Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[Syriusly]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Discrimination based on animus is the same whether race or gender...and the courts are agreeing.

Except it is not based on animus. Another false claim of the gay lobby.

Except that the courts are finding otherwise. Note from the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA- referring to animus as being the essence of DOMA

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe,
347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of
equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional
desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department
of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535
(1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an
improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual
character’” especially require careful consideration.
Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA
cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an
important indicator of the substantial societal impact the
State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual
tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of
marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the
benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal
recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a
law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.

The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence

 

[The Rabbi]

Here's your fail argument.....Not everyone is like you.

Actually, sweetie, it's a question, not an argument: I realize your attention span doesn't last past a few sentences, so I jumped ahead and gave it to you.

"Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing."

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

Your reading skills are atrocious. The sad thing is they let people graduate from high school with so little reading comprehension.

Allegedly she was in the military. How would you like that makng decisions on life and death for you?

"That" did for 20 years and you seem to have survived.

Now my legal spouse gets all the benefits of being married to a military retiree. Thanks SCOTUS!

Milk the taxpayers. It's all gays really are about.

 

[Syriusly]

False

It is? You're devoid of examples...

He's devoid of a lot more than that.
The Left and the gay lobby have 2, and only two, arguments. Both of them are false. That's why I highlight when somene posts one or the other or both of them,.

We at least have multiple arguments.

Yours is reduced to 'gay bad'

Doesn't matter. Don't let the radical right get under your skin. Theirs is a losing position on this one. Any state attempting to deny marriage rights to gays will be slapped by the courts.

Argument 2. And the Circuit Court in OH apparently disagrees as gay marriage is still not recognized in TN.

And that is the question that the Supreme Court will be deciding- whether all of the other Circuit Courts were right and the 6th was wrong or vice versa.

 

[Syriusly]

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

Exactly...there have been numerous studies on the topic and the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those of straights. There are no differences in outcomes.

What is ideal is for children to have two parents...their gender is immaterial. (except when it comes to lactation)

Whether or not children raised by same gender couples end up as exactly as well oriented as children raised by opposite couples is really a stupid argument.

Why?

Because children are raised in all sorts of environments, and as Kaz points out, they do- or they don't turn out okay.

Kaz says he missed having a father. Other children miss having any parent at all. And then some children are just raised by horrible parents.

We don't tell heterosexual parents "prove to us you will be a good parent"- instead as long as they are not physically harming the children they can raise them pretty much how they want- look at Stevie the racist bragging how his kids were all raised to hate blacks and Jews.

The point is that none of this is relevant to marriage. We do not require people to get married before they have children- or married after they have children. We don't prevent ;married parents from divorcing.

We don't require that parents be 'ideal parents' - we don't really even have any expectations that parents will be 'ideal parents'- but we can hope that parents will step up and try to be ideal parents to the best of their abilities.

And having observed friends of mine who happen to be parents who happen to be gay- thats what I see. Just like I see that with our other friends who happen to be parents.

How it applies to gay marriage is adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to do public adoptions before singles or gays. I don't give a rats ass about the straight parents, it's in the interest of the only people who matter. The children.

Liberals never stop making someone equal until they have more rights than anyone else does. You know it's going to continue there.

What a great message to the kids abandoned by their heterosexual parents and then adopted by homosexual couples

"no one else wanted you, so we will let let these people that we don't think are as good, adopt you"

Leave the handicapped and the non-white children abandoned by heterosexual parents to be raised by homosexuals.

How very white of you. Meanwhile the need for adoptive parents for the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents continues:

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Here's a tissue, now take deep breaths and try to calm down

Don't you have another thread to troll about how much you hate marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Discrimination based on animus is the same whether race or gender...and the courts are agreeing.

Except it is not based on animus. Another false claim of the gay lobby.

Except that the courts are finding otherwise. Note from the Supreme Court ruling on DOMA- referring to animus as being the essence of DOMA

DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to
protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and
equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government.
See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe,
347 U. S. 497 (1954). The Constitution’s guarantee of
equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional
desire to harm a politically unpopular group
cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Department
of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535
(1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an
improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual
character’” especially require careful consideration.
Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633). DOMA
cannot survive under these principles. The responsibility
of the States for the regulation of domestic relations is an
important indicator of the substantial societal impact the
State’s classifications have in the daily lives and customs
of its people. DOMA’s unusual deviation from the usual
tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of
marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the
benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal
recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a
law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class.

