6th Circuit Federal Appeals Court Gives Thumb's Up to States' Choice on Gay Marriage

[Silhouette]

Don't make this about the adults Syriusly..

If a childless couples does not disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.......why would a childless couple that is gay disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.
In reality what you are proposing is that if you take two childless couples- one gay and one straight- you want the state to deny to the gay couple what they give to the straight couple.
Which is a clear violation of Equal Treatment under the law.

Because two gay people can never be the blood parents of children in the home. Childless couples have nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages. They incentivize man/woman because biologists know this is the pair that can produce children in the overwhelming majority of male/female pairings. Gays CANNOT EVER. Therefore, incentivizing a marriage structure that is two people of the same gender is inseparable from incentivizing children missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time, instead of the tiny percentage of those male/female couples who pair and adopt or never have kids. A childless male/female pair does not ruin the legal defintion for the benefit of children. A male/male pair does.

It's simple biololgy. You're trying a diversion now to make this about "childless couple vs childless couple". This isn't a discussion about the adults in a marriage today. This is a discussion about CHILDREN in a marriage for unseen generations into the future. The very structure of our perpetuated society...and it's not looking pretty in the experiment so far for the 'gay marriage' petri dish. The only reason states are involved in licensing marriage is for the benefit of the children, not the adults involved. Duh!

The lesbian parents of an 11-year-old boy who is undergoing the process of becoming a girl last night defended the decision, claiming it was better for a child to have a sex change when young....Thomas Lobel, who now calls himself Tammy, is undergoing controversial hormone blocking treatment in Berkeley, California to stop him going through puberty as a boy...At age seven, after threatening genital mutilation on himself, psychiatrists diagnosed Thomas with gender identity disorder. By the age of eight, he began transitioning. ...The hormone-suppressant, implanted in his upper left arm, will postpone the 11-year-old developing broad shoulders, deep voice and facial hair.. The California boy 11 who is undergoing hormone blocking treatment Daily Mail Online

Like I said, this boy isn't suffering from "gender identity disorder". This boy is suffering from my gender doesn't matter disorder. To explore that though might lead to some unsavory conclusions that the APA-cult wouldn't "audit" favorably. The CQR method would frown upon any study of so-called "transgender children" that might show influence in the child's decision to hate their own gender Federal Gay-Activist Judges Aren t to Blame They Rely on Science .. US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Don't make this about the adults Syriusly..

If a childless couples does not disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.......why would a childless couple that is gay disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.
In reality what you are proposing is that if you take two childless couples- one gay and one straight- you want the state to deny to the gay couple what they give to the straight couple.
Which is a clear violation of Equal Treatment under the law.

Because two gay people can never be the blood parents of children in the home. Childless couples have nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages.

And neither can two sterile people.

If childless couples have 'nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages'- then again- why do you want to discriminate against childless couples- if they are gay?

 

[Silhouette]

And neither can two sterile people.

If childless couples have 'nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages'- then again- why do you want to discriminate against childless couples- if they are gay?

I don't. I'm merely avering that any gay couple would and must produce a situation where the children in their home would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time. THEREFORE a state incentivizing gay marriage would be ONE AND THE SAME AS a state incentivizing a home where the children would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time. WHICH IS LEGALLY IDENTICAL to a state incentivizing single parenthood "as married".

So the STRUCTURE of a marriage being incentivized by a state as male/female (for the blood relation benefit of any children likely to come) is not undermined or violated at its core by two childless male/female adults. It is violated at its structural core by two gay people. And for the various reasons of harmful child psychology and the son of those two lesbians in California. Lack of an identifiable/modeling male in his life "as an adult that matters" means his self-reflection is damaged as a male child. He sees "all that matters is female in the adult world I see every day". And so he attempts to hack his junk off at age 7 because in his mind "that's how I will come to matter".

We don't experiment with children like lab rats. We know boys fare better statistically in homes where their father is. We know girls fare better in homes where their mother is. We know that the complimentary genders give a child a fully rounded view of the world and their place in it; and their ability to handle both genders as they become adults themselves.

