Laymen's Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage

[Skylar]

That's a weird display Joe. Because nobody is about TOTALLY CRUSHING HOMOSEXUALS. They just want them to not make depriving kids of both a mother and a father a federally-mandated closed-discussion.

You may want to read Keye's posts again. He's insisting that gays will be killed en mass if they don't 'sit down and shut the **** up'. Even calling for sodomy laws to be reinstituted.

That sounds quite 'crushing homosexuals' to me. As it would to any thinking person.

And you yourself have called gays a 'cult', desperately tried to portray them as pedophiles, and have ranted about 'treason' and 'coups' when the courts don't agree with you.

And of course, you still can't explain your reasoning. How would allowing gay marriage 'deprive kids of a mother and a father'? Remember, same sex marriage and same sex parenting aren't the same thing. You can get married and never have kids. You can have kids and never get married. The two have no intrinsic connection, nor does any marriage require children or the ability to have them.

Gays and lesbians have kids anyway. Before gay marriage came to California, there were already 40,000 children of same sex parents. Simply destroying your claim that same sex marriage 'deprives a kid of a mother and father'. Same sex marriage has nothing to do with you're railing against.

And all your proposals do is hurt children. While benefiting none of them.

I'm a bit confused. How is it that gays have children together?

The same way any infertile couple does. Adoption, artificial insemination, surrogacy, or blending families (children from previous marriages).

Yet the only time you question if these are the children of the parents that are raising them....is when their parents are gay. Double standard much?

 

[Syriusly]

Sutton is the only one who got it right..

Uh, no, he didn't.

Guy, you need to learn how to deal. We will have gay marriage and the only place you'll be able to express your homophobia is on boards like this one.

The real question is where will children express their angst over the institutionalized absence of either a mother or a father in their "married home"?

Maybe they will express their angst with the millions of children of heterosexuals being raised with the absence of either a mother or father.

You know- the vast majority of children being raised without a mother or father.

Oh wait- you don't care about those children- or the children injured by their parents being prevented from marrying- or any other children.

Children are just a tool you use to attack homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

No, nothing at all. I simply don't think people should be denied rights becuase they have the bad luck to live in a state populated by knuckle-dragging inbreds who believe in a cosmic Jewish Zombie. I'm for shoving htat federal mandate up their asses and then yanking their tax exempt status if they ***** about it and charge them with a hate crime.

This isn't about just winning, guy, It's about TOTALLY CRUSHING YOU.

Because, quite honestly, after you homophobes inflicted a second round of George W. Stupid on us, you totally need to be crushed.

That's a weird display Joe. Because nobody is about TOTALLY CRUSHING HOMOSEXUALS.

Almost every thread you participate in is you attacking homosexuals.

You just use different topics to attack them.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm a bit confused. How is it that gays have children together? I was under the impression that both males and females (fathers and mothers) are necessary for reproduction.. You're after institutionalizing the lack of either one of those parents?

Confused indeed.

Ask Justice Kennedy how homosexuals have children together- he understands how.

 

[SwimExpert]

Kennedy is certainly mindful of state rights in the Windsor decision. But he made himself remarkably clear that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States," Sosna v. Iowa,419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

All state laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. That does not imply that same sex marriage is itself a constitutional guarantee.

Worse for your interpretation, every mention made by Kennedy about state power to define marriage......were in the affirmative of same sex marriage. Kennedy affirmed and reaffirmed the state's authority to authorize same sex marriage. Kennedy never once spoke of the state's authority to ban it.

The case did not deal with any state ban of same sex marriage. The case dealt with the federal government's power (or lack thereof) to disrecognize a same sex marriage that was consistent with state law. The very affirmation of state power to allow same sex marriage implies that states also have the power to disallow it.

And I really don't think I'm misreprenting the Windsor decision. 43 of 46 federal courts intepreted the Windsor decision the same way I did.

