US Supreme Court to Meet This Week To Decide To Take Up Gay Marriage Debate/Case

[Silhouette]

Court Justices set to meet January 9, 2015...

On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet in private to consider whether to act on cases that could provide a nationwide answer on whether same-sex marriages must be allowed. On the same day, a federal appeals court will consider bans in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana....The justices this week will be considering petitions from five states where lower-court judges, bucking a nationwide trend, upheld laws banning same-sex marriage and barring the recognition of such unions performed in states where they are legal. As gay marriages begin in Florida Supreme Court is set to meet on issue - The Washington Post

Will they abandon Windsor's findings that states get to decide and how (through a deliberative process pro and con on gay marriage)?

Page 14 of the Opinion: After a statewide deliberative process that enabled its citizens to discuss and weigh arguments for and against same-sex marriage, New York acted to enlarge the definition of marriage...Against this background of lawful same-sex marriage in some States, the design, purpose, and effect of DOMA should be considered as the beginning point in deciding whether it is valid under the Constitution United States v. Windsor

And will they do so knowing a state's only interest in marriage in the first place, the reason it loses money on the deal in tax breaks is to incentivize the best structure for the best formative environment for its future citizens (children)?....Knowing that gay marriage guarantees to strip children caught up in them of the complimentary gender as role model 100% of the time...exactly like states being forced to incentivize single parent homes "as married"?

Will they overturn Windsor so quickly, knowing "gay" is about lifestyles and not a race of people, just like polygamy?

And about polygamy....there can be no denial of polygamy saying "it's bad for the children" when we already know that depriving children of the complimentary gender as a parent is also bad for them..if you dismantle the REASON states are involved in marriage (to incentivize the best formative structure for children anticipated to arrive most of the time)...you no longer may cite "but this or that lifestyle marriage is bad for kids involved" to deny, polygamists or incest couples. "Who cares"? "It's about the adults, not the kids!" (except that it isn't).

If marriage was about the adults, states would be losing money for no reason. Who gives a fig about which adult(s) hitch up with which? We only care about that when it concerns children that will likely arrive to the home. It's the reason states got involved in marriage in the first place.

Not only will gay marriage dismantle the structure essential to children, it and polygamy will dismantle the reason states are involved in the privelege of marriage.

One more thing about "rights" vs privelege...driving is a privelege. We know that because blind people cannot drive a car....they are structurally incapable of producing a good driving experience for others involved (other drivers on the road). Likewise marriage is a privelege. Those that defy the best structure are a hazard to others involved (children) and their best shot at being fully-rounded cizitens capable of the self esteem/interaction with their own reflected gender in their parents and that of the opposite gender reflected in their parents..

Marriage by its very definition is about lifestyle. Lifestyle is essential to the very meaning of the word "marriage"...so to say marriage is divorced from lifestyle is to erase the word "marriage" entirely. Lifestyle is everything to the word and structure of marriage. It's very inception is" society-sanctioned lifestyle for the sake of kids".

So the premise that "marriage is a right" "available to any conceivable combination of adults" is a false premise. Marriage from a state's point of view is all about the kids. It is a privelege. From that point and the points about childrens' formative environment, the debate may move forward..

 

[Silhouette]

This may be in reaction to the Texas case pending...

 

[Skylar]

Court Justices set to meet January 9, 2015...

On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet in private to consider whether to act on cases that could provide a nationwide answer on whether same-sex marriages must be allowed. On the same day, a federal appeals court will consider bans in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana....The justices this week will be considering petitions from five states where lower-court judges, bucking a nationwide trend, upheld laws banning same-sex marriage and barring the recognition of such unions performed in states where they are legal. As gay marriages begin in Florida Supreme Court is set to meet on issue - The Washington Post

Will they abandon Windsor's findings that states get to decide and how (through a deliberative process pro and con on gay marriage)?

Actually, the Windsor ruling found that State marriage laws were subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And even cited a case as an example where the State marriage laws were overturned by the Federal Goverment for violating individual rights:

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

Its the part you always, always omit when discussing the ruling. Why? Because the violation of those constitutional guarantees is the basis of every federal court ruling overturning gay marriage bans.

