Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[bodecea]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

And how do you define "crazy guys"? Just being gay?

 

[mdk]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

That nowhere argument?

Even if it is a mental disorder, what difference would it make?

So you have crazy gays raising children, these are the kids DHS needs to be taking.

How terribly small government of you. In the future when I see you rail against our bloated and runaway government I'll know it is nothing more then lip service.

 

[Silhouette]

Well the point of this thread isn't all that. Would y'all like to talk to the points Sutton made that say the lower circuit courts that said states have to accept gay marriage against their choice and unquestioned authority on the topic are in error of procedure? That they don't enjoy the luxury of overruling either Baker or Windsor from underneath the High Court?

Let's talk about that little procedural glitch. Or maybe you'd like to discuss how important procedure was to SCOTUS when they heard the Prop 8 case and walked away from it citing procedural flaws in the defenders of the Will of Californians? "Lack of standing" wasn't it? I guess proper procedure in the federal system mattered that day for sure. Just not when circuit courts violate it...?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well the point of this thread isn't all that. Would y'all like to talk to the points Sutton made that say the lower circuit courts that said states have to accept gay marriage against their choice and unquestioned authority on the topic are in error of procedure? That they don't enjoy the luxury of overruling either Baker or Windsor from underneath the High Court?

Let's talk about that little procedural glitch. Or maybe you'd like to discuss how important procedure was to SCOTUS when they heard the Prop 8 case and walked away from it citing procedural flaws in the defenders of the Will of Californians? "Lack of standing" wasn't it? I guess proper procedure in the federal system mattered that day for sure. Just not when circuit courts violate it...?

SIL, you conveniently ignore there are two methods whereby a previous SCOTUS ruling become ineffectual:

1. By direct reversal of the SCOTUS.

2. By doctrinal changes that render a previous decision inapplicable.​

You wish the first was the only way and ignore the second. Even Sutton makes note of the second in his opinion: "Even if Windsor did not overrule Baker by name, the claimants point out, lower courts still may rely on “doctrinal developments” in the aftermath of a summary disposition as a ground for not following the decision."

Now, he disagrees with the 3 other Circuit Courts that have ruled on the matter, which is fine. But to ignore the doctrinal development provisions of such cases (which Sutton didn't do, he just disagreed) - is dishonest.

If what you say is true, that Baker is still binding in the view of the SCOTUS - then the funny thing is that the SCOTUS could have accepted anyone of the 7 cases from 5 States and 3 Circuits and summarily reversed their decision noting that Baker was still applicable. BUT THEY DIDN'T instead they allowed those rulings that addresses Baker and noted the reason that Baker didn't apply was due to doctrinal changes, letting those ruling stand and SSCM be become a reality in those states.


>>>>

 

[Syriusly]

Well the point of this thread isn't all that.

Isn't all what?

Sutton's opinion only applies to the courts under the jurisdiction of the 6th Appellete Court.

The other Appellate Courts disagreed- and the Supreme Court left their decisions stand- and their rulings apply to all of the courts in their jurisidiction.

Simple as that.

 

[Dana7360]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

So you're saying that anyone who isn't a part of your religion doesn't have the same freedom of religion rights as you do.

I don't know what America you grew up in but that's not what America is all about. The first Amendment and fourteenth Amendment are for EVERYONE. Not just those who follow a religion you follow.

Apparently you don't believe in freedom or what America is all about.

 

[Dana7360]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

Your religious beliefs are in no way 'the truth,' they're subjective, personal, and legally irrelevant.

That you perceive your beliefs to be 'true' in no way authorizes you to seek to deny any class of persons their civil rights.

Only in your narrow mind. I didn't say that gays can't legally marry. I said marriage is between man and woman anything else is an abomination.

Another big government nanny conservative who wants the government in every aspect of our lives telling us how to live.

You show just how much you hate freedom and America every time you post.

 

[Dana7360]

Hey, the thread isn't about religion. It's about the welfare of kids and why states incentivize marriages as man/woman only. Check the OP

So according to you if a person isn't a child's biological parent then the couple can't get married.

Do you realize how ridiculous you are? You're telling all people who have been divorced and have kids that they can never get married again. You're also telling infertile people that they can never get married or adopt children to have a family.

You show how much you love big government nanny telling everyone how to live their lives with every single post. You also show very much hate and contempt for a large portion of your fellow Americans.

 

[Dana7360]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

It would also make adoption illegal or at least adoption for married couples.

Neither one of them are the biological parents of the child. So according to that right winger, infertile people should never be allowed to marry or if they do, never allowed to adopt a child.

Which kind of blows a huge hole in their anti abortion claims that adoption is the answer instead of abortion. According to that right winger, only single people or couples who aren't married will be allowed to adopt.

 

[Silhouette]

Adoption wouldn't be illegal idiot.