The state isn't in the business of incentivizing predictable insanity or maladjustment for its children... In fact THE REASON states are involved in approving or licensing married people is to insure or take their best stab at insuring that the children involved have the best possible shot at life. Otherwise the state wouldn't be involved at all.

So a child's wellbeing in this discussion, and those children in the untold 100s of millions into future generations, and the very structure of society itself is the CENTRAL ISSUE of the gay marriage discussion. The adults involved are merely a secondary concern. They stand in the tall shadow of the primary issue here.

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't make this about the adults Syriusly..

If a childless couples does not disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.......why would a childless couple that is gay disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.
In reality what you are proposing is that if you take two childless couples- one gay and one straight- you want the state to deny to the gay couple what they give to the straight couple.
Which is a clear violation of Equal Treatment under the law.

Because two gay people can never be the blood parents of children in the home. Childless couples have nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages.

And neither can two sterile people.

If childless couples have 'nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages'- then again- why do you want to discriminate against childless couples- if they are gay?

You've demonstrated you simple dont understand the answer. WHuy is asking the same question over and over going to change that?

 

[Syriusly]

Don't make this about the adults Syriusly..

If a childless couples does not disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.......why would a childless couple that is gay disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.
In reality what you are proposing is that if you take two childless couples- one gay and one straight- you want the state to deny to the gay couple what they give to the straight couple.
Which is a clear violation of Equal Treatment under the law.

Because two gay people can never be the blood parents of children in the home. Childless couples have nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages.

And neither can two sterile people.

If childless couples have 'nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages'- then again- why do you want to discriminate against childless couples- if they are gay?

You've demonstrated you simple dont understand the answer. WHuy is asking the same question over and over going to change that?

I have demonstrated that the answer answers nothing.

As Justice Kennedy has stated- when talking about the children of same sex parents in the oral arguments of Prop 8

"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?"

The answer you and Silhouette have is- no the voice of those children are not important to you.

This is really a dangerous argument for the pro-discrimination group- because Kennedy will be one- if not the- deciding vote on the Court......and in both Prop 8 and DOMA he refers to the children of same sex parents

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "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 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 decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

 

[The Rabbi]

Don't make this about the adults Syriusly..

If a childless couples does not disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.......why would a childless couple that is gay disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.
In reality what you are proposing is that if you take two childless couples- one gay and one straight- you want the state to deny to the gay couple what they give to the straight couple.
Which is a clear violation of Equal Treatment under the law.

Because two gay people can never be the blood parents of children in the home. Childless couples have nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages.

And neither can two sterile people.

If childless couples have 'nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages'- then again- why do you want to discriminate against childless couples- if they are gay?

You've demonstrated you simple dont understand the answer. WHuy is asking the same question over and over going to change that?

I have demonstrated that the answer answers nothing.

As Justice Kennedy has stated- when talking about the children of same sex parents in the oral arguments of Prop 8

"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?"

The answer you and Silhouette have is- no the voice of those children are not important to you.

This is really a dangerous argument for the pro-discrimination group- because Kennedy will be one- if not the- deciding vote on the Court......and in both Prop 8 and DOMA he refers to the children of same sex parents

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "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 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 decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

I am sure Justice Kennedy has querried every one of those 8000 children.
You saps will fall for any old thing.

 

[Syriusly]

And neither can two sterile people.

If childless couples have 'nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages'- then again- why do you want to discriminate against childless couples- if they are gay?

I don't. I'm merely avering that any gay couple would and must produce a situation where the children in their home would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time. THEREFORE a state incentivizing gay marriage would be ONE AND THE SAME AS a state incentivizing a home where the children would be missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time. WHICH IS LEGALLY IDENTICAL to a state incentivizing single parenthood "as married"..

Your argument continues to fall apart.

First of all- the incentives that married parents 'get' are the same as a single parent gets. The argument is nonsensical- what are the 'incentives' States provide married couples? Filing taxes jointly? No estate tax? A single parent doesn't have someone to file jointly with(and filing jointly isn't a benefit to a large proportion of couples) and a single parent has no need for an estate tax exemption for his or herself.

