking down the bans that states laws should be decided by voters, not judges who weren't appointed by them doesn't make sense. I'm not aware court judges ever the inability to overrule a state law/amendment.

Are we talking about race or just some [but not all] sexually deviant behaviors repugnant to the majority?

Do you have a formula the 6th circuit and SCOTUS can use to tease out which repugnant fetishes are allowed to marry and which aren't?

I was referring to equal rights for the LGBT and races. Your statement about deviant behavior once again confirms your bias. Repugnant fetishes? "Some [but not all]". That statement indicates you are biased over "some" behaviors you deem as deviant and repugnant. Who appointed you as the authority on the majority's opinion? Your ego and delusion continues to astound me.

Gay people do not represent fetishes or what you call deviant behaviors. I never claimed to have a formula for the 6th District Court of Appeals and SCOTUS. Why are you so unreasonable when I oppose or disagree with your assertions? Next you'll be asking me to get a law degree and write a dissertation in pursuit of three Doctorate degrees of Psychology, Human Sexuality, and Behavior before you even contemplate having fair discussions with me.

 

[Sebastian Mack]

Do you have a formula the 6th circuit and SCOTUS can use to tease out which repugnant fetishes are allowed to marry and which aren't?[/QUOTE]

I never claimed to have my own formula. Have you forgotten that courts have cited the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the United States vs Windsor case in rulings that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional? Seems that you have. Another case of memory loss for your convenience.

It's not a formula I'm mentioning but a basis by which courts have ruled in these gay marriage cases.

It could go either way, but I'm hoping the 6th District rules to uphold the rulings which deemed the bans on gay marriage unconstitutional for gays who seek to legally get married in every state, for my wish for those of us who support this cause, and to shut you up!

 

[JoeB131]

Well there's more than just one peson in the pictures I've shown of "pride" parades. Harvey Milk was shot with the mayor of SF by a fellow democrat over a political disagreement that had nothing to do with Harvey Milk being gay.

Was it courageous of Harvey Milk to exploit young teen and minor teen boys on drugs to sodomize? I guess in addition to retooling the word "marriage" in the dictionary, LGBTs are after retooling the word "courageous" as well..

Dan White's homophobia was well-established, and the teen boy he had a relationship with was hustling long before Milk Met him. Milk actually got that guy off the streets, no doubt after his "good Christian" parents threw him there.

America s Shame 40 of Homeless Youth Are LGBT Kids Williams Institute

Nearly seven in 10 (68%) respondents indicated that family rejection was a major factor contributing to LGBT youth homelessness, making it the most cited factor. More than half (54%) of respondents indicated that abuse in their family was another important factor contributing to LGBT homelessness.

Statistically, LGBT youth make up no more than 10% of that population segment, yet total 40% of homeless youth.

 

[Silhouette]

I never claimed to have my own formula. Have you forgotten that courts have cited the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the United States vs Windsor case in rulings that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional? ...

1. I know that in Windsor a state's right to define marriage for itself was called its "unquestioned authority" in many different ways, many different times. In fact it was this precise premise that the Court used to justify striking out part of DOMA.

2. I know that in Windsor, "Loving v Virginia" was cited not THAT it applied but IF it applied. De facto at the end of Windsor the Court stated matter-of-factly "gay marriage is only allowed in some states as of this writing". If Loving applied in the Court's mind, it would have simply said "Loving applies". It hasn't been tested yet in other words. But a state's right was. And it won. Evidence by Edie Windsor getting her money.

3. Yet in the interim, somehow, we have federal judges saying "no, states didn't win". So in effect they are saying all of DOMA still applies, only retooled to mean the fed can impose upon a state a type of marriage its majority does not want.

4. So SCOTUS' silence on the obvious misinterpretation by lower court judges in the interim, as appeals pend, is damaging and undermining their own Decision.

5. It is fostering an illegal "marry-in" in violation of states' laws it just said it upheld in Windsor....with the fed holding a club over states' heads by denying them stays in the interim as the side yet to prove their case [gays] appeals. The state's rights to define marriage for themselves to this question was Affirmed in Windsor. The question is the gay marriage one, not the state's-right one. So stays are MUST in the interim.

6. Yet the stays are not there. This is the fascism part of what SCOTUS is doing by remaining silent. It knows full well the erosion of law and its own Windsor 2013 Decision that is happening as it sits on its hands, looking the other way and whistling a tune..denying protection for a right it has just tested and granted [state's rights to define marriage re: Windsor] vs a question it has NOT tested and knows will be before its bench ["gay marriage" as a "federal right"].

Any AG of any state could make this 6-point argument in a very public way and win. It is a conspiracy IMHO to strip states' majorities of a right they just had affirmed by SCOTUS, with SCOTUS itself helpling. It may be that AFTER testing at the SCOTUS level, gay marriage [outside and apart from other deviant sexualities being granted same] may win a special federal protection. But they haven't yet. Whereas states have been granted the right to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage ALREADY...in the interim. So their laws apply in the interim. PERIOD.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmm delusions or conscious lies.