The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States. The history of DOMA’s enactment and its own text demonstrate that interference with the equal dignity of same-sex marriages, a dignity conferred by the States in the exercise of their sovereign power, was more than an incidental effect of the federal statute. It was its essence

Argument 2

 

[Syriusly]

I hear what you're saying. But there have been numerous studies on the topic and the kids are fine. I suspect any possible 'disadvantage' associated with same sex parents is more than mitigated by the fact that all children in a same sex union are intentional. Which means the parents want them and have a much better opportunity to prepare for them...both emotionally and financially.

Exactly...there have been numerous studies on the topic and the children of gays and lesbians are at no disadvantage to those of straights. There are no differences in outcomes.

What is ideal is for children to have two parents...their gender is immaterial. (except when it comes to lactation)

Whether or not children raised by same gender couples end up as exactly as well oriented as children raised by opposite couples is really a stupid argument.

Why?

Because children are raised in all sorts of environments, and as Kaz points out, they do- or they don't turn out okay.

Kaz says he missed having a father. Other children miss having any parent at all. And then some children are just raised by horrible parents.

We don't tell heterosexual parents "prove to us you will be a good parent"- instead as long as they are not physically harming the children they can raise them pretty much how they want- look at Stevie the racist bragging how his kids were all raised to hate blacks and Jews.

The point is that none of this is relevant to marriage. We do not require people to get married before they have children- or married after they have children. We don't prevent ;married parents from divorcing.

We don't require that parents be 'ideal parents' - we don't really even have any expectations that parents will be 'ideal parents'- but we can hope that parents will step up and try to be ideal parents to the best of their abilities.

And having observed friends of mine who happen to be parents who happen to be gay- thats what I see. Just like I see that with our other friends who happen to be parents.

How it applies to gay marriage is adoption. All qualified heterosexual parents should be able to do public adoptions before singles or gays. I don't give a rats ass about the straight parents, it's in the interest of the only people who matter. The children.

Liberals never stop making someone equal until they have more rights than anyone else does. You know it's going to continue there.

What a great message to the kids abandoned by their heterosexual parents and then adopted by homosexual couples

"no one else wanted you, so we will let let these people that we don't think are as good, adopt you"

Leave the handicapped and the non-white children abandoned by heterosexual parents to be raised by homosexuals.

How very white of you. Meanwhile the need for adoptive parents for the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents continues:

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Here's a tissue, now take deep breaths and try to calm down

What a great message to the kids abandoned by their heterosexual parents and then adopted by homosexual couples

"no one else wanted you, so we will let let these people that we don't think are as good, adopt you"

Leave the handicapped and the non-white children abandoned by heterosexual parents to be raised by homosexuals.

How very white of you. Meanwhile the need for adoptive parents for the children abandoned by their heterosexual parents continues:

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

 

[Syriusly]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

False

True. It is a false analogy. Also a pretty damn offensive one, comparing people who risked their lives for real equality to a bunch of pansies who whine all day.

Offensive to whom exactly? You?

Certainly not to Mildred Loving.

You remember her- the wife who was told she couldn't be legally married to a white man?

Here is what she says

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love.

But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

So Rabbi- I ask again- who are you claiming to be offended on behalf of?

 

[Syriusly]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Kaz is absolutely correct. It is a false analogy. A lifestyle is not the legal equivalent of a race of people.

Worse, the comparison of butt sex to the harrowing struggles of Black Americans is unbelievably offensive. I'm white and I feel like kicking your ass on behalf of Blacks everywhere.

I see lots of white people acting all offended on behalf of black Americans.

But Mildred Loving isn't offended:

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

[The Rabbi]

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

False

True. It is a false analogy. Also a pretty damn offensive one, comparing people who risked their lives for real equality to a bunch of pansies who whine all day.

Offensive to whom exactly? You?

Certainly not to Mildred Loving.

You remember her- the wife who was told she couldn't be legally married to a white man?

Here is what she says

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love.

But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

So Rabbi- I ask again- who are you claiming to be offended on behalf of?

Who were the major proponents of one man one woman marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.
Im not offended on behalf of anyone. I am offended that someone would attempt to hijack a noble history like the civil rights struggle so they can suck government tit while they suck Bobby's cock.

 

[Syriusly]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Did you intentionally intend to mislead- or unintentionally. Note how you compare 'there were' for blacks and 'there is' for gays.

There were laws that prevented a person of one race from marrying a person of another race.
There are laws that prevent a person of one gender from marrying a person of the same gender.

There were laws that said what blacks could and could not do.
There were laws that said what homosexuals could and could not do.