 

[Silhouette]

So according to you if a person isn't a child's biological parent then the couple can't get married...Do you realize how ridiculous you are? You're telling all people who have been divorced and have kids that they can never get married again. You're also telling infertile people that they can never get married or adopt children to have a family..

Nope, listen carefully:

1. A state's interest in marriage is solely for the benefit of children that will likely come to them.

2. As such a state's interest in marriage is incentivizing a home environment that is best for the child[ren] that will LIKELY come to it. This isn't a hard and firm qualification program. Marriage is an INCENTIVIZED institution that rewards the best environment for children. That best environment since the dawn of prehistory, coupled with a Mt. Everest of studies and hard data is a home where both blood parents are in it. Failing that the state finds a close second is two adult people of opposite genders that prepare the child emotionally and psychologically best to find his or her own place in the world and to learn to interact with BOTH genders and appreciate BOTH genders on a daily basis for their unique place in the world and input.. they see this also reflected in themselves.

Now then...

3. Gay marriage guarantees that one of the two blood parents of any children in it will be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time. Likewise missing the complimentary gender vital for balanced formation and self esteem 100% of the time. How this can go haywire for a child is best illustrated in the OP here: with poor little Thomas Lobel of Mental-Illness-Institutionalizedville (California) Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

4. So like single parenthood, gay marriage promises children no other situation but missing one of their blood parents. Worse, it also guarantees a vital role model for the proper balanced mental formation of a child....missing 100% of the time. So as far as the state is concerned, gay marriage is as valuable to a child's rounded formation as single parenthood. And the case of Thomas Lobel is a compelling argument that it is far far worse even than that.

5. So, until gays can convince child protective specialists, the state welfare agencies, juries and judges and most importantly the registered voters of a state that children will fare just as well missing one of their blood parents and the complimentary gender 100% of time in these new and untried "child rearing experiments", we ought not advance children into them with incentives as lab rats. Children are not lab rats for society to **** up a couple of generations and then later say "oh, you know all that evidence we had back then that this probably wasn't a good idea....we should've erred on the side of the children..."

6. As for divorce, no state wants divorce where both blood parents are in the home. That's why custody arrangments after divorce are almost like the parents are together. The parents are cautioned to not speak ill of each other as the child visits and if they do the courts penalize them. So they effectively are quasi married until the children reach adulthood. They just live in separate homes. This doesn't conflict wiht the state's position as incentivizers of marriage for children's sake. Divorce is the lesser of two evils. The second being children forced to be in a home where their parents are bitterly battling and have grown too distantly apart. So, reluctantly and with stringent conditions enforced to continue to insure the welfare of the kids...and access ongoing to both blood parents, the state grants divorce for their best wellbeing.

7. As for adoption, two people of the opposite gender do not interfere with the best arrangement for kids in the home. So they are allowed. And if children come into their home from adoption, there still is the arrangement of complimentary genders for the child's best mental formation as s/he grows up. So there is no conflict.

Couples don't have to prove they are fertile to qualify, only that they are structured as a fertile couple. This is the blood parent thing and there's no escaping that two gay people will never pan out as either two blood parents to the child or the vital complimentary genders for the children's self esteem.

 

[Dana7360]

Adoption wouldn't be illegal idiot.

How do you know that?

You're saying gay people shouldn't be able to get married because one or both aren't biological parents of children.

If you want that to actually be the law then in order for it not to violate the constitution every person who isn't a biological parent of a child can't get married.

Divorced people have step children that they have no biological ties to. Infertile couples who adopt children have no biological ties to that child. Couples who aren't infertile and adopt have no biological ties to that adopted child.

For you to have your way the 14th amendment has to be repealed. Which that's not going to happen.

You have no clue what our constitution says and what America is all about. America and our constitution doesn't allow for one group to be discriminated. What applies to one group under the law applies to everyone.

Read the constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

So according to you if a person isn't a child's biological parent then the couple can't get married...Do you realize how ridiculous you are? You're telling all people who have been divorced and have kids that they can never get married again. You're also telling infertile people that they can never get married or adopt children to have a family..

Nope, listen carefully:

1. A state's interest in marriage is solely for the benefit of children that will likely come to them.
.

And clearly that is false.

Which is why states permit marriage for first cousins, but only if they prove that they cannot have children.

And why the Supreme Court has said that inmates can get married even if they are unlikely to ever have children.

Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

 

[Syriusly]

Couples don't have to prove they are fertile to qualify, only that they are structured as a fertile couple. This is the blood parent thing .

LOL....just another way of saying 'gay couples can't get married because they are gay".....

The 'blood parent' thing clearly doesn't matter to you when it comes to straight parents.

 

[Silhouette]

Adoption wouldn't be illegal idiot.

Divorced people have step children that they have no biological ties to. Infertile couples who adopt children have no biological ties to that child. Couples who aren't infertile and adopt have no biological ties to that adopted child.

