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

[Skylar]

Like I said before-

1) 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.
Really no need to go any further.

And yet the Opinion ended with same-sex marriage only legal in 12 states (which didn't include California BTW)

More accurately, they said that 11 states plus NY had decided to recognize gay marriage.

State marriage laws are still subject to constitutional guarantees. Nothing you've posted refutes that or even disagrees with it. You simply ignore it.....as if by ignoring it, the USSC will magically ignore all constitutional guarantees as well.

If only reality worked that way.

So it's "same-sex marriage proponents" 1 (?) or 0 and.."state's rights proponents" 56 references in text.

You do realize that Windsor v. US struck down DOMA's prohibitions on gay marriage, right? With Kennedy waxing eloquently on how denying gays the right to marry violated their rights, robbed them of rightful benefits and harmed their children?

And you have exactly 0 references in the Windsor decision of States having the authority to violate constitutional guarantees. And another 0 references to the State marriage laws trumping the federal judiciary.

Talk to me when you can. As every challenge to gay marriage bans that the USSC is hearing are on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If Sil is the best the anti-marriage side has at bat, then they are going to lose 27 to 0 in June.

 

[Silhouette]

Well you have the kids in marriage. I think they're going to be the heavy hitters in this game Jakey.

According to the Prince's Trust study they aren't doing "fine overall". Their missing their own gender as a role model is causing them harm. The cure is to incentivize their formative environment to include, hopefully, both of their blood parents but failing and no lesser than, at least, two people of the complimentary genders.

A state isn't in the business of losing money on marriage in order to encourage a formative-environment free-for-all. They are keenly aware of what is best for children and they set their laws accordingly. Some states have decided to buy the CQR-funded tripe the APA spews out using "small samples", preferring "feelings and words over raw data"...that are audited by the power structure of the LGBT lobbied APA ranks. These rogue states have decided it's OK to use kids as guinea pigs "to see how it all shakes out" with "gay marriage". Even though they know from looking at their single parents' kids, and now the Prince's Trust study that depriving a child of their same gender as a role model is detrimental to them.

Children can be raised by wolves. They can be raised by gays. They can be raised by polygamists. States decide whether or not those environments cut the muster as the best incentivized environment bang for their buck. The payoff a state gets with a man/woman marriage is a future of citizens better adjusted, less likely to be in prison, on welfare or in mental institutions...So wise states say "marriage is only between a man and a woman".

http://www.princes-trust.org.uk/pdf/Youth_Index_jan2011.pdf
FROM THE PRINCE'S TRUST STUDY:

Page 8 (the left side on the green background)

In addition to indexing the happiness and wellbeing of young people, the report explores some significant demographic differences between young people. They include a comparison between those not in education employment or training with their peers...those without a positive role model of their gender in their lives (women without a positive female role model and men without a positive male role model) and their peers...those with fewer than five GCSEs graded A* to C (or equivalent) with their peers... Respondents are asked how happy and confident they are in different areas of their life. The responses are converted to a numerical scale, resulting in a number out of 100-- with 100 representing entirely happy or confident and zero being not at all happy or confident.

Page 10 (The bold largest heading above the material that followed it)

Young people without a role model of the same gender in their lives

Here's what we get in contrast from the APA's "CQR" methods (cult regurgitation for public consumption "as science")

"Consensual Qualitative Research: A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena...consensual qualitative research (CQR). CQR is an 1 inductive method that is characterized by 2 open-ended interview questions, 3 small samples, a 4 reliance on words over numbers, the importance of context, an integration of multiple viewpoints, and consensus of the research team... Consensual Qualitative Research A Practical Resource for Investigating Social Science Phenomena "

If Sil is the best the anti-marriage side has at bat, then they are going to lose 27 to 0 in June.

Let me guess Jake, you'd prefer the studies done with APA funding that urges its applicants to use methods like CQR to come to their audited-conclusions, yes?

There's also Windsor 2013 coming up to bat. I think that might hit the ball out of the park, considering it was Affirmed just two short years ago on the merits of the specific question of law. It refers to state's rights to set parameters for the privelege of marriage no less than 56 times in 26 pages.

I'm not really sure why LGBTs who claim that "gay marriage" is so completely popular, are so fearful of putting it to votes in states one by one. Surely the momentum of such a "fantastic new experiment" for the formative environment for kids will take off like wildfire and be legal across the 50 in less than five years time.. just enough time to put it on ballots.

That's the weirdest dichotomy in the LGBT cult's stance. Their FERVENT insistance that "gay marriage is popular with a clear majority" pitted against their equally fervent dread of it being put on state ballots across the country...????....

 

[Syriusly]

Like I said before-

1) 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.
Really no need to go any further.

And yet the Opinion ended with same-sex marriage only legal in 12 states (which didn't include California BTW)

So it's "same-sex marriage proponents" 1 (?) or 0 and.."state's rights proponents" 56 references in text.

