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

[Syriusly]

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.
Your failure to meet my challenge is noted again.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.

Doubling donw on stupid is a bad strategy.
I have stated my argument many times. Your inability merely to state what it is shows you are too stupid to engage.

You are unable to even state your own argument.

Meanwhile as the court noted in Wisconsin:

In fact, Wisconsin already does inquire into the fertility of
some marriage applicants, though in that case it requires the couple to certify that they are
not able to procreate, which itself is proof that Wisconsin sees value in marriages that do not
produce children and is applying a double standard to same-sex couples. Wis. Stat. §
765.03(1) (permitting first cousins to marry if “the female has attained the age of 55 years
or where either party, at the time of application for a marriage license, submits an affidavit
signed by a physician stating either party is permanently sterile”). To the extent amici mean
to argue that an inquiry into fertility would be inappropriately intrusive because opposite-sex
married couples have a constitutional right not to procreate under Griswold, that argument
supports a view that the same right must be extended to same-sex couples as well

I have stated my argument here many times.[/QUOTE]
OK now you are simply babbling the same nonsense over and over.
Bye.[/QUOTE]

See you think what the court wrote in Wisconsin is nonsense, just like you think what Kennedy asked is.

But I don't think the Supreme Court will think that what the court said in Wisconsin is nonsense, nor do I think that Kennedy will suddenly be unconcerned about the children of gay parents.

BUT I do hope that your side makes your exact argument- whatever it is- to the Supreme Court.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is no dilemma. SCOTUS has been waiting for this case to rule in favor of marriage equality at 6-3 or 7-2.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

Not a dilemma at all.

Unlike yourself, I think that the Justices of the Supreme Court will review the decisions of ALL of the Appellate Courts- and the dissents also. And the court cases that preceded them.

And the oral arguments that preceded them.

BUT- I do expect that Kennedy will be just as concerned with the children of gay parents as he was during the oral arguments about Prop 8.

And if the homophobes can't win Kennedy to your side- then you will lose.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sotomayor already has Kennedy, so it is 6 to 3.

 

[mdk]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

Of course you don't because it supports your animus towards gays. I am glad they ruled the way they did, it means the SC will have to act on this issue quicker. And when they don't rule in your favor you'll have to find a new axe to grind.

 

[Silhouette]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

Of course you don't because it supports your animus towards gays. I am glad they ruled the way they did, it means the SC will have to act on this issue quicker. And when they don't rule in your favor you'll have to find a new axe to grind.

Animus towards the gay culture. Keep the difference straight in your mind.

 

[mdk]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

Of course you don't because it supports your animus towards gays. I am glad they ruled the way they did, it means the SC will have to act on this issue quicker. And when they don't rule in your favor you'll have to find a new axe to grind.

Animus towards the gay culture. Keep the difference straight in your mind.

You can't even be honest about your anti-gay crusade. lol.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

Of course you don't because it supports your animus towards gays. I am glad they ruled the way they did, it means the SC will have to act on this issue quicker. And when they don't rule in your favor you'll have to find a new axe to grind.

Animus towards the gay culture. Keep the difference straight in your mind.

You can't even be honest about your anti-gay crusade. lol.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[mdk]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

Of course you don't because it supports your animus towards gays. I am glad they ruled the way they did, it means the SC will have to act on this issue quicker. And when they don't rule in your favor you'll have to find a new axe to grind.

Animus towards the gay culture. Keep the difference straight in your mind.

You can't even be honest about your anti-gay crusade. lol.

Pot, meet kettle.

I've been nothing but honest when discussing this issue. Sil has an obvious axe to grind and has distorted poll after poll to fit her anti-gay narrative. It is fun watching you folks get your asses handed to you in the courts and in the court of public opinion. You'll get over it.

 

[Syriusly]

Sotomayor already has Kennedy, so it is 6 to 3.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings- I take nothing for granted.

But the more Silhouette and Rabbi make their hysterical arguments, the more confident I feel- if that is the best that the homophobes can come up with then the decision should be a slam dunk.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't think they'll think the 6th's Decision is "nonsense" either... So there's your dilemma..

Of course you don't because it supports your animus towards gays. I am glad they ruled the way they did, it means the SC will have to act on this issue quicker. And when they don't rule in your favor you'll have to find a new axe to grind.

Animus towards the gay culture. Keep the difference straight in your mind.

You can't even be honest about your anti-gay crusade. lol.

Pot, meet kettle.

I've been nothing but honest when discussing this issue. Sil has an obvious axe to grind and has distorted poll after poll to fit her anti-gay narrative. It is fun watching you folks get your asses handed to you in the courts and in the court of public opinion. You'll get over it.

