11th Circuit Gears Up For Gay Marriage Case? SCOTUS?

[Silhouette]

The same reason used by the millions of straight couples that get married and never have children.

You can't get around the fact that no one is required to have children or be able to have them to be married. Why then would we apply a non-existent standard....and then only to gays?

There has always been the standard of man/woman marriage. It is a standard that is as old as human civilization. Your johnny-come-lately gay-lifestyle marriage is the one that has to "prove up".

And it cannot. It cannot ever provide the complimentary genders necessary for children's best formation. It cannot ever provide both blood parents in a home either. Man/woman can provide the complimentary genders. It doesn't matter if they have/adopt kids or not. The state is not in the business of policing its ideal, only in setting it. Men and women together have this very reliable little habit of getting pregnant. The state merely assumes most of them will. And indeed this is the case. So "man/woman" is not defiled by childless couples. Moreover, those childless man/woman couples often wind up adopting. And as such, provide the man/woman complimentary genders children need to thrive the best from their role modeling later in life.

So with children, without children, the gold standard is the same: man/woman. The state relies on the penchant of that arrangement to overwhelmingly produce or adopt children. And so it is the case. No policing necessary. Those that fall short do not ruin the standard that is best for all kids.

 

[SwimExpert]

Saying that gay marriage is being forced upon you, just because it's legal, is like saying that owing a gun is being forced upon you just because it's legal. In both cases, you can choose for yourself while others do the same.

 

[Skylar]

There has always been the standard of man/woman marriage. It is a standard that is as old as human civilization. Your johnny-come-lately gay-lifestyle marriage is the one that has to "prove up".

Yeah, the folks attempting to justify the ban for interracial marriage folks made much the same argument. Alas, 'discrimination is justified by its existence' argument doesn't work. You need a valid reason to discriminate. Not simply a history of it.

And in terms of gay marriage, there is no such valid reason. There is clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. So why wouldn't the marriages of gays and lesbians be valid? There's no reason why not.

And this is why opponents of gay marriage have such a hard time in court.

It cannot ever provide the complimentary genders necessary for children's best formation. It cannot ever provide both blood parents in a home either.

Children aren't required for marriage. For anyone. And as the millions upon millions of the infertile marrying or remaining married demonstrate, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing to do with children or the ability to have them. So the basis you're insisting we use to exclude gays doesn't exist and isn't applied to anyone.

As for the 'blood parents' argument, almost all of those that adopt, use donor eggs or sperm for artificial insemination, or have blended families of divorce are straight. And it happens millions upon millions of times too. Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the same slack we provide straights by the millions?

No reason there either. From beginning to end, your argument just doesn't work.

The state is not in the business of policing its ideal, only in setting it.

They could easily mandate that only the fertile be married or be allowed to married. But no state has such a standard. The ability to have children isn't a requirement for anyone.

So the standard you insist we use to exclude gays doesn't exist. And if it did, it would mandate we invalidate or refuse marriage licenses to millions of straights.

 

[Skylar]

Saying that gay marriage is being forced upon you, just because it's legal, is like saying that owing a gun is being forced upon you just because it's legal. In both cases, you can choose for yourself while others do the same.

Exactly. If you don't like same sex marriage, don't join one. Its not even like marriage is a finite commodity, and that some bright eyed young straight couple is going to show up at the court house one day to get married and be turned away because the gays got the last of it.

There's enough for gays and straights alike.

 

[Silhouette]

Race and gay lifestyles are not even in the same legal ballpark. Not even in the same town.

Try again.

 

[Silhouette]

The same reason used by the millions of straight couples that get married and never have children.

You can't get around the fact that no one is required to have children or be able to have them to be married. Why then would we apply a non-existent standard....and then only to gays?

A state isn't in the business, nor does it have legal authority to demand hetero couples produce fertility in order to be married. It only has to assume, and rightly so, that only men and women can create children or the two complimentary genders of which children can look to as vital mother and vital father.

Childless heteros are a tiny minority of hetero couples. So non-fertile/non-bearing heteros do not interfere with the gold standard. We are talking about basic qualifiers. Gays don't make the cut. They guarantee that children will be missing the complimentary gender-as-role-model 100% of the time. They also guarantee that children will be missing one blood parent 100% of the time.