Yes, the constitution. Every state has a right to set it's own laws. I've read it. Have you? And each state has a right to protect the wellbeing of children. Any questions and you can just visit the case of LGBT approved child abuse known as "Thomas Lobel"..

All the scenarios you mentioned are still attempts to pair male/female where offspring or adopted children are overwhelmingly likely to occur. In each scenario the male/female father/mother construct isn't violated. Not only do children do best with both blood parents, they also do best with the complimentary genders for best formation of their personality and social skills. Adoptive heteros fit that bill. Gays cannot and never will.

The state's concern with marriage is singularly and only for the benefit of children in them. It is an incentive program, not a right. And its that way for the kids. Even in divorce the state sort of forces the two original parents to keep acting as "father and mother" to the child. It is an unfortunate lesser evil to the damage that can be done in a home where two adults flatly hate each other. A child cannot thrive there. And yes, it's sad. But it all fits with the "what's best for the children" structure of marriage/quasi marriage (amicable divorce for the kids sake).

Can you think of another state interest that forces two people who cannot stand each other to have to interact weekly? That happens for the kids and the adults just have to suck it up. Need any more proof that marriage is about kids?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Adoption wouldn't be illegal idiot.

Divorced people have step children that they have no biological ties to. Infertile couples who adopt children have no biological ties to that child. Couples who aren't infertile and adopt have no biological ties to that adopted child.

Yes, the constitution. Every state has a right to set it's own laws. I've read it. Have you? And each state has a right to protect the wellbeing of children. Any questions and you can just visit the case of LGBT approved child abuse known as "Thomas Lobel"..

All the scenarios you mentioned are still attempts to pair male/female where offspring or adopted children are overwhelmingly likely to occur. In each scenario the male/female father/mother construct isn't violated. Not only do children do best with both blood parents, they also do best with the complimentary genders for best formation of their personality and social skills. Adoptive heteros fit that bill. Gays cannot and never will.

The state's concern with marriage is singularly and only for the benefit of children in them. It is an incentive program, not a right. And its that way for the kids. Even in divorce the state sort of forces the two original parents to keep acting as "father and mother" to the child. It is an unfortunate lesser evil to the damage that can be done in a home where two adults flatly hate each other. A child cannot thrive there. And yes, it's sad. But it all fits with the "what's best for the children" structure of marriage/quasi marriage (amicable divorce for the kids sake).

Can you think of another state interest that forces two people who cannot stand each other to have to interact weekly? That happens for the kids and the adults just have to suck it up. Need any more proof that marriage is about kids?

Oh horseshit, in the case of divorce the State doesn't "force" parents to act as "mother and father" - the State mandates joint custody and visitation as part of the divorce process because the parents "WANT" to be involved in the raising of their child and in most cases where there is a contested divorce the child is actually used as a weapon by one parent against the other.

What the State does "force" is for the non-custodial parent (whether they have visitation or not) to do is stroke a check for child support. Stroking a check does not equate to being an active parent.



[DISCLAIMER: Not saying there aren't divorced parents out there that have put their differences aside and work together in the best interest of the child. There absolutely are. But that is something they as the parents worked out it wasn't something the State "forced" them to do, it was something they chose to do. The State does not "force" visitation on an unwilling divorcee.]



>>>>

 

[Inevitable]

Adoption wouldn't be illegal idiot.

It isn't, not even if you are gay. It never has been.

 

[Inevitable]

Couples don't have to prove they are fertile to qualify, only that they are structured as a fertile couple. This is the blood parent thing .

LOL....just another way of saying 'gay couples can't get married because they are gay".....

The 'blood parent' thing clearly doesn't matter to you when it comes to straight parents.

Yeah it's called being a hypocrite. No wonder the courts have already ruled on this and it's a dead issue that Sil just can't let go of.

 

[Silhouette]

Oh horseshit, in the case of divorce the State doesn't "force" parents to act as "mother and father" - the State mandates joint custody and visitation as part of the divorce process because the parents "WANT" to be involved in the raising of their child and in most cases where there is a contested divorce the child is actually used as a weapon by one parent against the other.

What the State does "force" is for the non-custodial parent (whether they have visitation or not) to do is stroke a check for child support. Stroking a check does not equate to being an active parent.

My bad. You're right. The state incentivizes the parents to essentially "remain a team" if both of them want rights to visit the child. In my state, if a parent engages in disparaging remarks against the other or refuses to cooperate raising the child financially, emotionally and physically, they lose custody rights and are limited only to visitation. And if they screw that up, that can be taken away too.

So yes, the marriage is "strongly encouraged" by the state to remain quasi-intact for the sake of the kids until they are 18 or of age of the state in question.

 

[Silhouette]

People aren't actually fully divorced from each other in other words until the last kid in the house is of age.