In Elegant Ruling, Carter Appointed Federal Judge Upholds Traditional Marriage

[Pop23]

Flakey Jakey Gays could always marry. No lie, reality One simply had to be male, the other female. Link one place where I've said same genders could. Oh Snap, you can't. Your delusions are even blinding yourself. LMAO. Poor you, so sad

translating Pop: I always denied that gays could not marry each other, until I finally admitted that, yes, they could not marry each other. Know I have admitted it, I still don't want to own that I lied.

Link the post moron

 

[Skylar]

Read my last post Doofus. Unless you consider that a child's mental state isn't sufficiently compelling to consider with regards to marriage.

The problems with your reasoning being layered and overlapping. First, children aren't a prerequisite for any marriage. Nor is the ability to have them. Rendering children as your standard for denial of a right an invalid justification.

Second, you've established no harm....to anyone. You've simply alleged the harm. And a baseless claim of harm backed by nothing but your ability to type it isn't a valid justification to deny rights.

Even your 'Pride Parade' argument is a self contradictory mess. As most of the people that attend the parade are straight. Which means that if your argument is applied consistently, straights shouldn't be allowed to marry because they damage a child's mental state.

From beginning to end, your argument doesn't make the slightest sense.

 

[Pop23]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

 

[Syriusly]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

Kansas same-sex couples denied marriage licenses KSN-TV

WICHITA, Kansas – The Sedgwick County Courthouse is turning away same-sex couples seeking to get a marriage license in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clears the way for such unions.

SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home
The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

Read more: SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home

Clearly they have been.

 

[Skylar]

But the privelege, duty and right to define marriage at the state level was just decided in Windsor 2013 as a state's "unquestioned authority". The exception they pointed out was if Loving applied. IF. Not THAT it already did. Loving made zero anticipation of a person's sexual behaviors "as race" when it was decided. Since sexual behaviors AREN'T a race...and so far they aren't a religion, the only reason opponents point to the 14th in these discussions is to say, as you just did, "where in the Constitution does it say two people of the same gender wanting to marry enjoy the right to defy the definition of the mechanics of marriage [not the constitution as to race] but the actual machinery "man/woman ...father/mother..resulting children with male/female parents" agains the majority Will of their state.

Wow. Its like the gift basket of pseudo-legal fallacies.

Windsor says that if State law and federal law conflict in the defining marriage, that State law wins. It says nothing to the constitutionality of the State law. As Loving so elegantly demonstrates, if the State law unconstitutionally discriminates the courts can step in an overrule the law. You're confusing the State
supremacy in a State v Federal statutory contest in defining marriage with the State laws being above judicial review. Windsor never says this. And Loving explicitly contradicts it. Debunking your entire narrative.

Second, you keep assuming that gays must be a 'race' or a 'religion' in order to have their rights protected. That too is simple nonsense. In Romer V. Evans the courts explicitlly ruled that gays can be protected from discriminatory laws that target them. Laying out some pretty high standards for the validity of State law: 1) That the law not violate rights 2) that the law not target a specific group 3) that the law serve a compelling state interest.

Gay marriage bans fail all three.

And the reason folks cite the 14th amendment is that it specifically prevents the States from violating the rights of Federal Citizens. Which every gay (and straight) person in the country is.

One of the main and most important reasons that is, is that a state enjoys the dominant right to incentivize marriage to provide BOTH a mother AND a father to children.

Yet no one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to be able to exercise their right to marry. No one. Why then would gays and lesbians be denied the right to marry because they fail to meet a requirement that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

It makes no sense. And doesn't hold up to an even casual review of equal protection requirements under the 14th amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

We've done this dance. They've been denied the right to marry the person they wish. And they've been denied for no particular reason, and in the service of no state interest. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their rights, you're going to need a very good reason. The State's don't have one.

Which might explain why 50 federal court rulings have struck down such denials for no particular reason.