 

[Skylar]

A state isn't in the business, nor does it have legal authority to demand hetero couples produce fertility in order to be married.

I can easily offer the 'incentives' of marriage only after a child is born. But it doesn't. The incentives are for anyone who wants to get married. For whatever reason. Even those who can't have children. Or never do.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that applies to no one? There's no reason. Your basis of argument doesn't make the slightest sense. Which might explain its overwhelmingly poor record in court.

It only has to assume, and rightly so, that only men and women can create children or the two complimentary genders of which children can look to as vital mother and vital father.

Not every male and female pairing can. Or will, even if they could. Which is exactly my point. There are millions upon millions of exceptions for straights of marriages for those who in no way serve your 'purpose'. Which is stated no where in any law, no anyone is required to meet.

Why then would gays be required to meet a standard that straights aren't?

There is no reason.

 

[Skylar]

Race and gay lifestyles are not even in the same legal ballpark. Not even in the same town.

Try again.

And yet you're using the arguments of those that oppose interracial marriage. You stop using the arguments of bigots past, and I'll stop mentioning past bigotry.

Deal?

 

[Silhouette]

I(t) can easily offer the 'incentives' of marriage only after a child is born. But it doesn't. The incentives are for anyone who wants to get married. For whatever reason. Even those who can't have children. Or never do.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that applies to no one?...

Nope, the incentives exist to entice the best formative environment for children. This question will be argued at SCOTUS when the split in the lower courts is addressed this year. The entire marriage argument is going to shift from "what is best for adults" to "what is best for kids".

It will be about the future, not now, since marriage is the unforeseeable future and the bedrock and nucleus of any society. SCOTUS will have no choice but to remove their focus from the violin strings of "think about the kids involved in gay relationships" of "now" and will focus it instead on "how will our decision affect untold millions or even billions of children (and the core of society itself) into the distant future?" So pivotal is this proposed change to what "marriage" means...

The lower courts are split. The question will sit before SCOTUS. At that moment SCOTUS will have to decide to overturn Windsor's "states' choice" Ruling or not. It will have to decide whether or not the majority of each state has a right to define a cultural shift of such magnitude that affects all citizens within into the far far future. It will have to decide once and for all if it can act as a dictating body to the various states, ordering them to incentivize THE formative environment for childraising to mandate environments where those children will be guaranteed to be missing one of the complimentary genders as role model and one of the blood parents 100% of the time.

That is the question before the court. Adults "rights" won't even come into play. Especially since it's gay-lifestyle marriage and not gay marriage. You choose to attempt to procreate with the same gender that you have dress up as the opposite gender in order to turn you on and to try to role play "mommy" or "daddy"....and you lose the right to marry in most states. We do that on behalf of the children actually, not to spite them as you have previously strummed the heartstrings of the Court before and got away with...

 

[Syriusly]

Like it or not, there is only one reason the state wants people to be married: for the best stability of children. There is no other logical reason for the state to be involved in legal marriage at all. It sets out special bisquits, donuts, coffee and tea cake to lure in fathers/mothers males/females, the complimentary genders, the only ones capable of childbirth and proper formation of a balanced role model environment to prepare children for the best ,most well-rounded life as future adults.

Again, adults are only a peripheral concern. Marriage is about children.

Despite the absolute lack of evidence to support that.

As a husband and father, I can tell you with personal knowledge: The state does not incentivize me to get married and have children.

What 'incentives' that exist are just for getting married.

Once again you are just making up "Silhouette" definitions.

 

[Syriusly]

The same reason used by the millions of straight couples that get married and never have children.

You can't get around the fact that no one is required to have children or be able to have them to be married. Why then would we apply a non-existent standard....and then only to gays?

A state isn't in the business, nor does it have legal authority to demand hetero couples produce fertility in order to be married.

LOL- you just make this crap up- don't you?

As the judge pointed out in the Wisconsin case, the State of Wisconsin requires some couples to provide proof that they are not fertile in order to get married.

If the state can require a couple to prove that they are not fertile- the state could require a couple prove that they are fertile.

In reality- the State doesn't care whether a couple will have children or does not have children.

Nothing in my marriage license says anything about children. Doesn't say that we will try to have children or that if we have children we will stay married.

Marriage is all about a committment between the couple. IF children happen, that is just a happy bonus.