Every single one.

And will they do so knowing a state's only interest in marriage in the first place, the reason it loses money on the deal in tax breaks is to incentivize the best structure for the best formative environment for its future citizens (children)?....Knowing that gay marriage guarantees to strip children caught up in them of the complimentary gender as role model 100% of the time...exactly like states being forced to incentivize single parent homes "as married"?

All that 'complimentary gender role' stuff is your personal issues. The courts have never adopted this rationale as part of their rulings on gay marriage. They have, however, addressed the issue of harm to children as a product of denying the same sex parents of those children the recognition of marriage.

[
And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to
understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.....

..DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers
to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse
and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. The US

So.....why would the court ignore its own findings that gay marriage bans harm children....and instead adopt your personal opinions?

There is no reason.

Not only will gay marriage dismantle the structure essential to children, it and polygamy will dismantle the reason states are involved in the privelege of marriage.

Says you. And you clearly don't know what you're talking about. Gays and lesbians are having kids already. If they're married, if they're not married, they're having children.

The question is.....are these children better off if their same sex parents are married, or if they are not? And the Windsor court clearly picked a side on that issue, acknowledging the systematic harm caused to children when their parents marriages aren't recognized.

One more thing about "rights" vs privelege...driving is a privelege. We know that because blind people cannot drive a car....they are structurally incapable of producing a good driving experience for others involved (other drivers on the road). Likewise marriage is a privelege.

Says you. The courts have found that marriage is a right. And they're unlikely to ignore their own findings in favor of your personal opinion.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Comparing marriage to driver's licenses for the blind says a lot more about you than anything else but ignoring that -

"So the premise that "marriage is a right" is a false premise. It is a [sic] privelege. From that point and the points about childrens' formative environment, the debate may move forward.."

Well then, equal privileges for all.

Period.

Alternatively, they could change the Constitution to read "... except homosexuals".

 

[Silhouette]

Comparing marriage to driver's licenses for the blind says a lot more about you than anything else but ignoring that -

"So the premise that "marriage is a right" is a false premise. It is a [sic] privelege. From that point and the points about childrens' formative environment, the debate may move forward.."

Well then, equal privileges for all.

Period.

Alternatively, they could change the Constitution to read "... except homosexuals".

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

"...except homosexuals...polygamists...incest...etc." Don't forget, you're not the only lifestyle group currently excluded from the privelege of marriage.

Severe epileptics may not drive either, as well as the blind cannot.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Comparing marriage to driver's licenses for the blind says a lot more about you than anything else but ignoring that -

"So the premise that "marriage is a right" is a false premise. It is a [sic] privelege. From that point and the points about childrens' formative environment, the debate may move forward.."

Well then, equal privileges for all.

Period.

Alternatively, they could change the Constitution to read "... except homosexuals".

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

"...except homosexuals...polygamists...incest...etc." Don't forget, you're not the only lifestyle group currently excluded from the privelege of marriage.

Severe epileptics may not drive either, as well as the blind cannot.

No. I'm not "excluded from the [sic] privelege of marriage".

To my knowledge, my "lifestyle group" has never been forbidden to marry.

You are still wrong that heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice.

 

[Silhouette]

No. I'm not "excluded from the [sic] privelege of marriage".

To my knowledge, my "lifestyle group" has never been forbidden to marry.

You are still wrong that heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice.

I said that LGBT is a lifestyle. And that's because it is. Ask Anne Heche...

She decided that if she was attracted to all things manly, why not just BE with an ACTUAL man? So her logical brain adopted a new lifestyle.

 

[Skylar]

You have to be honest about why a state would incentivize ANY marriage. It is to form that structure into which a state expects children to arrive naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting. It provides that vital complimentary gendered role model structure that children of both sexes may look up to for a source of self-esteem and learning about how to integrate into society best that is filled with both genders.