No, they really haven't. The interpretation that you are making is that Windsor made it unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, which is nowhere near the case, and not what the various district and appellate courts have found. The various courts that have ruled against same sex marriage bans have presented a variety of different rationales. Windsor has been a factor in most, in varying degrees, and with divergent interpretations. Yours, however, is novel, and to honest is sheer butchery of the English language.

With Scalia in his dissent stating that the court's position on state same sex marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking'.

That position being the right for states ban same sex marriage. Oh, BTW, a dissenting opinion is not a binding precedent.

And that the application of the logic of the Windsor decision on state same sex marriage laws was 'inevitable'. And the application that Scalia described was in overturning such bans on the basis of individual rights.

When both those who agreed with Kennedy's ruling and those that opposed it come to the same conclusion on its meaning......its hard to argue that they're all wrong.

I'm really starting to wonder if you've actually read it, or if you merely skimmed the cherry picked cliffs notes on your favorite liberal blog. Scalia's dissent was a scathing condemnation of the majority opinion. He stated that the court was overriding the right of the people to govern themselves, that the appellant had no standing in the first place, and that the majority intentionally chose to ignore that to produce a propaganda laden opinion filled with insidious emotive language for the purpose of allowing that language to become a weapon to override the state's rightful power ban same sex marriage.

There's also Kennedy's actions *after* the Windsor ruling. With Kennedy's vote, the Court preserved every federal court ruling that overturned state gay marriage bans. Without exception. And the court refused stay by every state that tried to preserve those bans. Without exception.

So you're saying that it's okay to butcher the Windsor opinion because Kennedy is cool with same sex marriage? That's absolutely ridiculous.

I don't really know what the court will decide come June (that is, what they've already decided and will announce come June), because either way the court will have to break from stare decisis. The current applicable case law gives rise to two somewhat contradictory outcomes. On one hand, the court has explicitly affirmed the power of the states to decide the issue of same sex marriage. On the other hand that is at odds with the older decision in Loving and it's principle that marriage is a fundamental right. So the court will have to decide which lawyer made the more convincing argument. I don't see any way the court can carve out a middle road. The court will have to provide a clean break one way or the other.

But what I do know for sure, is that if the court finds same sex marriage bans unconstitutional it won't be for your convoluted reasoning.

 

[Skylar]

Kennedy is certainly mindful of state rights in the Windsor decision. But he made himself remarkably clear that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Subject to certain constitutional guarantees, see, e.g., Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, "regulation of domestic relations" is "an area that has long been regarded as a virtually exclusive province of the States," Sosna v. Iowa,419 U. S. 393, 404.

Windsor v. US

All state laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. That does not imply that same sex marriage is itself a constitutional guarantee.

When a case being cited is about the overturning of state marriage laws that violate those constitutional guarantees in a case about defending the constitutional guarantees related to marriage rights...

...that's exactly what it implies.

There's a reason that 43 of 46 federal courts AND Justice Scalia interpreted the Windsor ruling the same way I did; that the logic of the Windsor court applied to State marriage laws overturns those laws.

No, they really haven't. The interpretation that you are making is that Windsor made it unconstitutional to ban same sex marriage, which is nowhere near the case, and not what the various district and appellate courts have found.

That's not what I've argued. I've argued that the Windsor court reaffirmed that constitutional guarantees trump state marriage laws. And that a ruling on state gay marriage bans consistent with Windsor would follow the same pattern. 43 of 46 federal rulings on the matter have cited Windsor and concluded that applying its logic to state marriage laws would mandate they be overturned.

It would almost certainly be 44 of 46. But Perry v. Brown came out before Windsor did.

The various courts that have ruled against same sex marriage bans have presented a variety of different rationales. Windsor has been a factor in most, in varying degrees, and with divergent interpretations. Yours, however, is novel, and to honest is sheer butchery of the English language.

Its been a factor in virtually all cases that occurred after Windsor did. And why wouldn't it? Its immediately relevant binding precedent. Even the handful of cases in which the federal judiciary ruled against gay marriage (2 of 46 rulings) cited Windsor.