 

[Syriusly]

I(t) can easily offer the 'incentives' of marriage only after a child is born. But it doesn't. The incentives are for anyone who wants to get married. For whatever reason. Even those who can't have children. Or never do.

Why then would we exclude gays from marriage for failing to meet a standard that applies to no one?...

Nope, the incentives exist to entice the best formative environment for children. This question will be argued at SCOTUS when the split in the lower courts is addressed this year. The entire marriage argument is going to shift from "what is best for adults" to "what is best for kids"...

Well we already that Justice Kennedy is concerned about what is best for the kids:


"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?"

 

[Syriusly]

t. Adults "rights" won't even come into play. Especially since it's gay-lifestyle marriage and not gay marriage. ..

I would say that you are going to be proven so wrong- but since you will just make up new stuff once the Supreme Court hears the case and it does indeed revolve around the actual rights of the couples that want to get married- we can be assured you will never even realize how deluded that claim is.

 

[Silhouette]

So then if marriage isn't about children, LGBTs won't be bringing them up either I suppose?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So then if marriage isn't about children, LGBTs won't be bringing them up either I suppose?

They already bring them up dumbass. Now they will just have better legal protections when doing so.

 

[Silhouette]

You mean protection from homes without complimentary-gender parents100% of the time?

 

[Skylar]

So then if marriage isn't about children, LGBTs won't be bringing them up either I suppose?

If LGBT's bring up children, wouldn't that indicate that children are harmed by not granting their parents a recognizable marriage.

Justice Kennedy (aka Mr. Swing Voter) certainly thought so.

 

[Skylar]

You mean protection from homes without complimentary-gender parents100% of the time?

And where in the law does it say a thing about 'complimentary genders' as regards to child rearing?

You're a pseudo-legal gibberish factory this morning.

 

[Skylar]

Nope, the incentives exist to entice the best formative environment for children. This question will be argued at SCOTUS when the split in the lower courts is addressed this year. The entire marriage argument is going to shift from "what is best for adults" to "what is best for kids".

Then why allow infertile couples to marry? Why allow your grandparents to stay married? Why allow those who never have children by choice to remain married?

There are exceptions to this supposed 'purpose' by the millions. Holes you could drive mack trucks through. Yet allowing gays and lesbians to join the millions upon millions of straight couples to marry or remain married is somehow a violation of the purpose of the union?

If there are tens of millions of exceptions for straights, there can be a few million exceptions for gays. Even assuming your 'incentive' idea worked. Which it doesn't. As the requirements of marriage have little to nothing to do with children.

If children were the purpose of marriage, then the 'incentives' would kick in upon the birth of kids. It doesn't, nor ever has. And yes, the State can check to see if a couple is fertile. Medical testing as a prerequisite for marriage has a long tradition, as the 'blood test' requirements of the present and past and the requirements to prove infertility for some marriages in some states today demonstrates.

There is no requirement to have children or be able to have children to be married. Absolutely none. Why then would we forbid gays and lesbians from marrying based on their failure to meet a standard that doesn't exist and applies to no one?

There is no rational reason.

It will be about the future, not now, since marriage is the unforeseeable future and the bedrock and nucleus of any society. SCOTUS will have no choice but to remove their focus from the violin strings of "think about the kids involved in gay relationships" of "now" and will focus it instead on "how will our decision affect untold millions or even billions of children (and the core of society itself) into the distant future?" So pivotal is this proposed change to what "marriage" means...

Oh, the USSC has plenty of choices and aren't limited in any way to your assessments of what they must do. As remember, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Remember your inane babble about how the court's granting of a stay for Utah of implementation of a lower court ruling mandating gay marriage was a message from the courts that they supported gay marriage bans? You waxed eloquent telling us what the court 'really meant' by granting the stay, how gay marriage was no banned across the country, and again banned in California.

Until the stay was lifted. And every other stay barring the implementation of gay marriage was denied.

You keep projecting upon the courts your own beliefs. Your own made up pseudo-legal gibberish. And your personal opinions are gloriously irrelevant to the court's rulings. As they don't keep your counsel. They keep their own.

The lower courts are split.

We have 6 courts in one direction and 1 in the other. While split, the overwhelming majority of legal precedent sides with marriage equality. With the USSC preserving every single lower court ruling overturning gay marriage bans, along with overturning DOMA's restrictions on gay marriage bans.