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

 

[Silhouette]

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Because childless couples do not interfere with the structure of male/female marriage. The state isn't about policing marriages to make sure they have kids. The state is about incentivizing marriages into which they expect, statistically, that children will come naturally, by adoption, fostering or grandparenting..

Policing marriages would be too heavy-handed. Incentivizing them sticks with the best compromise for the sake of kids expected in overwhelming majority of marriages to arrive balanced against adult freedoms. Children trump. It's why the structure of marriage is for their best interest father/mother. Very simply, a childless male/female marriage doesn't interfere with the base structure, so it is allowed. Every childless couple is a couple on the verge of procreating/adopting/fostering/grandparenting from the state's POV.

 

[Skylar]

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Because childless couples do not interfere with the structure of male/female marriage.

Neither does gay marriage. A gay couple marrying doesn't 'interfere' with a straight couple's marital structure.

And if there are millions upon millions of exemptions for the 'purpose of marriage' for straights, there can be a few hundreds thousands more for gays.

Plus, even your basis of reasoning is irrational. If the benefits of marriage are for the children.....then why don't these benefits start when the children come? There's no connection between the benefits and kids. If you have kids....if you don't have kids...if you can't have kids.....everyone gets the same benefits.

No one is excluded from marriage on the basis that they can't have kids. Why then would we exclude gays on a basis that applies to no one?

The state isn't about policing marriages to make sure they have kids.

Blood tests were routine across the country and are still required in many states in order to get married. So clearly the states have a history of requiring medical verification before marriages can be entered into. It would be a simple matter to verify that a couple is nominally fertile. But no state does nor ever has.

Worse for your 'states aren't about policing marriage', claim, some states require that a couple prove they CAN'T have children before they can marry. Disproving both your claim of the 'purpose of marriage' and your nonsense about the 'state policing marriage'.

The requirements you speak of don't exist. Thus, they aren't a valid basis for excluding anyone from marriage.

 

[Silhouette]

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Because childless couples do not interfere with the structure of male/female marriage.

Neither does gay marriage. A gay couple marrying doesn't 'interfere' with a straight couple's marital structure.

You once again are refusing to argue this debate from a standpoint that children trump adults in consideration of the marriage structure. Please stay focused for purposes of this debate. Your strawmen are frankly infuriating; they are so insulting to the intelligence..

When one CONSIDERS THAT MARRIAGE FROM A STATE'S POV IS ABOUT CHILDREN FOREMOST then one sees quite clearly how gay marriage harms children. A state incentivizing gay marriage is the same as a state incentivizing single parenthood because both harmful structures guarantee the state that they will deprive the children in those homes of both complimentary genders vital to a child's formative experience, 100% of the time.

The STRUCTURE of marriage is IMPORTANT. It is VITAL to CHILDREN..

 

[Syriusly]

Court Justices set to meet January 9, 2015...

On Friday, Supreme Court justices will meet in private to consider whether to act on cases that could provide a nationwide answer on whether same-sex marriages must be allowed. On the same day, a federal appeals court will consider bans in Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana....The justices this week will be considering petitions from five states where lower-court judges, bucking a nationwide trend, upheld laws banning same-sex marriage and barring the recognition of such unions performed in states where they are legal. As gay marriages begin in Florida Supreme Court is set to meet on issue - The Washington Post

Will they abandon Windsor's findings that states get to decide and how (through a deliberative process pro and con on gay marriage)?
Will they overturn Windsor so quickly, ..

The Supreme Court is not reviewing Windsor- and while they may refer to Windsor, Windsor/DOMA has been overturned- the Federal government cannot tell states that legalize same gender marriages that the federal government will not recognize those marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Because childless couples do not interfere with the structure of male/female marriage.

Neither does gay marriage. A gay couple marrying doesn't 'interfere' with a straight couple's marital structure.

You once again are refusing to argue this debate from a standpoint that children trump adults in consideration of the marriage structure. .