With Scalia in his dissent stating that the court's position on state same sex marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking'.

That position being the right for states ban same sex marriage.

That's not what Scalia found the Windsor court's position was. This is;

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia in dissent of Windsor v. U.S.
UNITED STATES v. WINDSOR US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Scalia read Windsor and found the same anti-state gay marriage ban view by the court that I did. The same position you insisted was a 'misrepresentation' of the Windsor ruling .Scalia clearly disagrees, as his argument and my own are nearly identical in terms of what position the Windsor court expressed regarding state gay marriage bans. 43 of 46 federal found the same thing.

I'd argue that my interpretation of the Windsor ruling very well represented it. The court didn't decide the constitutionality of state same sex marriage bans in the Windsor ruling. But its logic

Oh, BTW, a dissenting opinion is not a binding precedent.

I never said it was. So that strawman can be tossed aside. Instead, I said this:

When both those who agreed with Kennedy's ruling and those that opposed it come to the same conclusion on its meaning......its hard to argue that they're all wrong.

Post 229
Laymen s Closing Arguments on Gay Marriage Page 23 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Are they *all* misrepresenting the Windsor ruling? Because they came to essentially the same conclusions I have.

I'm really starting to wonder if you've actually read it, or if you merely skimmed the cherry picked cliffs notes on your favorite liberal blog. Scalia's dissent was a scathing condemnation of the majority opinion.

You're confusing yourself. I've never said that Scalia *agreed* with the court. I'm saying that Scalia recognized that the court had communicated its position on state same sex marriage bans by the logic it used in the Windsor decision.

Scalia agrees with me on what the Windsor ruling implied. And contradicts you.

Which is my point.

He stated that the court was overriding the right of the people to govern themselves, that the appellant had no standing in the first place, and that the majority intentionally chose to ignore that to produce a propaganda laden opinion filled with insidious emotive language for the purpose of allowing that language to become a weapon to override the state's rightful power ban same sex marriage.

You're making my point for me. This is exactly the position I've attributed to Scalia. He recognized that the Windsor decision implied what I argue it implies. Scalia and I have largely taken the same position on the court's position against state same sex marriage bans. And how the court will apply that logic of Windsor to overturn them.

Did Scalia 'misrepresent' the ruling too?

So you're saying that it's okay to butcher the Windsor opinion because Kennedy is cool with same sex marriage?

Huh? How can you paraphrase Scalia's dissent where he describes in detail what the Windsor ruling implies.......and then insist its 'butchering the ruling' by recognizing the exact same thing about what the ruling implies?

I don't understand the thought process that goes into that.....unless you think that Scalia is wrong about what the Windsor court was implying with their decision. Because he's making much the same argument I am as to what the Windsor decision communicated about the court's position on state same sex marriage bans.

And Kennedy's actions since the Windsor ruling have reaffirmed my argument AND the 43 of 46 federal rulings AND justice Scalia's interpretation of what the Windsor ruling implies. As Kennedy (along with at least 6 other justices) has perfectly preserved every lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage.

Every. Single. Ruling. Without exception.

Likewise, Kennedy (along with at least 6 other justices) have denied every stay request by a state trying to defend same sex marriage.

Every. Single. Stay. Without exception.

That's a pretty clear indication of where the court stands on the matter.

I don't really know what the court will decide come June (that is, what they've already decided and will announce come June), because either way the court will have to break from stare decisis. The current applicable case law gives rise to two somewhat contradictory outcomes. On one hand, the court has explicitly affirmed the power of the states to decide the issue of same sex marriage.

The courts have recognized the State's authority to affirm same sex marriage. They have yet to rule on the State's authority to ban same sex marriage. But as Scalia, 43 of 46 federal rulings and Kennedy's actions since have demonstrated.....the court's position on the matter was well communicated.