Secondly, a gay couple has no more obligation to have children than a straight couple- which is no obligation at all. IF a gay couple does have children, then those children will be in the same 'genetic' circumstances as the very many opposite gender couples who cannot reproduce together.

Finally- once again the words of Justice Kennedy

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?"

Justice Kennedy gets it. You never will. The difference is that his opinion matters.

 

[Syriusly]

Don't make this about the adults Syriusly..

If a childless couples does not disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.......why would a childless couple that is gay disrupt the 'incentivized structure'.
In reality what you are proposing is that if you take two childless couples- one gay and one straight- you want the state to deny to the gay couple what they give to the straight couple.
Which is a clear violation of Equal Treatment under the law.

Because two gay people can never be the blood parents of children in the home. Childless couples have nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages.

And neither can two sterile people.

If childless couples have 'nothing to do with state-incentivized marriages'- then again- why do you want to discriminate against childless couples- if they are gay?

You've demonstrated you simple dont understand the answer. WHuy is asking the same question over and over going to change that?

I have demonstrated that the answer answers nothing.

As Justice Kennedy has stated- when talking about the children of same sex parents in the oral arguments of Prop 8

"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?"

The answer you and Silhouette have is- no the voice of those children are not important to you.

This is really a dangerous argument for the pro-discrimination group- because Kennedy will be one- if not the- deciding vote on the Court......and in both Prop 8 and DOMA he refers to the children of same sex parents

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "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 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 decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

I am sure Justice Kennedy has querried every one of those 8000 children.
You saps will fall for any old thing.

Please convey that sentiment to Justice Kennedy

"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?"

 

[Silhouette]

"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 decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

It is less worthy if you are looking at the yardstick of "worthiness" as "that arrangement that best suits children within marriages". Incentivizing a situation where a child will miss one of its blood parents 100% of the time in a "marriage" is not in that child's best interest.

The opinion you're citing is from a Justice who is negligent in weighing the true important issue of this debate in favor of myopic bleedingheartism towards the few, at the expense of untold 100s of millions of future children who will fall prey to the fallicy and shortsided deductions of that faulty logic.

The Justices in favor of this type of logic on the child question are erring on the side of experimenting with what a 100% guarantee on one blood parent being gone from a marriage and the total absence of the complimentary gender will do to untold zillions of children over generations, over time. They are literally willing to toy with the very foundation of our social structure in favor of a neo-fad they feel blindly sympathetic to, unwilling to fully understand, and who they may have a family member or friend thus afflicted..

In otherwords, their bias makes them unfit for the bench on this question..

 

[Syriusly]

The opinion you're citing is from a Justice who is negligent in weighing the true important issue ..

The justice who is likely to be the deciding vote when same gender marriage reaches the court.

The justice who says that your arguments are bad for children.

I look forward to your whining more about the Supreme Court....

 

[Silhouette]

The opinion you're citing is from a Justice who is negligent in weighing the true important issue ..

The justice who is likely to be the deciding vote when same gender marriage reaches the court.

The justice who says that your arguments are bad for children.

I look forward to your whining more about the Supreme Court....

Yes, but is that Justice's mind completely closed off to any further argument? If so, s/he is not fit to sit on this Hearing by definition.

I repeat the argument:

"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 decision says, going on to conclude that the federal statute "is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity."

It is less worthy if you are looking at the yardstick of "worthiness" as "that arrangement that best suits children within marriages". Incentivizing a situation where a child will miss one of its blood parents 100% of the time in a "marriage" is not in that child's best interest.
The opinion you're citing is from a Justice who is negligent in weighing the true important issue of this debate in favor of myopic bleedingheartism towards the few, at the expense of untold 100s of millions of future children who will fall prey to the fallicy and shortsided deductions of that faulty logic.

The Justices in favor of this type of logic on the child question are erring on the side of experimenting with what a 100% guarantee on one blood parent being gone from a marriage and the total absence of the complimentary gender will do to untold zillions of children over generations, over time. They are literally willing to toy with the very foundation of our social structure in favor of a neo-fad they feel blindly sympathetic to, unwilling to fully understand, and who they may have a family member or friend thus afflicted..

In other words, their blind, "I've got my mind already made up" bias makes them unfit for the bench on this question..