The lower court ruling affirming such bans remains unpreserved.

The question will sit before SCOTUS. At that moment SCOTUS will have to decide to overturn Windsor's "states' choice" Ruling or not.

The actual states choice rulingor your imaginary version of it where you ignore the 'subject to certain constitutional guarantees' portion of that ruling and pretend it doesn't exist? The highlighted portion is the relevant bit that you keep ignoring......but no rational person ever would:

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
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

So no, they courts don't have to overturn their 'states choice' ruling. As their 'states choice' ruling has ALWAYS been subject to certain constitutional guarantees. And if the states violate those guarantees, the courts have the authority to overrule such laws.

They need merely determine that the States laws are a violation of constitutional guarantees (as they did in Lawrence and Romer) and poof, gay marriage is legal everywhere. Just as interracial marrriage was legal everywhere after the Loving decision.

It will have to decide whether or not the majority of each state has a right to define a cultural shift of such magnitude that affects all citizens within into the far far future.

You routinely predict universal calamity to an almost hysteric degree. You predicted the collapse of civilization, nuclear melt downs and economic Armageddon because we treated Ebola patients in the US. You predicted riots over the USSC lifting a stay on gay marriage. You simply don't know what you're talking about

Gay marriage has already been legal for 10 years in some states. And society didn't collapse. Society was forced by the courts to come to terms with its occasionally faulty 'right to define a cultural shift' with interracial marriage. With majority public sentiment not reached on the issue until 30 years AFTER the ruling.

If society can survive that shift, it can survive this one. Especially since society has largely embraced gay marriage, with support out pacing opposition by 12 to 19 points. With a firm majority in favor of gay marriage already;

Support for same-sex marriage has hit a new high, according to a recent Gallup poll. Fifty-five percent of survey respondents think gay marriages should be recognized by law as valid while 42 percent disagree.

Gallup Support for Gay Marriage at All-Time High RealClearPolitics

So the impact you posit, we've already survived beautifully. And this 'impact' is poised to be far less egregious, as public support precedes universal legal recognition. Where it lagged interracial marriage by 30 years.

It will have to decide once and for all if it can act as a dictating body to the various states, ordering them to incentivize THE formative environment for childraising to mandate environments where those children will be guaranteed to be missing one of the complimentary genders as role model and one of the blood parents 100% of the time.

Marriage is irrelevant to these questions, as gays and lesbians will still have children regardless of whether or not they get married. Just as straight couples do. Through adoption, invetro fertilization, surrogacy, etc.. The courts aren't making the decision you posit. Its making the decision on whether or not the children of gay and lesbians parents will benefit from their parents being married.

And an even casual review of the Windsor ruling makes it clear that the court has definitely taken a position on that question:

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 same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of familysecurity. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to asurviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf

Windsor V. US
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf

Its unlikely that the author of this ruling, Justice Kennedy, is going to ignore his own judgment in favor of yours

 

[Silhouette]

If LGBT's bring up children, wouldn't that indicate that children are harmed by not granting their parents a recognizable marriage.

Justice Kennedy (aka Mr. Swing Voter) certainly thought so.

That was before Justice Kenndy thought about how his Decision would affect future generations of children and society at its core. Justice Kennedy was thinking only about the sympathy play "think of the kids of gays". While he was forgetting to think about the only reason a state is involved in incentivizing marriage in the first place; for the best formative environment for kids. Kennedy hadn't learned about Thomas Lobel. He hadn't studied his Child Psych 101 book. He reacted in a kneejerk fashion.

But then again, he was part of the majority who established Windsor 2013 on the question of specific law as to whether or not states have the power to choose on gay marriage yes, or no. So maybe he was thinking of the kids after all? Incentivizing a formative environment that is guaranteed to be missing one of the complimentary genders for role-modeling and one blood parent 100% of the time is a fool's errand of someone charged with overseeing the best formative interest of children.

Windsor 2013 was the last Ruling on gay marriage. It said plainly that states have the right to decide yes or no to gay marriage. And that is the binding law until further notice. No lower circuit court may overrule that from underneath. Any judge who has tried to do that should fear the new Congress coming to sit in just a couple weeks. There were audible whispers of impeachment even before they were certain of the election results...


...stay tuned...