Judge declines to marry same sex on religious grounds

[Skylar]

The premise that won Caperton 2009 was that no judge should show a modicum of bias, whatever the reason. Ginsburg & Kagan both affirmed that that was so.

The premise that won Caperton was the extraordinary circumstances of the case. None of which apply here.

There will be no impeachment. There will be all new snivelling excuses for why you are perfectly wrong in your legal predictions.

 

[Silhouette]

The premise that won Caperton 2009 was that no judge should show a modicum of bias, whatever the reason. Ginsburg & Kagan both affirmed that that was so.

The premise that won Caperton was the extraordinary circumstances of the case. None of which apply here.

There will be no impeachment. There will be all new snivelling excuses for why you are perfectly wrong in your legal predictions.

No, here's the actual transcripted arguments of the premise "thou shalt not ever show bias" from Caperton v Massey Coal 2009:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.

***********

Ginsburg and Kagan stumping as activists for gay marriage nationwide, and performing gay marriages in their spare time while the question was pending "should the states be able to deny gays marrying" yet to be Heard, REQUIRED MANDATORY RECUSAL clearly, and inarguably according to Ginsburg and Kagan's own Standard they themselves voted "aye" on in the 2009 Caperton v Massey Coal premise/conclusion.

Only a practicing fascist would deem that the standard only applies to others and not to them. Therefore, since they did not recuse themselves or their votes, they are practicing fascists by clear and convincing evidence. And as such, they must not be anymore Supreme Court Justices. They are no longer fit for the job as of the date of this Hearing last Spring when they strode arrogantly and premeditatively into that "unbiased tribunal"..

If I was Congress I'd say to Ginsburg or Kagan "either you withdraw your votes from the gay marriage case, or agree to retrying it in your absence, or you may step down from the bench voluntarily. If you fail to do so, we will have a public impeachment proceeding and remove you from the bench".

 

[Silhouette]

Basically this judge could decline to marry gays not just from religious grounds, but from extremely sound legal grounds. The Opinion issued June 26, 2015, according to the standard set in 2009 Caperton v Massey Coal isn't worth the paper it's written on. As it stands with two votes omitted from the decision, the actual decision went the other direction. 4-3 in favor of returning the question of gay marriage to the states where it has always been.

 

[Skylar]

The premise that won Caperton 2009 was that no judge should show a modicum of bias, whatever the reason. Ginsburg & Kagan both affirmed that that was so.

The premise that won Caperton was the extraordinary circumstances of the case. None of which apply here.

There will be no impeachment. There will be all new snivelling excuses for why you are perfectly wrong in your legal predictions.

No, here's the actual transcripted arguments of the premise "thou shalt not ever show bias" from Caperton v Massey Coal 2009:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.

***********

Ginsburg and Kagan stumping as activists for gay marriage nationwide, and performing gay marriages in their spare time while the question was pending "should the states be able to deny gays marrying" yet to be Heard, REQUIRED MANDATORY RECUSAL clearly, and inarguably according to Ginsburg and Kagan's own Standard they themselves voted "aye" on in the 2009 Caperton v Massey Coal premise/conclusion.

That's not the ruling. This is:

The basis for the motion was that the justice had received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, the board chairman and principal officer of the corporation found liable for the damages...

...Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal. Massey and its amici predict that various adverse consequences will follow from recognizing a constitutional violation here—Opinion of the Court ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections. We disagree. The facts now before us are extreme by any measure.

The issue was the extraordinary contributions in the case to the elected judge which created extreme circumstances of that particular case.

There were no contributions in this case. There were no elected judges. There was no benefit received from either Kagan nor Ginsberg from any litigant. Nor did they receive any benefit from performing marriages in Maryland or D.C.. Nor were Maryland or DC party to the case they were ruling on.

Rendering your entire argument moot.

Worse for you, Maryland and DC had already voted in same sex marriage. Which the Windsor ruling had already affirmed they had the authority to do. Making Kagan's and Ginsberg's actions consistent with existing precedent.

Meaning that the only 'bias' they showed was to precedent and the law. Which is exactly what they are supposed to do, and the entire basis of stare decisis.

 

[Skylar]

Basically this judge could decline to marry gays not just from religious grounds, but from extremely sound legal grounds.

Nope. As marrying someone isn't a legal preceding. Its not adjudication. There are no litigants. There is no conflict. Making the rendering of a bias a physical impossibility.

And the application of any caselaw involving bias a comic misunderstanding of the law .