 

[JoeB131]

Boys, you are overthinking this.

Here's why gay marriage will be the law of the land come June.

Because Big Corporations have decided that it's good business to allow Gay marriage. It means they can keep their gay employees happy without having to make a big carve-out for employees who just want to live together to get benefits.

Any of you fools who thinks that we are making decisions anymore contrary to what big business wants are deluding yourselves.

 

[SwimExpert]

When a case being cited is about the overturning of state marriage laws that violate those constitutional guarantees in a case about defending the constitutional guarantees related to marriage rights...

...that's exactly what it implies.

You fail to understand the difference between limitations on federal power to ignore something a state has made legal vs the power of the state to decide if it will be legal. And that alone is sufficient to demonstrate the folly of your position.

 

[Silhouette]

Boys, you are overthinking this.

Here's why gay marriage will be the law of the land come June.

Because Big Corporations have decided that it's good business to allow Gay marriage. It means they can keep their gay employees happy without having to make a big carve-out for employees who just want to live together to get benefits.

Any of you fools who thinks that we are making decisions anymore contrary to what big business wants are deluding yourselves.

Did Big Corporations decide supporting "gay marriage" is "good business" based on the million likes to the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of their announcing they'd suspend Phil Robertson for publicly denouncing gay marriage? Or did they base their decision on the lines wrapping around the block in support at Chic-Fil-A when their CEO did the same thing? Perhaps they based their excellent business prospectus model off of the rapid influx of upper six figures in donations to Memories Pizza when they did the same thing?

The question is, are Big Corporations aware how the LGBT machines based out of Hollywood/San Francisco are manipulating data? Are they going to base their bottom line projections on the reflections from smoke and mirrors? Please remind me who these foolhardy and gullible corporations are so I can withdraw my stock hastily. I like what my eyes see, not what my ears hear... Here's your business model: (Seeing is believing)

 

[Syriusly]

The question is, are Big Corporations aware how the LGBT machine based out of Hollywood/San Francisco are manipulating data?

Sadly, I do think that is 'the question' that you obsess about.

Along with how you will attack homosexuals today.

 

[Silhouette]

Syriusly, you didn't put anything in your last post. Were you just trying to spam this off the last page? Something about it bother you?

Boys, you are overthinking this.

Here's why gay marriage will be the law of the land come June.

Because Big Corporations have decided that it's good business to allow Gay marriage. It means they can keep their gay employees happy without having to make a big carve-out for employees who just want to live together to get benefits.

Any of you fools who thinks that we are making decisions anymore contrary to what big business wants are deluding yourselves.

Did Big Corporations decide supporting "gay marriage" is "good business" based on the million likes to the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of their announcing they'd suspend Phil Robertson for publicly denouncing gay marriage? Or did they base their decision on the lines wrapping around the block in support at Chic-Fil-A when their CEO did the same thing? Perhaps they based their excellent business prospectus model off of the rapid influx of upper six figures in donations to Memories Pizza when they did the same thing?

The question is, are Big Corporations aware how the LGBT machines based out of Hollywood/San Francisco are manipulating data? Are they going to base their bottom line projections on the reflections from smoke and mirrors? Please remind me who these foolhardy and gullible corporations are so I can withdraw my stock hastily. I like what my eyes see, not what my ears hear... Here's your business model: (Seeing is believing)

 

[Silhouette]

Did you have something to say Syriusly?

 

[Silhouette]

Sadly, I do think that is 'the question' that you obsess about.

Along with how you will attack homosexuals today.

OK, here it is buried in the quotes ^

The person who brought up the business angle was JoeB. Not me. I merely responded to what he said and proved that he was dead wrong about "the inevitable business certainty of gay marriage"..

 

[Silhouette]

Suddenly Syriusly is quiet as a church mouse..