 

[Skylar]

The opinion you're citing is from a Justice who is negligent in weighing the true important issue of this debate in favor of myopic bleedingheartism towards the few, at the expense of untold 100s of millions of future children who will fall prey to the fallicy and shortsided deductions of that faulty logic.

What expense? Sounds to me like you're working on your 'Why Kennedy ruled in favor of gay marriage and made it legal across the country' speech. Quite the contrast to your claims that Kennedy explicitly made gay marriage bans legal in Windsor. You won't even type Kennedy's name now, referring to him only as 'A Justice'.

What a difference a couple of months makes, eh buddy?

The Justices in favor of this type of logic on the child question are erring on the side of experimenting with what a 100% guarantee on one blood parent being gone from a marriage and the total absence of the complimentary gender will do to untold zillions of children over generations, over time.

Its no more of an experiment than allowing infertile couples to adopt or for use artificial insemination. Which has been going on by straight couples for decades. Millennium if you include adoption. If its as dire a portent as you insist, why hasn't the law already forbidden the marriage of infertile straight couples....as every fear you allude to would be realized in them. Easy: because the dire consequences you allude to haven't happened. Not in the thousands of years adoption has been in use.

Flushing yet another hollow hail mary piece of useless speculation backed by nothing and contradicted by overwhelming evidence.

They are literally willing to toy with the very foundation of our social structure in favor of a neo-fad they feel blindly sympathetic to, unwilling to fully understand, and who they may have a family member or friend thus afflicted..

Can you demonstrate ANY effect on your marriage by allowing gays and lesbians to marry? This is the part where your argument breaks....as there is no such effect. Your marriage remains pristinely untouched, your union utterly unaffected.

You're doubling down on baseless melodrama and insinuation of the collapse of civilization unless we do what you want. Backed by...nothing. The 'experiment' you are speaking of has been going on for millennium. Married people with no genetic tie to a child raise them all the time. And society hasn't collapsed.

Rendering your argument useless chicken little fearmongering proven meaningless flotsam by thousands of years of contradiction.

In other words, their blind, "I've got my mind already made up" bias makes them unfit for the bench on this question..

Laughing...now Kennedy is unfit for the bench because he doesn't agree with you?

Oh, you can read the hand writing on the wall, can't you? You know what's coming.

 

[Syriusly]

The opinion you're citing is from a Justice who is negligent in weighing the true important issue ..

The justice who is likely to be the deciding vote when same gender marriage reaches the court.

The justice who says that your arguments are bad for children.

I look forward to your whining more about the Supreme Court....

Yes, but is that Justice's mind completely closed off to any further argument? If so, s/he is not fit to sit on this Hearing by definition.
..

You aren't even certain of Justice Kennedy's gender?

Whether you like HIM or not- he is likely to be the pivotal vote- IF there is a divided court.

And he says your arguments ignore the children of same gender parents.

 

[Silhouette]

You aren't even certain of Justice Kennedy's gender?

Whether you like HIM or not- he is likely to be the pivotal vote- IF there is a divided court.

And he says your arguments ignore the children of same gender parents.

I thought gender was transitory and isn't something we can rely on anymore? ..lol..

My how insistent you are in pinning this nebulous being to the ground AS A MALE! Yet your ilk remains perrenially devoted to gender blending in the bulk of your time..I digress..

Your arguments ignore the generations of children yet to be born into homes where one of the blood parents is missing 100% of the time. Why should any state be forced to incentivize that? It is not in the best interest of the children.

 

[Syriusly]

You aren't even certain of Justice Kennedy's gender?

Whether you like HIM or not- he is likely to be the pivotal vote- IF there is a divided court.

And he says your arguments ignore the children of same gender parents.

I thought gender was transitory and isn't something we can rely on anymore? ..lol..

My how insistent you are in pinning this nebulous being to the ground AS A MALE! Yet your ilk remains perrenially devoted to gender blending in the bulk of your time..I digress..

Your arguments ignore the generations of children yet to be born into homes where one of the blood parents is missing 100% of the time. Why should any state be forced to incentivize that? It is not in the best interest of the children.

