Supreme Court to rule on gay marriage bans

[bodecea]

If a State recognizes CC permits from another State or doesn't recognize any - that isn't an issue.

On the other hand if a State based recognition on the gender of the permit saying we will honor CC permits for men but not for women - then that would be a problem.


>>>>

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Just like any black was free to marry any black. If the black person chose not to marry a black, well, that was on him.

 

[bodecea]

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Guy, children are killed by their biological parents every day....

By evil liberals

Keep telling yourself that, boy.

 

[OKTexas]

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Guy, children are killed by their biological parents every day....

They're killed by strangers too, should we outlaw all of them?

 

[OKTexas]

Both are State issued licenses how can one be treated differently than the other? Using your theory one state could refuse to recognize a drivers license from other states.

Theoretically they could although Federal interstate highways might be a problem.

But again that isn't the faulty logic with you claim.

The correct comparison would be saying we will honor Drivers License from other State for visitors if they are white (or male, or Christian) but not for blacks (or females, or Jews). You seem to be missing the point that the States are attempting to recognize some but not other certificates based on gender of the individuals involved.

BTW - Every State that I know of - and I don't claim it is all - requires people to get a new Drivers License within some time-frame if they change their residence to that State. Here in Virginia it's 60-days. After that Virginia no longer recognizes the Out-of-State license as permanent authorization to operate a motor vehicle. 60-days after changing residence an individual operating a motor vehicle is breaking Virginia law.

[Disclaimer: There is an exception in the law for active duty military personnel stationed in the State and who maintain a permanent place of residence on file outside the State. Which is why it was legal for me to use my New York license for 4-years after getting stationed here. Once I retired I had to get a VA license.]


>>>>

BS, there is no gender or race bias in denying gay marriage, they can marry just like every one else, the fact that they chose not to is their decision. Like I said before gays have been engaging in traditional marriage forever.

When the law says that Bill (a male) can marry Joan (a female) but that Joan (a female) cannot marry Jane (a female) that the laws are not written in terms of gender?


>>>>

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Just like any black was free to marry any black. If the black person chose not to marry a black, well, that was on him.

I answered that argument already, do try to keep up.

 

[Skylar]

People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

There are a few details of the court's recent actions that tend to discourage your perspective. The lower courts have been ruling on gay marriage for years. And in every instance where the lower courts have overturned gay marriage bans, the USSC has preserved them, allowing them to stand.

Every single one. Without exception.

However, the first and only time a district has affirmed gay marriage bans, the courts doesn't preserve it. It hears it. That doesn't denote a court interested in affirming gay marriage bans. But one that questions the constitutionality of such bans.

 

[Skylar]

Marriage HAS been understood as meaning one man and one women (not counting polygamy).

But there is nothing that demands this interpretation.

Perhaps the GOVERNMENT should get out of this primarily religious institution.

Uh, yes there is something that demands this interpretation. They are called "registered voters". Lifestyles do not have Constitutional protections. And this is especially so where it can be shown that certain lifestyles post a threat of harm to children. See my first post on this thread for details..

Several problems with your analysis. First, the USSC has found that state marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. Every single federal court ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of these constitutional guarantees. And the USSC has preserved every single lower court ruling that overturns gay marriage bans.

Second, your assumed 'harm' of gay parents is quite simply disproven. Study after study has shown that same sex parents raise healthy children.

Third, the Courts have already recognized in the Windsor decision that the children of same sex parents are harmed by the lack of recognition of marriage for their parents.

So we have two court recognized contradictions of your assumptions. And a third factual contradiction.

 

[Skylar]

..Opponents of gay marriage urged the court to uphold the bans and allow states to make their own decisions on the matter.

People are looking forward for the bright future where they will be able to ban this perversion. The US Supreme Court may support their willing. Do you agree that it will be better if we have some states without gays' "traditions and culture" ( some antigay states)???

"Marriage equality" for lifestyles like homosexual, monosexual (singles) and polysexual don't have Constitutionally-protected rights. Each state's discreet community may regulate what is normal in marriage. And states do this to make sure kids have both genders as parental role models. Otherwise the state-incentive program known as "a marriage license and its perks" is a net loss for the state.

Of course lifestyle-marriage is up to the states. Who else would it be up to? We are looking in the maw of a massive shift of powers in the Union if states can no longer regulate behaviors in order to protect children. It's pretty much game over at that point. Gay marriage guarantees the same structure as single parents (monosexuals) 100% of the time: the complete lack of one of the genders represented to the children as a role model. Some of those kids may find that missing gender and vital source of self esteem is their own..

