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

[Skylar]

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false.

Then same sex marriage has always been legal?

I did not put forth a strawman argument at all.

Then who, pray tell, has claimed there are any prosecutions of gays for any ceremonies they wish to have? That would be you....and no one. You refuted an argument that no one made. Which is a strawman.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need them.

Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have.

This is literally the same argument made in defense of interracial marriage bans. That blacks and whites have the same rights...as their both allowed to marry their own race. And both forbidden from marrying outside their race. See, their rights are identical....at least according to the likes of Leon Bazile.

But like interracial marriage bans before them, there's no valid reason why this restriction exists. Its an arbitrary abrogation of rights. And yes, Lovings rights were violated. Just as gays rights are violated when they are forbidden from marrying someone of the same sex. As there's no particular reason for the restriction. No state interest is served. No rational reason exists.

The restriction, like interracial marriages restrictions before it, exists because it has existed. And that's an insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right.

Gay marriage is not real marriage.

Obviously it is. Its as recognized, valid and protected as any straight marriage....in 32 of 50 states. You disagree.

So what?

 

[The Rabbi]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

Blacks and whites weren't prevented from marrying either, just each other. Same tired arguments from different bigots.

Yeah gays are not blacks. Keep pretending.

 

[The Rabbi]

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false.

Then same sex marriage has always been legal?

Yes. Show me one place where anyone was ever prosecuted for having a gay wedding.

 

[Syriusly]

Where are gays not alllowed to marry? You make this claim over and over and yet fail to back it up.

I know, right?

She pretends, to the point of demonstrating delusion that homosexuals are in ANY WAY being precluded from marriage, when no homosexual has ever been denied a license to marry on the basis that they're a sexual deviant.

So now you're claiming that same sex marriage has always been legal?

Well that was easy.

Who claimed that?
for starters, no homosexual has ever been denied a marriage license and many of them have them.
Second, no homosexual couple has ever been prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want.
So that looks like two strikes against your statement. The fact that this has been pounded many times over and you still choose to repeat lies speaks to your inability to learn.

Who has said anything about gays being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want? You just refuted a claim no one has made. There's a word for that: strawman.

And since you've just admitted that same sex unions haven't always been legal, then its clear you comprehend the nature of the legal battle that gays have fought and won in 32 of 50 states.

So what else have you got?

What?
That made no sense, even for you.
Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.
But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

Funny isn't it- how you are carefully politically correct- calling homosexuals 'fags' but carefully not calling blacks 'n*ggers'- even though both words are used by the same people for the same reasons.

Now to address your whine:
In the 1960's the public was against mixed race marriages- and a mixed race couple went to court to demand their Constitutional rights to be treated equally. Now most people accept mixed race marriages.
In 2010 the public was against same gender marriages- and same gender couples went to court to demand their Constitutional rights to be treated equally.. Now most people accept same gender marriages.

And those are the facts.

In my opinion- the same people who found mixed race marriages offensive- also find same gender marriages offensive- just like the same people who use the term 'fag', use the term 'n*gger'.

 

[Syriusly]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

All marriage is real marriage. Any couple with a marriage license is really married. Those without aren't.

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

 

[bripat9643]

So why do those same consenting adults suddenly need a piece of paper from government to be legitimate?

Why hasnt this thread been merged with the other on the same topic?

Unfortunately, because of issues like child custody, child support and inheritance, government will always be involved in marriage. Of course, all these issues stem from the facts of reproduction, so it's difficult to understand why it should have anything to do with gays whatsoever.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

No, it's not marriage. It's a joke. Marriage between two members of the same sex is like like trying to make H2O without the O.

 

[Syriusly]

Unfortunately, because of issues like child custody, child support and inheritance, government will always be involved in marriage. Of course, all these issues stem from the facts of reproduction, so it's difficult to understand why it should have anything to do with gays whatsoever.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

That is absurd. There is no such thing as "more equal." Something is eiterh equal or it isnt.

No its not absurd.

In 1840, in most of the United States only white men could vote.
In 1870, African American men were also given the legal right to vote.....but not women.
Voting was then 'more equal' than it was before.
And in 1919, women were given the right to vote- making voting even 'more equal'- but only if you were 21 or older.

Yes- voting- and marriage- can be more equal than before.

 

[bripat9643]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

All marriage is real marriage. Any couple with a marriage license is really married. Those without aren't.

When the government turns a marriage license into a sham, it's meaningless.

 

[Syriusly]

Unfortunately, because of issues like child custody, child support and inheritance, government will always be involved in marriage. Of course, all these issues stem from the facts of reproduction, so it's difficult to understand why it should have anything to do with gays whatsoever.

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

No, it's not marriage. It's a joke. Marriage between two members of the same sex is like like trying to make H2O without the O.

Sucks to be you then- because in 32 states marriage is between two people who love each other regardless of their gender.

Actually- doesn't affect you at all other than getting your panties in a twist.

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

 

[Syriusly]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

All marriage is real marriage. Any couple with a marriage license is really married. Those without aren't.

When the government turns a marriage license into a sham, it's meaningless.

Well then you just refuse to get a marriage license.

Show the government who is the boss!

 

[The Rabbi]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

All marriage is real marriage. Any couple with a marriage license is really married. Those without aren't.

Really? So a couple without a marriage license is not married? We've already dispensed that argument. Marriage is not about government recognition. Except for gays.

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

It does affect me because now I have to pay for all the additional benefit these so-called "married couples" are entitled to. It also affects children in adoption agencies, and it affects the attraction of marriage to unmarried people. Now that it has become a joke, I think you'll find fewer and fewer people getting married.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

No, it's not marriage. It's a joke. Marriage between two members of the same sex is like like trying to make H2O without the O.