Yes- my arguments- the arguments of Justice Kennedy- do ignore your bizarre claims.

You better hope he ignores your arguments- if he were to pay attention it would only convince him more that you folks are intentionally attemping to discriminate against homosexuals.

 

[Silhouette]

Yes- my arguments- the arguments of Justice Kennedy- do ignore your bizarre claims.

You better hope he ignores your arguments- if he were to pay attention it would only convince him more that you folks are intentionally attemping to discriminate against homosexuals.

One thing about Kennedy, he seems to really be fickle. I wonder if he's read Sutton's Opinion and pondered how it is that states will prevent polygamy marriage if gay marriage is federally protected. What makes LGBT superior legally in "rights" to P?

 

[Syriusly]

Yes- my arguments- the arguments of Justice Kennedy- do ignore your bizarre claims.

You better hope he ignores your arguments- if he were to pay attention it would only convince him more that you folks are intentionally attemping to discriminate against homosexuals.

One thing about Kennedy, he seems to really be fickle. I wonder if he's read Sutton's Opinion and pondered how it is that states will prevent polygamy marriage if gay marriage is federally protected. What makes LGBT superior legally in "rights" to P?

Fickle? I think he is fairly clear

Speaking of the children of gay parents in California:
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

Speaking of children of gay parents in the DOMA case

There is a striking aspect to Kennedy's surprisingly passionate opinion: He focuses directly on the children of same-sex couples. DOMA, he writes, "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."

In a sense, this turns on its head one of the main bogeymen used by activists opposed to marriage equality: that gay marriage will somehow harm children and disrupt families. To the contrary, Kennedy argues that striking down DOMA will give dignity to same-sex families and help end the suffering of children caused by the current the law.

When the case reaches the Supreme Court however, Kennedy will read Sutton's opinion, along with the opinion of the dissenting judge, and the opinion's of the Appellate Courts that determined that laws against same gender marriage are unconstitutional.

 

[Skylar]

Yes- my arguments- the arguments of Justice Kennedy- do ignore your bizarre claims.

You better hope he ignores your arguments- if he were to pay attention it would only convince him more that you folks are intentionally attemping to discriminate against homosexuals.

One thing about Kennedy, he seems to really be fickle. I wonder if he's read Sutton's Opinion and pondered how it is that states will prevent polygamy marriage if gay marriage is federally protected. What makes LGBT superior legally in "rights" to P?

Not on these issues. He's been remarkably consistent. Every vote he's cast in the last say, 15 to 20 years regarding gays and lesbians has been in favor of their protection. In Romer he defended gays. In Windsor, he overturned key portions of DOMA. He voted in favor of upholding the ruling that overturned Prop 8. And he's voted in every instance to lift stays on the implementation of gay marriage.

The only inconsistencies are between what Kennedy has actually done....and what you *imagine* he did. Where you make up elaborate internal monologues and motivations for Kennedy that he's never uttered. And his actions utterly contradict.

 

[Silhouette]

Kennedy ought to consider children...the ones that are missing one blood parent 100% of the time.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes- my arguments- the arguments of Justice Kennedy- do ignore your bizarre claims.

You better hope he ignores your arguments- if he were to pay attention it would only convince him more that you folks are intentionally attemping to discriminate against homosexuals.

One thing about Kennedy, he seems to really be fickle. I wonder if he's read Sutton's Opinion and pondered how it is that states will prevent polygamy marriage if gay marriage is federally protected. What makes LGBT superior legally in "rights" to P?

Not on these issues. He's been remarkably consistent. Every vote he's cast in the last say, 15 to 20 years regarding gays and lesbians has been in favor of their protection. In Romer he defended gays. In Windsor, he overturned key portions of DOMA. He voted in favor of upholding the ruling that overturned Prop 8. And he's voted in every instance to lift stays on the implementation of gay marriage.

The only inconsistencies are between what Kennedy has actually done....and what you *imagine* he did. Where you make up elaborate internal monologues and motivations for Kennedy that he's never uttered. And his actions utterly contradict.

I think Kennedy's statements make it very clear that he will not look kindly on arguments that are based upon 'protecting the children' but ignore protecting the children of same gender couples.