The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that young people without a positive figure of the same gender are 67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts.
The link to the Prince Trust study is here: http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf

Young men with no male role models in their lives and women without a mother figure struggle to keep their lives on track, a hard-hitting report warns today. The Prince’s Trust youth index, the largest survey of its kind, found that....67 per cent more likely to be unemployed than their counterparts. They are also significantly more likely to stay unemployed for longer than their peers, the report suggests....It found that young men with no male role model are 50 per cent more likely to abuse drugs and young females in the corresponding position are significantly more likely to drink to excess..

Young men with no male role model to look up to were twice as likely to turn or consider turning to crime as a result of being unemployed...The report, which was based on interviews with 2,170 16 to 25-year-olds...These young men are also three times more likely to feel down or depressed all of the time and significantly more likely to admit that they cannot remember the last time they felt proud...They are also significantly less likely to feel happy and confident than those with male role models, according to the figures....The Prince’s Trust report, which was carried out by YouGov, suggests young people without male role models are more than twice as likely to lack a sense of belonging.

With no father to look to as he grew up, Arfan Naseer fell into a life of drugs and gangs...He even spent time in prison after becoming involved with the wrong crowd, impressed by their expensive cars and gangster lifestyle...He believes that if he had had a father or male role model to look up to, he would have seen the error of his ways at a much earlier age.

The Prince Study doesn't say a thing about same sex parents. Numerous studies do....and the explicitly contradict your assumptions:

Children of same-sex parents have above average health and wellbeing, research by the University of Melbourne shows.

The research was based on data from the Australian Study of Child Health in Same-Sex Families, which involved input from 315 same-sex parents and a total of 500 children. Of these participating families, 80 percent had female parents while 18 percent had male parents.

"It appears that same-sex parent families get along well and this has a positive impact on health," said Dr Simon Crouch from the Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, Centre for Health Equity at the University of Melbourne.

Children of same sex parents healthier Study

And again....

Most research studies show that children with two moms or two dads fare just as well as children with heterosexual parents. In fact, one comprehensive study of children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers concluded that children raised by same-sex parents did not differ from other children in terms of emotional functioning, sexual orientation, stigmatization, gender role behavior, behavioral adjustment, gender identity, learning and grade point averages. Where research differences have been found, they have sometimes favored same-sex parents. For example, adolescents with same-sex parents reported feeling more connected at school. Another study reported that children in gay and lesbian households are more likely to talk about emotionally difficult topics, and they are often more resilient, compassionate and tolerant.

Same-sex Parents and Their Children

And again....

"The vast consensus of all the studies shows that children of same-sex parents do as well as children whose parents are heterosexual in every way," she tells WebMD. "In some ways children of same-sex parents actually may have advantages over other family structures.....

...."Some studies showed that single heterosexual parents' children have more difficulties than children who have parents of the same sex," Perrin says. "They did better in discipline, self-esteem, and had less psychosocial difficulties at home and at school."

Kids Of Same-Sex Parents Do Fine - CBS News

And again....

One area the researchers found no differences in was the mental health of children or their quality of relationship with parents. Children brought up by lesbians and gay men are well-adjusted, have good levels of self-esteem and are as likely to have high educational attainments as children raised in more traditional heterosexual families.

“Levels of anxiety, depression, self-esteem and other measures of social and psychological behaviors were generally similar,” Biblarz said. “While all children probably get teased for one thing or another, children with gay parents may experience a higher degree of teasing and ridicule. It is impressive then that their psychological well-being and social adjustment does not significantly differ, on average, from that of children in comparable heterosexual-parent families. Exploring how lesbian and gay parent families help children cope with stigma could prove helpful to all kinds of families.”

Sociology Study examines gender roles of children with gay parents USC News

And again....

Psychological adjustment of children raised lesbian and gay families is really no different than children in straight families. All the studies, no matter how people did the research found the same thing, which is that kids are not disadvantaged by being raised in lesbian and gay parent families. There might even be particular areas where they have strengths, it just depends on how you look at the research.

Interview with Lesbian and Gay Parenting Expert Dr. Abbie Goldberg

Numerous studies have directly addressed the mental, emotional and psychological health of children in same sex households. The consensus of these studies is that the children are health.

And you ignore every single one of them. In favor of a study that doesn't even mention same sex couples, nor measure anything about them.

Don't expect the USSC to similarly ignore the evidence that you must to cling to your beliefs.

 

[JoeB131]

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Guy, children are killed by their biological parents every day....

They're killed by strangers too, should we outlaw all of them?

no, we should stop trying to legislate other people's lives. I know straight people who do worse jobs of parenting than feral wolves. I know gays who are wonderful parents.

And frankly, I'm really getting sick of religious assholes sticking their noses into other people's business. Now the shoe is onthe other foot, suck it.

 

[thanatos144]

That might be, but there is no comparison between race and gender, males and females of different races are still biologically compatible, where two of the same gender are not. Children raised in a household with both biological parents are proven to do better in life, so there is nothing to gain for the society in raising children in a gay household.