No the Opinion didn't 'end' with anything like that

Glad to repost the actual end of the ruling as many times as it takes- since it is obvious that you never will

The power the Constitution grants it also restrains. And though Congress has great authority to design laws to fit its own conception of sound national policy, it cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

What has been explained to this point should more than suffice to establish that the principal purpose and the necessary effect of this law are to demean those persons who are in a lawful same-sex marriage. This requires the Court to hold, as it now does, that DOMA is unconstitutional as a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The liberty protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause contains within it the prohibition against denying to any person the equal protection of the laws. See Bolling, 347 U. S., at 499–500; Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña,515 U. S. 200–218 (1995). While the Fifth Amendment itself withdraws from Government the power to degrade or demean in the way this law does,the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment makes that Fifth Amendment right all the more specific and all the better understood and preserved.

The class to which DOMA directs its restrictions and restraints are those persons who are joined in same-sex marriages made lawful by the State. DOMA singles out a class of persons deemed by a State entitled to recognition and protection to enhance their own liberty. It imposes a disability on the class by refusing to acknowledge a status the State finds to be dignified and proper. DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others. The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

 

[Syriusly]

Well you have the kids in marriage. I think they're going to be the heavy hitters in this game Jakey.

According to the Prince's Trust study they aren't doing "fine overall".

More Silholucinations.

Some married couples have kids
Some married couples don't have kids.
Some couples have kids and aren't married- denying those couples the right to legally marry only ensures those children will not have married parents.

And the Prince's study doesn't address marriage, let alone gay marriage at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil continues to offer material as deflection, not as argument at all.

 

[Silhouette]

I'm thinking you guys just like bumping this thread. Because you offer nothing to bolster your opinions except "neener neener neerner" as far as I can tell.

Way to impress readers that gays should be running the formative environment for kids. Apparently, not learning to interact with the opposite gender also fosters a basic immaturity. After all, if you get with the same gender there's never a need to build a bridge on the same side of the river..

 

[Syriusly]

I'm thinking you guys just like bumping this thread. Because you offer nothing to bolster your opinions except "neener neener neerner" as far as I can tell.

Way to impress readers that gays should be running the formative environment for kids. Apparently, not learning to interact with the opposite gender also fosters a basic immaturity. After all, if you get with the same gender there's never a need to build a bridge on the same side of the river..

Some married couples have kids
Some married couples don't have kids.
Some couples have kids and aren't married- denying those couples the right to legally marry only ensures those children will not have married parents.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm thinking you guys just like bumping this thread. Because you offer nothing to bolster your opinions except "neener neener neerner" as far as I can tell.

Way to impress readers that gays should be running the formative environment for kids. Apparently, not learning to interact with the opposite gender also fosters a basic immaturity. After all, if you get with the same gender there's never a need to build a bridge on the same side of the river..

Says the poster who continues to spam a years-old survey and misinterpret or outright lie about what it says, who continues to spam the same quotes from one USSC decision while ignoring others from the same decision, etc. etc.

What has been offered to bolster the opinions about gay marriage are the actual words of Supreme Court justices, the record of court cases, multiple studies about the children of gay marriage (not a single survey which never actually mentions gay marriage), pretty much facts and research in response to the wildly inaccurate conclusions you like to repeat in hopes that, having said them often enough, your opinions and lies will become truth.

Having gay parents may not be the best environment possible for raising children. Unfortunately for you, the best possible environment for raising children is not the standard the federal or state governments go by when it comes to marriage.

 

[Skylar]

Well you have the kids in marriage. I think they're going to be the heavy hitters in this game Jakey.

According to the Prince's Trust study they aren't doing "fine overall". Their missing their own gender as a role model is causing them harm.

The Prince Study didn't say any such thing. It doesn't even mention same sex parenting, or any type of parenting, let alone measure the effects of it. You've made that up.

And it wasn't merely a 'role model'. It was a positive role model. The Prince Study didn't indicate where such a positive rolemodel was drawn. It could be a friend, a collegue, a parent, an uncle or aunt, a grandparent, a mentor, an older brother or sister, a coworker.

You *assume* that such positive role models were exclusively parents. And the Prince Study never says this. It doesn't measure the effects of parenting of any type. Your claim that it does is blithering nonsense.

Meanwhile, there are a dozen plus studies that directly measure the health of children of same sex parents. And the overwhelming consensus of such studies is that the children of same sex parents are just as healthy as children of hetero parents. APA studies, AAFMT studies, University of Southern California studies, University of Melbourne studies. And they explicitly contradict you.

So the only study you'll accept doesn't measure anything you claim it does. While the studies you ignore address exactly what you claim to measure. You just don't like their findings. So you ignore them.

A rational person wouldn't. And a judge won't. Rendering your willful ignorance irrelevant to any court case.

 

[Skylar]

I'm thinking you guys just like bumping this thread. Because you offer nothing to bolster your opinions except "neener neener neerner" as far as I can tell.

As your own posts demonstrate daily, you wouldn't recognize a cohesive argument is if walked up and peed on your shoe.

 

[Silhouette]

Why is it then that judge Sutton of the 6th circuit agrees with many of my viewpoints and I virtually all of his?

6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why is it then that judge Sutton of the 6th circuit agrees with many of my viewpoints and I virtually all of his?