 

[The Rabbi]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

Kansas same-sex couples denied marriage licenses KSN-TV

WICHITA, Kansas – The Sedgwick County Courthouse is turning away same-sex couples seeking to get a marriage license in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clears the way for such unions.

SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home
The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

Read more: SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home

Clearly they have been.

Clearly they have not been.
You cannot distinguish between a right to marry and a marriage license. Those arent remotely the same.

 

[TemplarKormac]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

Kansas same-sex couples denied marriage licenses KSN-TV

WICHITA, Kansas – The Sedgwick County Courthouse is turning away same-sex couples seeking to get a marriage license in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clears the way for such unions.

SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home
The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

Read more: SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home

Clearly they have been.

Clearly they have not been.
You cannot distinguish between a right to marry and a marriage license. Those arent remotely the same.

Perhaps they forget what a 'civil union' is?

 

[The Rabbi]

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

We've done this dance. They've been denied the right to marry the person they wish. And they've been denied for no particular reason, and in the service of no state interest. If you're going to deny gays and lesbians their rights, you're going to need a very good reason. The State's don't have one.

Which might explain why 50 federal court rulings have struck down such denials for no particular reason.

Theyve been denied the right to marry someone of the same sex. Just like a heterosexual would also be denied. Just like a married man would also be denied. They were denied for a very good reason: the laws of the state forbade it. Those laws were implemented by the state legislatures acting for the people. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. Homosexual marriages will not.

 

[Syriusly]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

Kansas same-sex couples denied marriage licenses KSN-TV

WICHITA, Kansas – The Sedgwick County Courthouse is turning away same-sex couples seeking to get a marriage license in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clears the way for such unions.

SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home
The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

Read more: SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home

Clearly they have been.

Clearly they have not been.
You cannot distinguish between a right to marry and a marriage license. Those arent remotely the same.

Yet we have two couples who were denied legal marriage- which requires a marriage license.

I can provide more examples of couples who were denied their right to marry if you would like- by officials who refused to issue them marriage licenses.

 

[Skylar]

I'd say that's an assited negative view of the boy's gender and males in general in his mind, I'm sure.

And I'd say you don't know what you're talking about. You've never met any of these people, have never talked to them, have no idea what motivates them. And you have no training in psychology, being a farm hand. Rendering your analysis little more than uninformed opinion. Which isn't a valid basis to deny anyone any right.

Of course all of this is common sense. We know marriage is about children. We know the male/female components natural within marriage prepare the child for interaction with both genders as s/he becomes a fledged member of society.

We 'know' no such thing. People get married all the time and never have children. People get married all the time and *can't* have children. And their marriages are completely valid. Having children or possessing the ability to have them isn't required of anyone.

Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry for their failure to meet a requirement that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no reason. Which is why every federal appellant court to hear such arguments have rejected them and overturned such gay marriage bans.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Flakey Jakey Gays could always marry. No lie, reality One simply had to be male, the other female. Link one place where I've said same genders could. Oh Snap, you can't. Your delusions are even blinding yourself. LMAO. Poor you, so sad

translating Pop: I always denied that gays could not marry each other, until I finally admitted that, yes, they could not marry each other. Know I have admitted it, I still don't want to own that I lied.

Link the post moron

You have always written that gays could get married without any qualification.

So, nope, you don't get "just once more."

 

[Syriusly]

[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

 

[JakeStarkey]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

You just did it, implying they could marry the one they want.

You are an idiot.

 

[The Rabbi]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

Kansas same-sex couples denied marriage licenses KSN-TV

WICHITA, Kansas – The Sedgwick County Courthouse is turning away same-sex couples seeking to get a marriage license in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clears the way for such unions.

SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home
The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

Read more: SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home

Clearly they have been.

Clearly they have not been.
You cannot distinguish between a right to marry and a marriage license. Those arent remotely the same.

Yet we have two couples who were denied legal marriage- which requires a marriage license.