I go with conscious lies.

Silhouette has shown a propensity to lie in order to attack homosexuals.

But perhaps her delusions allow her rationalize her lies.

The topic is the 6th. Do you agree or disagree with Judge Sutton that.

Do you agree with Judge Sutton when he said this:

“Maybe originally marriage was about procreation, but today it’s really about love, affection and commitment. If you see marriage through that lens, it does seem difficult to justify why it’s okay for one group to be allowed to marry but not another.”

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmm delusions or conscious lies.

I go with conscious lies.

Silhouette has shown a propensity to lie in order to attack homosexuals.

But perhaps her delusions allow her rationalize her lies.

The topic is the 6th. Do you agree or disagree with Judge Sutton that the LGBT community should back away from forcing their ilk on the majority and instead 'win the hearts and minds' state by state? I mean obviously he can see you're not a race or a religion [well, you are a religion, but not officially yet]. So he's saying "why should we force your way of life on the majority". And I agree. Go state by state if you're so convinced that "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage". Should be a cake walk for you. But alas, no. Sutton can see that what you're after is imposing your value system on an unwilling and unconvinced majority.

Your secret is out. And judge Sutton is well aware of it.

What will Silhouette's spin in on this be when Sutton votes in favor of marriage equality for same gender couples?

 

[Syriusly]

Was it courageous of Harvey Milk to exploit young teen and minor teen boys on drugs to sodomize? ..

And I will point out once again that this is just a fiction promoted by you.

There is no evidence that Milk ever sodomized any minor.
The biography you keep misquoting never mentions sodomy- never said he had sex with a minor.

Milk is recognized- barely- for standing up for gay rights at a time when California was poised to make it illegal for gays to be teachers in California.

He was murdered over 40 years ago by a coward who snuck into City Hall and shot him and Mayor Moscone.

And recently those who hate homosexuals have tried to use his memory to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette, you seem to think it's a guarantee that the 6th District Court of Appeals. He's the swing vote so the judges' ruling could go either way.

Opponents of repealing anti-miscegenation laws whined about the causes being crammed down their throat too. Starting in the 1950s they were repealed state by status, but the South continued to enforce them. In 1967, SCOTUS ruled that these laws were unconstitutional in 1967 in the case of Loving vs Virginia

Yes, states have sovereignty but are not immune to their laws/amendments being struck down or repealed. The argument against striking down the bans that states laws should be decided by voters, not judges who weren't appointed by them doesn't make sense. I'm not aware court judges ever the inability to overrule a state law/amendment.

Are we talking about race or just some [but not all] sexually deviant behaviors repugnant to the majority?

Do you have a formula the 6th circuit and SCOTUS can use to tease out which repugnant fetishes are allowed to marry and which aren't?

Fetishes don't marry.

People marry.

What formula- well start treating same gender couples the same way as opposite gender couples. That seems to be working so far.

 

[Syriusly]

I never claimed to have my own formula. Have you forgotten that courts have cited the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and the United States vs Windsor case in rulings that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional? ...

1. I know that in Windsor a state's right to define marriage for itself was called its "unquestioned authority" in many different ways, many different times. In fact it was this precise premise that the Court used to justify striking out part of DOMA..

Odd isn't it- that you ALWAYS ignore Windsor's qualification: subject to constitutional guarantees.

 

[Syriusly]

3. Yet in the interim, somehow, we have federal judges saying "no, states didn't win". So in effect they are saying all of DOMA still applies, only retooled to mean the fed can impose upon a state a type of marriage its majority does not want..

No- no judges are saying anything like that. Just your usual bizarre interpretation.

That provision of DOMA was overturned. State marriage laws are still subject to Constitutional guarantees, as established in 3 previous Supreme Court rulings on mixed race marriages, marriage by fathers who owed child support and marriage of prisoners.

 

[Syriusly]

Any AG of any state could make this 6-point argument in a very public way and win. It is a conspiracy IMHO to strip states' majorities of a right they just had affirmed by SCOTUS, with SCOTUS itself helpling. It may be that AFTER testing at the SCOTUS level, gay marriage [outside and apart from other deviant sexualities being granted same] may win a special federal protection. But they haven't yet. Whereas states have been granted the right to say "yes" or "no" to gay marriage ALREADY...in the interim. So their laws apply in the interim. PERIOD.

Any AG could make that argument if they:
a) were totally unqualified legally and
b) were complete nutjobs and
c) didn't mind looking like idiots

While I am sure that there are AG's who probably meet a and b, none of them want c.

 

[Siete]

the title of the thread reads " all eyes"

it should read "all eyes suffering from homophobia"

my eyes read " to each his own"