6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Since the Supremes are about to shut him down, and he knows it, what difference does it makes?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm thinking you guys just like bumping this thread. Because you offer nothing to bolster your opinions except "neener neener neerner" as far as I can tell.

As your own posts demonstrate daily, you wouldn't recognize a cohesive argument is if walked up and peed on your shoe.

Indeed...

 

[Syriusly]

Why is it then that judge Sutton of the 6th circuit agrees with many of my viewpoints and I virtually all of his?

Sutton has a well thought out legal argument that doesn't agree with any of your viewpoints- except one- he doesn't believe that same gender couples have a constitutional right to marriage.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sutton only agrees with Sil's belief that there is no constitutional protect right to marriage equality.

SCOTUS will overturn that in June.

 

[Skylar]

Why is it then that judge Sutton of the 6th circuit agrees with many of my viewpoints and I virtually all of his?

6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Um, Sutton doesn't have a thing to say about your 'complimentary gender role' claims. Or your claim that 'gay marraige is only legal in 11 states' as a finding of the Windsor court schtick. Or your 'monosexual' nonsense. Or your claims that Prop 8 is still in effect. And Sutton's decision was taken up by the courts for review. The only district court ruling to affirm gay marriage bans.

While the USSC allowed every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans to stand. If the USSC wanted to affirm gay marriage bans....why allow *every* lower court ruling that overturned such bans to stand, without exception. But the one case that affirms gay marriage bans, that's they rule on.

Makes you think that our Mystery Man may know what he's talking about when he said this:

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

So our Mystery Man believes that the courts will not only overturn gay marriage bans, but will do so using the reasoning of Windsor. And that such a ruling is inevitable.

Curiouser and Curiouser.

Anyone want to take a shot at naming that Mystery Man?

 

[Silhouette]

Why is it then that judge Sutton of the 6th circuit agrees with many of my viewpoints and I virtually all of his?

6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Um, Sutton doesn't have a thing to say about your 'complimentary gender role' claims. Or your claim that 'gay marraige is only legal in 11 states' as a finding of the Windsor court schtick. Or your 'monosexual' nonsense. Or your claims that Prop 8 is still in effect. And Sutton's decision was taken up by the courts for review. The only district court ruling to affirm gay marriage bans...
...Makes you think that our Mystery Man may know what he's talking about when he said this:

I said that Sutton agreed with many of my viewpoints, not that he pointed all of them out in his Opinion. Read more carefully next time.

I think you should check the IP addresses of Mystery Man and myself. Ask the moderators to do it and then get back with their report here.

Does it stun you that more than one person could hold that Windsor reaffirming 56 times that defining the basic structure of marriage is a state's right, might mean that this next Hearing might not overturn that?

Wake up and smell the 56-times in Windsor the Court said the question of same-sex marriage was one for the sovereign citizens of each state to decide by consensus..

 

[Syriusly]

Why is it then that judge Sutton of the 6th circuit agrees with many of my viewpoints and I virtually all of his?

6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb s Up to States Choice on Gay Marriage Page 12 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Um, Sutton doesn't have a thing to say about your 'complimentary gender role' claims. Or your claim that 'gay marraige is only legal in 11 states' as a finding of the Windsor court schtick. Or your 'monosexual' nonsense. Or your claims that Prop 8 is still in effect. And Sutton's decision was taken up by the courts for review. The only district court ruling to affirm gay marriage bans...
...Makes you think that our Mystery Man may know what he's talking about when he said this:

Does it stun you that more than one person could hold that Windsor reaffirming 56 times that defining the basic structure of marriage is a state's right, might mean that this next Hearing might not overturn that?
.

It does stun me that anyone ever agrees with any of your bizarre interpretations.

 

[Skylar]

I think you should check the IP addresses of Mystery Man and myself. Ask the moderators to do it and then get back with their report here.

Oh, I know exactly who our mystery man. I'm asking if you know who he is. I'll even give you a hint:

He wears a black mu-mu professionally. And he's very well versed in the rulings of the Supreme Court.

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

Who is that Mystery Man? And what does he know that you clearly don't?

And why would he conclude that its inevitable that the USSC will rule in favor of gay marriage.....and inevitable that the USSC will use the logic of the Windsor ruling to do it?

Does it stun you that more than one person could hold that Windsor reaffirming 56 times that defining the basic structure of marriage is a state's right, might mean that this next Hearing might not overturn that?

Um, you may want to check the ruling again. The only rights mentioned in the Windsor ruling were those of people. The State is never cited as having any 'rights'.

And of course, the '56 affirmations' you keep speaking of have nothing to do with the case the USSC is hearing this year. As they are affirmations of the supremacy of State marriage laws over Federal marriage laws.

But that's not the specific legal question the court is answering in June, is it?

The specific legal question that the Court is resolving in June is if state gay marriage bans violate constitutional guarantees. Which the Windsor court found the State marriage laws were subject to:

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.

Windsor V. US

You keep pretending that no such constitutional guarantees exist, omitting any mentions of them from any citation you offer from the Windsor ruling. Despite every challenge to gay marriage bans that the USSC is hearing this year being based on violations of constitutional guarantees.

Ignore as you will. The court won't.