I can provide more examples of couples who were denied their right to marry if you would like- by officials who refused to issue them marriage licenses.

They were denied no such thing. They were denied a marriage license issued by the state. They can go to any preacher, rabbi, shaman, wiccan priestess they like and get any kind of certificate they like and can live in any manner they like and no one can say a thing.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[quote

Sorry, this applies on both ends. One of his key assertions was that the Constitution does not define marriage. Even as the 14th Amendment grants equal protection under the law, it doesn't define marriage. So, how can people ask for equality under a premise that doesn't exist in the Constitution? The law itself does not define marriage.

The law itself does discriminate against gays and lesbians, denying them a fundamental right. If the State is going to deny rights, it needs a good reason. And in the case of gay marriage it doesn't have one. It has no rational reason, nor does the denial serve any compelling state interest. It discriminates....because it can. That's insufficient to deny a right.

The Loving decision demonstrates, undeniably, that the federal government has the authority to rule on state marriage laws that are unconstitutionally discriminatory. Your entire premise, that the federal government needs to be able to define marriage into order to rule, is false. The courts need only have the authority to protect fundamental rights to rule. The burden is on the State to provide a valid justification for the denial of those rights.

And no such justification exists.

Bull, gays have never been denied the right to marry

Kansas same-sex couples denied marriage licenses KSN-TV

WICHITA, Kansas – The Sedgwick County Courthouse is turning away same-sex couples seeking to get a marriage license in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that clears the way for such unions.

SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home
The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered state probate courts not to issue same-sex marriage licenses until a federal judge decides whether the state constitution's ban on the unions is legal.

Read more: SC Supreme Court halts same-sex marriage licenses Local News - WYFF Home

Clearly they have been.

Clearly they have not been.
You cannot distinguish between a right to marry and a marriage license. Those arent remotely the same.

Tell the involved states that, please, because their officers seem to think they are related.

 

[The Rabbi]

[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[. The state has an interest in stable marriages that produce future citizens. Heterosexual marriages tend to produce that. t.

Wisconsin law actually requires that some couples prove that they cannot produce any children together before they will allow them to legally marry.

Where is the state interest there in a 'stable marriage that produces future citizens'?

Bullshit. There is no such law in Wisconsin.
And one aberration isn't an argument. Take it up with legislators in Wisconsin.

In other words, you have no idea what the law is in WI.

Neither do I. Link, please.

 

[Skylar]

They've been denied the right to marry someone of the same sex.

And the restriction is arbitrary, serving no state interest and having no rational reason. Saying that a gay couple have always had the right to marry because they can still wed someone else within the bounds of unconstitutional restrictions would be like saying that Richard and Mildred Loving always had the right to marry because they could have wed someone else within the bounds of the unconstitutional restrictions applied by the State of Virginia.

Its the restriction that needs to meet constitutional muster. Not the couple. And the State's restriction on same sex marriages fails that test. As it denies rights, it serves no compelling state interest, and it targets a specific group. Failing each of the standards reaffirmed in Romer V. Evans for a State law to be valid.

And likely why gay marriage bans have enjoyed a near perfect record of failure in federal courts.

 

[Syriusly]

. One of the main and most important reasons that is, is that a state enjoys the dominant right to incentivize marriage to provide BOTH a mother AND a father to children. This is in its best interest because statistically children do best with BOTH their mother AND their father raising them. .

Yes- States have tried to make this argument.

But it doesn't pass the sniff test.

The State doesn't require biological parents to marry.
The State doesn't forbid divorce between parents
- so the State is making no effort to ensure that children stay with biological parents.

And as I keep pointing out- because it was raised in the Wisconsin case- Wisconsin state law actually requires some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they can be legally married.

IF marriage was about 'incentivizing' marriage to produce homes for biological children- when why would Wisconsin have a specific provision in its marriage could that ensured that there would be no children in the marriage?