Basically, you don't know what you're talking about. Your predictions of legal outcomes have been perfectly incorrect. And your pseudo-legal gibberish has nothing to do with any legal principle we're discussing.

Instead, the Judge as a representative of the state tried to deny services to people who had a right to it by imposing his specific religious beliefs upon them. That's the state establishment of religion. And a violation of the 1st amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

That's not the ruling. This is:

The basis for the motion was that the justice had received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, the board chairman and principal officer of the corporation found liable for the damages...

...Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal. Massey and its amici predict that various adverse consequences will follow from recognizing a constitutional violation here—Opinion of the Court ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections. We disagree. The facts now before us are extreme by any measure.

Here's the definition of "extraordinary situation that Constitutionally-requires recusal":

**********

The (supported) premise "thou shalt not ever show clear/probable bias" from Caperton v Massey Coal 2009:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "
Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.
***********
Ginsburg and Kagan stumping as activists for gay marriage nationwide, and performing gay marriages in their spare time while the question was pending "should the states be able to deny gays marrying" yet to be Heard, REQUIRED MANDATORY RECUSAL clearly, and inarguably according to Ginsburg and Kagan's own Standard they themselves voted "aye" on in the 2009 Caperton v Massey Coal premise/conclusion.

In so stumping and being activists and performing gay marriages while the question was pending (a thing they absolutely must not have done according to the requirements of their office and position...but did anyway), they showed clear and undeniable evidence to the world that their minds were already made up before they entered the Courtroom last Spring. And so doing, they met the "extraordinary Constitutionally-requirement to recuse themselves". There could be no person on earth viewing either of these Justices doing what they did and saying what they said publicly prior to the Hearing that would have even a subatomic particle of doubt that Kagan and Ginsburg already were going to vote against states being able to say "no" to gay marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Here's the definition of "extraordinary situation that Constitutionally-requires recusal":

**********

The (supported) premise "thou shalt not ever show clear/probable bias" from Caperton v Massey Coal 2009:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf
(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "
Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again.
***********
Ginsburg and Kagan stumping as activists for gay marriage nationwide, and performing gay marriages in their spare time while the question was pending "should the states be able to deny gays marrying" yet to be Heard, REQUIRED MANDATORY RECUSAL clearly, and inarguably according to Ginsburg and Kagan's own Standard they themselves voted "aye" on in the 2009 Caperton v Massey Coal premise/conclusion.

In so stumping and being activists and performing gay marriages while the question was pending (a thing they absolutely must not have done according to the requirements of their office and position...but did anyway), they showed clear and undeniable evidence to the world that their minds were already made up before they entered the Courtroom last Spring. And so doing, they met the "extraordinary Constitutionally-requirement to recuse themselves". There could be no person on earth viewing either of these Justices doing what they did and saying what they said publicly prior to the Hearing that would have even a subatomic particle of doubt that Kagan and Ginsburg already were going to vote against states being able to say "no" to gay marriage.

Again, that's not the Caperton ruling. This is the Caperton ruling, and its based on the extreme circumstances of the case, specifically the extraordinary contributions to the judge by one of the litigants.

The basis for the motion was that the justice had received campaign contributions in an extraordinary amount from, and through the efforts of, the board chairman and principal officer of the corporation found liable for the damages...

...Our decision today addresses an extraordinary situation where the Constitution requires recusal. Massey and its amici predict that various adverse consequences will follow from recognizing a constitutional violation here—Opinion of the Court ranging from a flood of recusal motions to unnecessary interference with judicial elections. We disagree. The facts now before us are extreme by any measure.

None of which applies in Obergefell. You ignore the ruling because it doesn't match what you want to believe.

Worse, the only 'bias' that Kagan and Ginsberg demonstrated was to precedent. As both Maryland and DC had already voted in same sex marriage.

And a judge is supposed to be biased toward precedent. Its the entire basis of stare decisis.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Ok, B then

Your explanation of choosing 'B' is the letter B?

Okay you chose B- which means you are opposed to brother sister marriages even if they are both sterile.

So procreation is no longer part of your argument against sibling marriage.

Why do you oppose sibling marriage?

Lol, idiot.

Siblings could not Marry, soon they will. Not good

Says you. Yet same sex marriage has been legal somewhere in this country for the last 10 years. Yet sibling marriage still isn't.

How do you explain this stark disconnect between what you insist must happen.....and the complete and utter lack of anything you predicted actually happening?