 

[JoeB131]

Did Big Corporations decide supporting "gay marriage" is "good business" based on the million likes to the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of their announcing they'd suspend Phil Robertson for publicly denouncing gay marriage? Or did they base their decision on the lines wrapping around the block in support at Chic-Fil-A when their CEO did the same thing? Perhaps they based their excellent business prospectus model off of the rapid influx of upper six figures in donations to Memories Pizza when they did the same thing?

Guy, you misread my point. Yes, you'll have a few bigots giving money to other bigots. But bigger businesses realize there's no money in homophobia.

In two years, Duck Dynasty wil be off the air. Chik-Fil-Hate has already shut the **** up about Gay Marriage because cities wouldn't grant them new licences for stores.

BUt please stand up on your desk tomorrow and do a homophobic rant. See how fast you get thrown.

 

[Silhouette]

Did Big Corporations decide supporting "gay marriage" is "good business" based on the million likes to the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of their announcing they'd suspend Phil Robertson for publicly denouncing gay marriage? Or did they base their decision on the lines wrapping around the block in support at Chic-Fil-A when their CEO did the same thing? Perhaps they based their excellent business prospectus model off of the rapid influx of upper six figures in donations to Memories Pizza when they did the same thing?

Guy, you misread my point. Yes, you'll have a few bigots giving money to other bigots. But bigger businesses realize there's no money in homophobia.

In two years, Duck Dynasty wil be off the air. Chik-Fil-Hate has already shut the **** up about Gay Marriage because cities wouldn't grant them new licences for stores....

Hey bro, a million likes in less than 24 hours on Facebook and lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil-A across the country and where they had to shut down the crowd-fund for Memories Pizza in 1 day because it was approaching a million bucks isn't just "a few bigots'. It's a large statement of free speech on behaviors; and what behaviors quite a lot of people aren't into promoting "as married" (the core of our culture). Disagreeing with your cult doesn't automatically make a person a bigot.

Frankly people are getting sick of your bullying routine. It turns out you were right: people don't like bullies. And hence why there's a lot of resistance nowadays to the LGBT Agenda.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yet the leges backed down almost immediately when challenged by Big Business. Yes, despite the FB likes, the big money will line up behind the inevitability (about a month away now) of Marriage Equality becoming the Law of the Land.

 

[Syriusly]

Did Big Corporations decide supporting "gay marriage" is "good business" based on the million likes to the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of their announcing they'd suspend Phil Robertson for publicly denouncing gay marriage? Or did they base their decision on the lines wrapping around the block in support at Chic-Fil-A when their CEO did the same thing? Perhaps they based their excellent business prospectus model off of the rapid influx of upper six figures in donations to Memories Pizza when they did the same thing?

Guy, you misread my point. Yes, you'll have a few bigots giving money to other bigots. But bigger businesses realize there's no money in homophobia.

In two years, Duck Dynasty wil be off the air. Chik-Fil-Hate has already shut the **** up about Gay Marriage because cities wouldn't grant them new licences for stores....

Hey bro, a million likes in less than 24 hours on Facebook and lines wrapping around the block at Chic-Fil-A across the country and where they had to shut down the crowd-fund for Memories Pizza in 1 day because it was approaching a million bucks isn't just "a few bigots'. It's a large statement of free speech on behaviors; and what behaviors quite a lot of people aren't into promoting "as married" (the core of our culture). Disagreeing with your cult doesn't automatically make a person a bigot.

Frankly people are getting sick of your bullying routine. It turns out you were right: people don't like bullies. And hence why there's a lot of resistance nowadays to the LGBT Agenda.

Frankly people are getting sick of your bullying routine. People don't like bullies- which is why the majority of Americans now support the rights of gay people to marry one another.

After decades of bullying by people like you- Americans have had enough- and are rejecting your hate.

 

[Skylar]

When a case being cited is about the overturning of state marriage laws that violate those constitutional guarantees in a case about defending the constitutional guarantees related to marriage rights...

...that's exactly what it implies.