Guy, children are killed by their biological parents every day....

They're killed by strangers too, should we outlaw all of them?

no, we should stop trying to legislate other people's lives. I know straight people who do worse jobs of parenting than feral wolves. I know gays who are wonderful parents.

And frankly, I'm really getting sick of religious assholes sticking their noses into other people's business. Now the shoe is onthe other foot, suck it.

We are sick of perverted immoral assholes like you telling us what to believe and pushing your eugenics

 

[JoeB131]

We are sick of perverted immoral assholes like you telling us what to believe and pushing your eugenics

Naw, guy, what you're sick of is that you are on the wrong side of history, which is becoming obvious.

 

[Iceweasel]

Nope, because any female is free to marry any male, if the female choses not to marry a male, well, that's on her.

Virginia used the same logic in the Loving case noting that blacks would marry other blacks and white could marry other whites, the decision was on them and so no discrimination occurred.

Didn't work then either.

Not saying black = gay, just pointing out the logic is faulty and didn't fly the last time it was used.

How is that the same? Black men were treated differently than white men.

 

[JoeB131]

How is that the same? Black men were treated differently than white men.

gays were treated different from straights. They still are.

 

[thanatos144]

We are sick of perverted immoral assholes like you telling us what to believe and pushing your eugenics

Naw, guy, what you're sick of is that you are on the wrong side of history, which is becoming obvious.

Your delusional rants mean squat in reality

 

[WorldWatcher]

How is that the same? Black men were treated differently than white men.

No they weren't they both blacks and white could still marry, it's just the state limited BOTH sides on who they could Civilly Marry. They were treated the same.

That was Virginia's falling logic. Logic the anti-group tries to use today by saying that the ban applies equally to everyone.

Past = Black John can't Civilly Marry white Joan, but Black John can Civilly Marry Black Anne. White George can't Civilly Marry Susan but white John can marry White Betty. No discrimination because they are all treated the same.

Now = John and Susan can Civilly Marry each other. George can Civilly Marry Betty. But Susan cannot Civilly Marry Betty and George cannot Civilly Marry John. No discrimination because they are all treated the same.


The structure of the argument is the same, it failed then. It is likely to fail again before the SCOTUS because it is obvious that in the past John, Joan, Anne and Susan were not treated the same, just as now John, Susan, Betty and George are not treated the same.



>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

No they weren't they both blacks and white could still marry, it's just the state limited BOTH sides on who they could Civilly Marry. They were treated the same.

That was Virginia's falling logic. Logic the anti-group tries to use today by saying that the ban applies equally to everyone.

Past = Black John can't Civilly Marry white Joan, but Black John can Civilly Marry Black Anne. White George can't Civilly Marry Susan but white John can marry White Betty. No discrimination because they are all treated the same.

Now = John and Susan can Civilly Marry each other. George can Civilly Marry Betty. But Susan cannot Civilly Marry Betty and George cannot Civilly Marry John. No discrimination because they are all treated the same.


The structure of the argument is the same, it failed then. It is likely to fail again before the SCOTUS because it is obvious that in the past John, Joan, Anne and Susan were not treated the same, just as now John, Susan, Betty and George are not treated the same.

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.



>>>>

 

[Iceweasel]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

 

[Seawytch]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

 

[thanatos144]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you? Because homosexuals are not in it

 

[Seawytch]

You can repeat it as many times as you would like but your effort to massage it won't change anything. Black men and women were treated differently than whites and the state governments are not allowed to discriminate racially so those laws were unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution about sexual orientation. Or post it up.

That is what the SCOTUS will be deciding in the Spring isn't it?

Neither "marriage" or "race" are found in the applicable section of the 14th, and yet it was the basis for overturning such laws in the past.

If you think the SCOTUS is going buy the "but there is no discrimination" argument, I think you are in for a shock. That's not saying they won't uphold the bans based on the states providing a valid compelling interest to warrant the discrimination - unlikely, but possible. Anyone that steps back and looks at it from a legal and logical perspective understands that the "No discrimination because they are all treated the same" argument is a silly and a loosing one.

John and Susan can marry each other. Susan and Betty cannot. Therefore Susan and Betty are not treated the same as John and Susan. Pretty easy really. The true question isn't are they treated the same, the true question is there a valid reason for the government to treat them differently.>>>>

Race is in the Constitution, along with gender and religion. You can't ban something that's illegal, you are misusing words and obviously incapable of understanding the issue.

Irony poisoning...I have irony poisoning.

You're accusing him of not understanding the issue? Have you ever read the 14th Amendment?

Have you? Because homosexuals are not in it

And that's where you're wrong. We're included in the "all persons" part just like ignorant rednecks.