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

For one thing, they would have to have support. A lot of people actually DO support SSM, a lot of straight people too, like myself and others who are posting here. This same level of support doesn't exist for polygamous and incestuous relationships.

Why don't you just admit that you have created this strawman to be opposed to SSM without admitting that you don't like the gays?

What does popular support matter when courts write our laws and we have no say in the laws under which we're governed. NAMBLA Democrats couldn't be happier that they no longer need massive public support. They can abuse the 14th Amendment too. The 14th Amendment is now like a genie granting wishes to any group. Democracy is now obsolete.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You realize that this issue could be pushed well before any application for marriage would be submitted, right.

I could see a simple facebook post where two sisters post an engagement announcement would start the ball rolling. Talk radio would be dominated by it.

In the announcement they make statements like:

Our marriage is being sought strictly for Tax and Insurance benefits currently afforded to married couples.

We find homosexual sex acts repulsive and since there is no sex requirements in marriage, we feel we qualify.

One of us have a child so it would provide a more stabile environment for the child with the same dignity of other children without the stigma of being a single parent child.

A kegger will be held at OUR home following the signing of our documents hosted by our boyfriends.

Go ahead Skylar, make your legal argument to deny this couple their constitutionally protected right.

You want to make a bet that if this add would appear, the states would start scrambling?

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

 

[Skylar]

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

You and people like you are why gays won this debate. As folks are getting to know gays and lesbians. On one hand they see them going about their daily lives, raising their families, going to movies, changing diapers, watching Frozen with their kids for the billionth time, attending PTA meetings, getting in traffic jams, attending funerals, paying taxes, working at their jobs.

On the other there are religious head jobs screaming shrilly 'gays are trying to suck innocent children into their selfish little world!'

Your narrative doesn't match the experience of folks. So you lose credibility, your faith loses credibility, and gays gain support.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

No, THIS is extreme STUPIDITY!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Gay people have had children in their care and have been adopting them for decades. It is not an issue.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

No, THIS is extreme STUPIDITY!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Gay people have had children in their care and have been adopting them for decades. It is not an issue.

Unless you're that kid that has been deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. You don't have to convince me that gay couples have been selfish for decades, considering only what they want, not what a child needs. I already know that.

 

[Skylar]

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

No, THIS is extreme STUPIDITY!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Gay people have had children in their care and have been adopting them for decades. It is not an issue.

Unless you're that kid that has been deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. You don't have to convince me that gay couples have been selfish for decades, considering only what they want, not what a child needs. I already know that.

You don't actually 'know' anything you've just said. Children of gay parents are fine. With some studies indicating that they do a better job that straight parents.

Gays have certain advantages. First, there are no accidental pregnancies. Every time a gay couple becomes parents, its quite intentional. They have better chance to prepare a home, to make sure that they have the proper emotional and financial resources.

Straight parents have kids by accident all the time. There are teen parents, single parenthood, emotionally and financially unprepared parents. Parents who don't want to be parents. All of which can hamper a child's development.

 

[ChrisL]

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

No, THIS is extreme STUPIDITY!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Gay people have had children in their care and have been adopting them for decades. It is not an issue.

Some people think that the kids will "turn" gay. I think attraction is inherent and that you cannot be "turned" into that which you are not. Of course, some people will bring in extreme circumstances, such as men in jail.

 

[ChrisL]

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

No, THIS is extreme STUPIDITY!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Gay people have had children in their care and have been adopting them for decades. It is not an issue.

Unless you're that kid that has been deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. You don't have to convince me that gay couples have been selfish for decades, considering only what they want, not what a child needs. I already know that.

You don't actually 'know' anything you've just said. Children of gay parents are fine. With some studies indicating that they do a better job that straight parents.

Gays have certain advantages. First, there are no accidental pregnancies. Every time a gay couple becomes parents, its quite intentional. They have better chance to prepare a home, to make sure that they have the proper emotional and financial resources.

Straight parents have kids by accident all the time. There are teen parents, single parenthood, emotionally and financially unprepared parents. Parents who don't want to be parents. All of which can hamper a child's development.

Agree. There are plenty of neglectful and abusive parents out there who are heterosexuals. What a person's sexual activity has to do with their parenting skills, I don't know.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

No, THIS is extreme STUPIDITY!! You have no idea what you are talking about. Gay people have had children in their care and have been adopting them for decades. It is not an issue.