You fail to understand the difference between limitations on federal power to ignore something a state has made legal vs the power of the state to decide if it will be legal. And that alone is sufficient to demonstrate the folly of your position.

Two problems with your vastly winnowed claims.

1) The Loving decision cited by the Windsor court as an example of state marriage laws being subject to constitutional guarantees wasn't about the limitation of federal power. It was about the limitation of STATE power. Specifically, the state marriage laws. With the federal government overturning those laws on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

The exact argument I'm making.

Simply destroying your spanky new 'folly' nonsense.

2) Scalia and 43 of 46 federal rulings agree with my interpretation of the Windsor ruling: that it communicated the Court's views against state same sex marriage bans and the logic of the Windsor decision applied to state same sex marriage bans invalidates them. With the lower courts obligated to follow this interpretation. And Scalia railing against it.

But both recognizing it as the correct interpretation of the Windsor decision. With Scalia describing that interpretation of the court's view as 'beyond mistaking'

Obliterating your 'misinterpetation'/'butchering the ruling' nonsense. As virtually every legal authority to review the case affirms my interpretation. And contradicts yours. With Kennedy's actions since the Windsor ruling reaffirming the same to an almost ludicrous degree.

 

[Skylar]

Boys, you are overthinking this.

Here's why gay marriage will be the law of the land come June.

Because Big Corporations have decided that it's good business to allow Gay marriage. It means they can keep their gay employees happy without having to make a big carve-out for employees who just want to live together to get benefits.

Any of you fools who thinks that we are making decisions anymore contrary to what big business wants are deluding yourselves.

Did Big Corporations decide supporting "gay marriage" is "good business" based on the million likes to the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page within 24 hours of their announcing they'd suspend Phil Robertson for publicly denouncing gay marriage?

Probably the plummeting ratings of Duck Dynasty factored in:

A&E's record-breaking series "Duck Dynasty" about the Robertson family is rapidly losing fans in its seventh season, leaving many experts wondering if the series is headed for cancellation.

Well-known for their long beards and Christian views, the Robertsons have scored A&E's highest ratings ever in recent years with "Duck Dynasty." For example, over 11 million people tuned in for the season four premiere, making it the most-watched nonfiction cable series in history. However, ratings for "Duck Dynasty" have slipped by more than 40 percent today, and rumors suggest the series could be headed toward cancellation.


Read more at Duck Dynasty Ratings Drop Robertson Family Entering Last Season on A E

You see short term spikes from emotionally invested folks like yourself who watch to show in support for anti-gay marriage messages.......who then lose interest rapidly. With anti-gay marriage messages alienating huge swaths of the interest in the show's existing base.

See, Sil......you approach Duck Dynasty like you do children: they only matter to you if you can use them to attack gays. The moment they don't serve that purpose, you abandon them. Which is why DD's ratings continue to slide. And why most businesses don't use your ilk as a long term business strategy; you cut and run too easily.

While being anti-gay has long term consequences in alienating customers.

Or did they base their decision on the lines wrapping around the block in support at Chic-Fil-A when their CEO did the same thing?

The same Chic-Fil-A that completely backed down and promised to stop giving money to anti-gay groups?

Chick-fil-A promises to stop giving money to anti-gay groups

Chick-fil-A has pledged to stop giving money to anti-gay groups and to back off political and social debates after an executive’s comments this summer landed the fast-food chain smack in the middle of the gay marriage debate.....

....The restaurant firm may have helped mend the relationship by also promising to amend an official company document to reflect that its “intent is not to engage in political or social debates,” according to TCRA.

Chick-fil-A promises to stop giving money to anti-gay groups - latimes

Chick-fil-A capitulated to virtually every demand made of it by critics. As being anti-gay is simply bad for business.

The question is, are Big Corporations aware how the LGBT machines based out of Hollywood/San Francisco are manipulating data?

And....a brand new conspiracy.

So much for your 'closing arguments'. Its the same nonsense as always; you ignoring any source who doesn't say what you believe....and making up your own.