Tell that to the Sixth Circuit.
As for your "honesty"--well it speaks for itself.

 

[The Rabbi]

Sotomayor already has Kennedy, so it is 6 to 3.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings- I take nothing for granted.

But the more Silhouette and Rabbi make their hysterical arguments, the more confident I feel- if that is the best that the homophobes can come up with then the decision should be a slam dunk.

Since you do not understand the arguments I cant see how you can feel confident of anything.
Based on Windsor the Supreme Court will affirm that states have the power, under A10, to set marriage criteria.

 

[mdk]

Of course you don't because it supports your animus towards gays. I am glad they ruled the way they did, it means the SC will have to act on this issue quicker. And when they don't rule in your favor you'll have to find a new axe to grind.

Animus towards the gay culture. Keep the difference straight in your mind.

You can't even be honest about your anti-gay crusade. lol.

Pot, meet kettle.

I've been nothing but honest when discussing this issue. Sil has an obvious axe to grind and has distorted poll after poll to fit her anti-gay narrative. It is fun watching you folks get your asses handed to you in the courts and in the court of public opinion. You'll get over it.

Tell that to the Sixth Circuit.
As for your "honesty"--well it speaks for itself.

Almost every court has sided against your view. A blind squirrel finding a nut every once in a while is hardly a reason to celebrate. And yes, my honesty does speak for itself. You should try it some time when discussing this issue. It would be a refreshing change.

 

[Syriusly]

Sotomayor already has Kennedy, so it is 6 to 3.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings- I take nothing for granted.

But the more Silhouette and Rabbi make their hysterical arguments, the more confident I feel- if that is the best that the homophobes can come up with then the decision should be a slam dunk.

Since you do not understand the arguments I cant see how you can feel confident of anything.
Based on Windsor the Supreme Court will affirm that states have the power, under A10, to set marriage criteria.

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

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.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

 

[The Rabbi]

Sotomayor already has Kennedy, so it is 6 to 3.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings- I take nothing for granted.

But the more Silhouette and Rabbi make their hysterical arguments, the more confident I feel- if that is the best that the homophobes can come up with then the decision should be a slam dunk.

Since you do not understand the arguments I cant see how you can feel confident of anything.
Based on Windsor the Supreme Court will affirm that states have the power, under A10, to set marriage criteria.

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

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.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

Since you cannot comprehend my argument against gay marriage why do you think this will work out any better for you?

 

[Syriusly]

Sotomayor already has Kennedy, so it is 6 to 3.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings- I take nothing for granted.

But the more Silhouette and Rabbi make their hysterical arguments, the more confident I feel- if that is the best that the homophobes can come up with then the decision should be a slam dunk.

Since you do not understand the arguments I cant see how you can feel confident of anything.
Based on Windsor the Supreme Court will affirm that states have the power, under A10, to set marriage criteria.

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

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.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

Since you cannot comprehend my argument against gay marriage why do you think this will work out any better for you?

Since no one can comprehend your 'argument' I am not really concerned by whatever you think it is.

I am just pointing out the facts

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

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.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

 

[The Rabbi]

Sotomayor already has Kennedy, so it is 6 to 3.

It ain't over till the fat lady sings- I take nothing for granted.

But the more Silhouette and Rabbi make their hysterical arguments, the more confident I feel- if that is the best that the homophobes can come up with then the decision should be a slam dunk.

Since you do not understand the arguments I cant see how you can feel confident of anything.
Based on Windsor the Supreme Court will affirm that states have the power, under A10, to set marriage criteria.

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

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.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

Since you cannot comprehend my argument against gay marriage why do you think this will work out any better for you?

Since no one can comprehend your 'argument' I am not really concerned by whatever you think it is.

I am just pointing out the facts

You mean based upon this statement from Windsor?

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.

Or perhaps you are thinking of Kennedy's questions during oral arguments:

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

 

[Silhouette]

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

The LGBT cultees here present the dissenting opinions as if they were the binding law and the actual Opinion, like Windsor 2013, was just a mere suggestion that the question of gay marriage is the "unquestioned authority" of the states...

 

[The Rabbi]

Are you confusing a Supreme Court opinion, which is binding, with a question during oral arguments? That isn't an argument at all.

The LGBT cultees here present the dissenting opinions as if they were the binding law and the actual Opinion, like Windsor 2013, was just a mere suggestion that the question of gay marriage is the "unquestioned authority" of the states...

All they seem to be capable of is making fun of people who disagree with them and quoting things that confirm their opinions.