And that is why the courts repeatedly refer to Loving v. Virginia in the decisions regarding same gender marriage

Note from the Wisconsin case:

Under these circumstances, personal beliefs, anxiety about change and discomfort
about an unfamiliar way of life must give way to a respect for the constitutional rights of
individuals, just as those concerns had to give way for the right of Amish people to educate
their children according to their own values, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972), for
Jehovah’s Witnesses to exercise their religion freely, West Virginia Board of Education v.
Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), and for interracial couples to marry the person they believed
was irreplaceable. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). In doing this, courts do not
“endorse” marriage between same-sex couples, but merely affirm that those couples have
rights to liberty and equality under the Constitution, just as heterosexual couples do



Defendants fail to distinguish this case from the others in which the Supreme Court
considered the constitutionality of laws that denied the right to marry to some class of
citizens. Loving, 388 U.S. 1 (interracial marriage); Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978) (marriage of parents who fail to make child support payments); Turner v. Safley, 482
U.S. 78 (1987) (marriage of prisoners).

When the Court struck down Virginia’s
anti-miscegenation law in Loving, it had never before discussed a “right to interracial
marriage.” If the Court had decided previously that the Constitution protected marriage
between same-sex couples, this case would not be here. The question is not whether
plaintiffs’ claim is on all fours with a previous case, but whether plaintiffs’ wish to marry
someone of the same sex falls within the right to marry already firmly established in Supreme
Court precedent. For several reasons, I conclude that it does.


[The argument that the right
to same-sex marriage is a] ‘new right’ . . . attempts to narrowly parse a right that the
Supreme Court has framed in remarkably broad terms. Loving was no more about the ‘right
to interracial marriage’ than Turner was about the ‘prisoner's right to marry’ or Zablocki was
about the ‘dead-beat dad's right to marry.’”).
If the scope of the right to marry is broad enough to include even those whose past
conduct suggests an inclination toward violating the law and abdicating responsibility, then
it is difficult to see why it should not be broad enough to encompass same-sex couples as
well. Defendants do not suggest that the decision about whom to marry is any less
important or personal for gay persons than it is for heterosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

False

True. It is a false analogy. Also a pretty damn offensive one, comparing people who risked their lives for real equality to a bunch of pansies who whine all day.

Offensive to whom exactly? You?

Certainly not to Mildred Loving.

You remember her- the wife who was told she couldn't be legally married to a white man?

Here is what she says

http://www.freedomtomarry.org/page/-/files/pdfs/mildred_loving-statement.pdf

My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love.

But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry.

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry.

Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

So Rabbi- I ask again- who are you claiming to be offended on behalf of?

Who were the major proponents of one man one woman marriage in CA? Yeah, black churches.
Im not offended on behalf of anyone. I am offended that someone would attempt to hijack a noble history like the civil rights struggle so they can suck government tit while they suck Bobby's cock.

Okay- so you find personally offensive what Mildred Loving did not.

Because of what- your close personal struggle with discrimination because you are black?

Again- what Mildred Loving said- a black woman who actually had to fight against discrimination- and what you reject:

Government has no business imposing some people’s religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people’s civil rights. I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

 

[Syriusly]

Actually, sweetie, it's a question, not an argument: I realize your attention span doesn't last past a few sentences, so I jumped ahead and gave it to you.

"Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing."

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

Your reading skills are atrocious. The sad thing is they let people graduate from high school with so little reading comprehension.

Allegedly she was in the military. How would you like that makng decisions on life and death for you?

"That" did for 20 years and you seem to have survived.

Now my legal spouse gets all the benefits of being married to a military retiree. Thanks SCOTUS!

Milk the taxpayers. It's all gays really are about.

Screw over the gays- that is all the homophobes are really about.

 

[Seawytch]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Kaz is absolutely correct. It is a false analogy. A lifestyle is not the legal equivalent of a race of people.

Worse, the comparison of butt sex to the harrowing struggles of Black Americans is unbelievably offensive. I'm white and I feel like kicking your ass on behalf of Blacks everywhere.

I see lots of white people acting all offended on behalf of black Americans.

But Mildred Loving isn't offended:

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Coretta Scott King either...

USATODAY.com - Coretta Scott King gives her support to gay marriage

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,"

 

[Seawytch]

Actually, sweetie, it's a question, not an argument: I realize your attention span doesn't last past a few sentences, so I jumped ahead and gave it to you.

"Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing."

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

Your reading skills are atrocious. The sad thing is they let people graduate from high school with so little reading comprehension.

Allegedly she was in the military. How would you like that makng decisions on life and death for you?