Sucks to be you then- because in 32 states marriage is between two people who love each other regardless of their gender.

Actually- doesn't affect you at all other than getting your panties in a twist.

 

[The Rabbi]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

 

[bripat9643]

What?
That made no sense, even for you.

Oh, it makes perfect sense. No one has said anything about 'homosexuals being prosecuted for engaging in whatever ceremony they want'. You're refuting an argument that hasn't been made. That's a strawman, an obtuse fallacy of logic.

If your claims had merit, you wouldn't need such fallacies. Yet you routinely embrace them.

Fags were unable to persuade the voting public of their cause so they took to the courts, dressed themselves up as black civil rights workers c.1965, and pretended to assume the mantel of black struggles.

Ah, but the public does support gay marriage by between 12 to 19 points. And the advocacy of gays for their right to same sex marriage preceded the public's support....just as the advocacy of interracial marriage by both whites and blacks preceded public support for it. In the case of the latter, by about 30 years.

Rights aren't dependent on public support. The public doesn't have the right to vote away fundamental rights. And marriage is a fundamental right.

But gays are not blacks. The parameters of the struggle are quite different. And a sober discussion reveals that the state has no compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage. Esp since gay marriages probably fail in greater percentages than real marriages.

The State has the same compelling interest in sanctioning gay marriage as it does sanctioning the marriages of the infertile or the childless. There's clearly a basis of marriage that has nothing to do with procreation, children or the ability to have them. But partnership between two adults. And there's no valid reason to deny gays access to this valid basis of marriage.

The State lacks a state interest in denying gays their right to marry whom they will. Denying them doesn't serve even a rational reason either. It simply is......because it has been. And that's insufficient to deny someone a fundamental right. Which is why gay marriage is now legal in 32 of 50 states.

As for gay marriages, they are real marriage. Your baseless speculation about their rate of failure is meaningless conjecture backed by nothing. And worth even less.

You wrote gays were not allowed to marry. That is false. I did not put forth a strawman argument at all. I put forth an argument that refuted your assertion.
Gays are not denied a fundamental right. They have exactly the same right that straight people have. And many gays have marriage licenses.
Gay marriage is not real marriage. It is play marriage. It is make-believe marriage. It is "gee we want to be just like real couples" marriage. But pretend is no basis for laws.

All marriage is real marriage. Any couple with a marriage license is really married. Those without aren't.

When the government turns a marriage license into a sham, it's meaningless.

Well then you just refuse to get a marriage license.

Show the government who is the boss!

How would that make your homo marriage legitimate?

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

Gay couples don't have children, so that argument is a non sequitur.

Are you that ignorant- or stupid- or just lying?

From the Supreme Court oral arguments on Prop 8:

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"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?"

 

[bripat9643]

Seriously- that is a horribly flawed argument.

Gay couples have children the same way that millions of Americans have children- they adopt children, they use invitro fertilization, they use surrogacy- the same methods couples who are infertile use- gay couples use.

Gay couples have children- thousands- and thousands of children.

And where gay couples do not have marriage rights- that causes complications with everything you mentioned- child custody, child support, and inheritance.

Oh- by the way- the biggest issue for inheritance is not with children- it is with spouses.

Which was the issue behind Windsor.

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay

The Utah Supreme Court on Thursday lifted a stay which had barred from completion four pending adoptions of children by their same-sex parents.

The action clears the way for the Utah Department of Health to issue birth certificates that list the same-sex parents as the children’s legal parents. It will also restart countless other adoptions that were left in limbo by Utah’s contention that the cases should be on hold until it was clear that gay marriage would be legal in the Beehive state.

"The families involved are obviously relieved and thrilled," said Laura Milliken Gray, an attorney who represented one of the four families, and who also had six other adoptions in process when the stay was put in place.

Utah Supreme Court lifts same-sex adoption stay The Salt Lake Tribune

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

That is absurd. There is no such thing as "more equal." Something is eiterh equal or it isnt.

No its not absurd.

In 1840, in most of the United States only white men could vote.
In 1870, African American men were also given the legal right to vote.....but not women.
Voting was then 'more equal' than it was before.
And in 1919, women were given the right to vote- making voting even 'more equal'- but only if you were 21 or older.

Yes- voting- and marriage- can be more equal than before.

What makes you think I approve of giving everyone the vote?

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

Marriage is about children first, adults second. How is gay marriage "more equal" for children?

If marriage was about children first- then you would be insisting on 'gay marriage' so that their children would have the benefits of marriage.

But marriage is not about children first- and you knew that.

Gay couples dont have children. Yet another example of gays playing "dress up".

Well that argument is going to sit very well with Chief Justice Kennedy......

During Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, Justice Anthony Kennedy--who is widely considered the swing vote in the case--suggested that California's gay marriage ban causes "immediate legal injury" to children of same-sex parents.

"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 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."

 

[Syriusly]

Exactly! And now the adoption laws are coming in line with the marriage laws.

Its about time.

Which is another reason not to allow the oxymoron called "gay marriage."

Exactly- it is just marriage- now more equal than before.

That is absurd. There is no such thing as "more equal." Something is eiterh equal or it isnt.

No its not absurd.

In 1840, in most of the United States only white men could vote.
In 1870, African American men were also given the legal right to vote.....but not women.
Voting was then 'more equal' than it was before.
And in 1919, women were given the right to vote- making voting even 'more equal'- but only if you were 21 or older.

Yes- voting- and marriage- can be more equal than before.

What makes you think I approve of giving everyone the vote?

I am fairly certain you don't believe anyone should have the vote. Maybe a small circle of people who you think think the way you do. But I suspect you are most comfortable with a Putin like figure that tells everyone what they should do.