Okay lets argue that- as Justice Kennedy has pointed out- the children who are hurt by 'gay marriage' are the ones you would deny it to:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

There are no children harmed by 'gay marriage'

Gay parents have children.
Gay parents who marry still have children- but now those children have married parents.

 

[Syriusly]

No. I'm not "excluded from the [sic] privelege of marriage".

To my knowledge, my "lifestyle group" has never been forbidden to marry.

You are still wrong that heterosexuality is a "lifestyle" choice.

I said that LGBT is a lifestyle. And that's because it is. Ask Anne Heche....

Attraction is not a lifestyle.

But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.

 

[Skylar]

If marriage is about children, why then do the childless couples receive all the same benefits as those with children? What of all the infertile couples that allowed to marry or remain married? And why, pray tell, is no one required to have children or be able to have children in order to get married?

The standard you insist we use to exclude gays from marriage doesn't exist and applies to no one.

Because childless couples do not interfere with the structure of male/female marriage.

Neither does gay marriage. A gay couple marrying doesn't 'interfere' with a straight couple's marital structure.

You once again are refusing to argue this debate from a standpoint that children trump adults in consideration of the marriage structure.

I'm refusing to accept that children are the only valid basis of marriage. And given all the childless and infertile couples that are allowed to marry or remain married, there's clearly more than one valid basis. There are states where certain couples have to prove that you *can't* have children before you're allowed to marry. Undermining your 'only children' interpretation yet again.

Your claims just don't match reality.

Please stay focused for purposes of this debate.

If by 'stay focused', you mean accept your fundamental assumptions as valid, then no. I'm not going to do that. I'm going to point out the wild inconsistencies, by the millions....between your assumptions and reality. And the lack of logic or reason in excluding gays from marriage based on a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one.

When one CONSIDERS THAT MARRIAGE FROM A STATE'S POV IS ABOUT CHILDREN FOREMOST then one sees quite clearly how gay marriage harms children.

And from a state perspective, that purpose isn't met by millions and millions of straights. If you're going to apply the law fairly and equally, there can be similar exceptions for gays as well.

Especially when the basis of exclusion doesn't actually exist in any law. Nor is required of anyone.

A state incentivizing gay marriage is the same as a state incentivizing single parenthood because both harmful structures guarantee the state that they will deprive the children in those homes of both complimentary genders vital to a child's formative experience, 100% of the time.

Another fallacious argument. As gays and lesbians are having kids already. The question is, are the children of these same sex parents better off if their parents are married, or if they're not. And the courts have clearly found that denying same sex parents the right to marry hurts those children.

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to
understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of samesex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families
by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces
benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

Windsor V. US.

You can ignore these facts. But the courts clearly aren't going to.

 

[Silhouette]

Attraction is not a lifestyle.

But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.

It is if you ask Anne Heche. She decided that if she was attracted to all things masculine, why not simply be with a man? So she switched lifestyles. Simple as that.

 

[Syriusly]

Attraction is not a lifestyle.

But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.

It is if you ask Anne Heche. She decided that if she was attracted to all things masculine, why not simply be with a man? So she switched lifestyles. Simple as that.

It isn't if you ask any homosexual I know.

But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage

 

[rightwinger]

Looks like the court can't continue to dump the issue on the lower courts and will have to make a call

Constitutionally, there is no basis for the state to bar gay marriage

 

[Silhouette]

Looks like the court can't continue to dump the issue on the lower courts and will have to make a call

Constitutionally, there is no basis for the state to bar gay marriage

Except that it's an incentivized privelege meant to benefit children...of whom will suffer with "gay marriage" the lack of the complimentary gender as parent 100% of the time...just like single parent households..

There are the civil rights of childrens' best interests that will enter into this debate...as well as why states should lose money on marriage without receiving a benefit.

 

[bodecea]

Attraction is not a lifestyle.

But even a lifestyle like Christianity or Judaism is not prevented from entering the lifestyle that is marriage.

It is if you ask Anne Heche. She decided that if she was attracted to all things masculine, why not simply be with a man? So she switched lifestyles. Simple as that.

What does the B in LGBT stand for?