"That" did for 20 years and you seem to have survived.

Now my legal spouse gets all the benefits of being married to a military retiree. Thanks SCOTUS!

Milk the taxpayers. It's all gays really are about.

Animus is all anti gay laws are about. Go ahead and take away the tax breaks and other benefits for being married. Let us know how that campaign goes.

 

[Syriusly]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Kaz is absolutely correct. It is a false analogy. A lifestyle is not the legal equivalent of a race of people.

Worse, the comparison of butt sex to the harrowing struggles of Black Americans is unbelievably offensive. I'm white and I feel like kicking your ass on behalf of Blacks everywhere.

I see lots of white people acting all offended on behalf of black Americans.

But Mildred Loving isn't offended:

I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.

Coretta Scott King either...

USATODAY.com - Coretta Scott King gives her support to gay marriage

"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union,"

So....in conclusion...we have a bunch of white anti-gay bigots who are offended that they are being compared to anti-black bigots.....

While icons of marriage equality and black civil rights support marriage equality for gay couples.

 

[Syriusly]

Oh and Jesse Jackson is not offended at the comparison either

ts
Rev. Jesse Jackson likens gay marriage push to fight over slave

The Rev. Jesse Jackson on Thursday praised President Obama's decision to support same-sex marriage, comparing the battle for such unions to the fight against slavery and anti-miscegenation laws intended to keep blacks and other ethnicities from mingling and marrying with whites.

"This is a bold step in the right direction for equal protection under the law for all citizens," Jackson told the Los Angeles Times on Thursday morning. But, he said, he wished the president had gone further, pushing for federal protection for all citizens instead of leaving the controversial issue of gay marriage up to the states to decide.

 

[Seawytch]

The NAACP isn't offended

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/05/20/us/politics/naacp-endorses-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, sweetie, it's a question, not an argument: I realize your attention span doesn't last past a few sentences, so I jumped ahead and gave it to you.

"Now explain to me how an academic study measures that to claim the sex of parents doesn't matter in child rearing."

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

Your reading skills are atrocious. The sad thing is they let people graduate from high school with so little reading comprehension.

Allegedly she was in the military. How would you like that makng decisions on life and death for you?

"That" did for 20 years and you seem to have survived.

Now my legal spouse gets all the benefits of being married to a military retiree. Thanks SCOTUS!

Milk the taxpayers. It's all gays really are about.

Red herring fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should blacks be allowed to vote? Let the states decide.

Yeah, we tried that - letting the states decide on issues of equal protection didn't work out so well.

False analogy

Bullshit reply

Black and Gay are different issues. There were laws saying what blacks could and could not do. There is no such law for gays, gays can do exactly the same things straights can. It's a false analogy. You can like it or not, but I'm not explaining one issue in relation to a completely different issue.

Incorrect.

There were laws that controlled the lives of gay Americans as well, laws that violated their civil rights just as the rights of African-Americans were violated.

For example, in Colorado, Amendment 2 made it illegal for LGBT residents of that state to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Supreme Court struck down that measure as a violation of the 14th Amendment, whose ruling was affirmed by the US Supreme Court (Romer v. Evans).

In Texas it was illegal for consenting adult gay men to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes. The Texas law was likewise invalidated by the Supreme Court for violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (Lawrence v. Texas).

Just as African-Americans were compelled to fight for their civil rights in the courts a generation ago to strike down discriminatory, un-Constitutional measures, so too must gay Americans fight for their civil rights today; against unjust measures violating the equal protection rights of same-sex couples.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you want to know how scientific studies apply to your personal anecdote? That's like some moron saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because you know a smoker that didn't die of it.

But I'll take a shot. What it sound like is that you needed the structurer not the nurturer.

"Generally speaking, there is this dynamic that plays out among parents: one becomes the nurturer and the other becomes the structurer," she explained. "What I've found is that it doesn't matter which parent takes on which role; so long as the parents serve in these capacities, kids will be happy."

Do Kids Care If Their Parents Adhere to Traditional Gender Roles - Atlantic Mobile

In a single parent household, you only had half the ideal...which is two parents.

Your reading skills are atrocious. The sad thing is they let people graduate from high school with so little reading comprehension.

Allegedly she was in the military. How would you like that makng decisions on life and death for you?

"That" did for 20 years and you seem to have survived.

Now my legal spouse gets all the benefits of being married to a military retiree. Thanks SCOTUS!

Milk the taxpayers. It's all gays really are about.

Red herring fallacy.

Its not a fallacy, idiot. A fallacy refers to an argument. I'm stating fact.