Unless you're that kid that has been deliberately deprived of a mother or a father. You don't have to convince me that gay couples have been selfish for decades, considering only what they want, not what a child needs. I already know that.

Where are you getting this crap from? Someone is feeding you a load of horseshit and you're swallowing it whole. The children that gay people are caring for were already deprived of a mother or a father or both for reasons having nothing to do with gay relationships or marriage. How the hell are gays being selfish? They are providing a family for kids and now, thanks to legalized marriage those children can have two legal parents. I guess you can't fix stupid so I'm not even going to try.

 

[UllysesS.Archer]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

Jude 1:7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and pursued homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Genesis 19:4Before they could lie down, all the men of Sodom and its outskirts, both young and old, surrounded the house. 5They called out to Lot and asked, “Where are the men who came to visit you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex wit them!”

Genesis 19:23The sun had risen over the land about the time Lot reached Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained sulfur and fire out of the sky from the LORD on Sodom and Gomorrah, 25overthrowing those cities, all of the plain, and everyone who lived in the cities. He also destroyed the plants that grew out of the ground. 26But Lot’s wife looked back as she lingered behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.


Do you really believe that punishment for this country wont be forthcoming?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Judges are public employees.

What next? They don't like Jews so they refuse to marry a Jew on religious grounds?
Or maybe their Bible tells them they can't be marrying blacks and whites.
Or...maybe they should suck it up, do their job like any of the rest of us who serve the public have to and be thankful others can now enjoy the same benefits of marriage that he can.

Funny thing about "religious" grounds - there isn't a damn thing in the scriptures about same-sex marriage.

Jude 1:7 Likewise, Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them, which like them committed sexual sins and pursued homosexual activities, serve as an example of the punishment of eternal fire.

1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

Leviticus 20:13 "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Genesis 19:4Before they could lie down, all the men of Sodom and its outskirts, both young and old, surrounded the house. 5They called out to Lot and asked, “Where are the men who came to visit you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex wit them!”

Genesis 19:23The sun had risen over the land about the time Lot reached Zoar. 24Then the LORD rained sulfur and fire out of the sky from the LORD on Sodom and Gomorrah, 25overthrowing those cities, all of the plain, and everyone who lived in the cities. He also destroyed the plants that grew out of the ground. 26But Lot’s wife looked back as she lingered behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.


Do you really believe that punishment for this country wont be forthcoming?

Oh please, this is the law of the land. The punishment will be for those who disobey it

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

No. 14–556. Argued April 28, 2015—Decided June 26, 2015*



Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriagebetween two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28.



(1) The fundamental liberties protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause extend to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. See, e.g., Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438, 453; Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479, 484–486. Pg.2

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh Christ! This is really stupid. If this were to happen the state would simply say "no" State law (still) prohibits siblings -same or opposite sex - from marrying. The siblings could then brink it to court the same way that gay couples did. The state would than have to present-at minimum- a rational basis for maintaining that law, and they probably could ( Unlike with gay marriage) Got it?

What would that minimum rational basis be?

Try

I really don't know and don't intend to get into that. It's just a red herring,. I described the process, that's all. The point is that siblings would not and do not have the right to marry,

It was your claim.

Another thing that you keep ignoring is that polygamous and incestuous marriages (especially incestuous) are highly correlated with some form of child abuse! That is not the case with two gay people getting married.

And, let's say they did legalize such unions? How does that effect you?

Incorrect. Gays don't stop at marriage, they want the whole package including sucking innocent children into their selfish little world. This is extreme child abuse.

Yeah sort of like you sucking children into your circle of bile filled hate.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

This is a good example of why individuals and businesses can't be allowed to discriminate. It spreads like a plague. You can argue that a couple can go to another baker or florist -although they shouldn't have to- but where to they go for a news paper announcement. This is just horseshit.

Local Newspaper Bans Gay Wedding Announcements, Tells Employees To Not Voice Any Opinion – Or Quit

Journal Inc. CEO Clay Foster, who owns the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal and various other publications, decided to ban same-sex wedding announcements because he believes that it’s his newspaper’s duty to follow the word of the Bible.

"On those occasions when government leaders make decisions that are contrary to God's Word and expect us to do things contrary to God's will, we must obey and honor God instead as Peter and the apostles did in Acts 5:29," Foster wrote in a column recently: Read more: Local Newspaper Bans Gay Wedding Announcements Tells Employees To Not Voice Any Opinion Or Quit - The New Civil Rights Movement