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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Silhouette, you're responding to perverse reasoning. These people are not capable of reason as their every would-be point evidences.

They have literally lost this debate every way it can be lost... .

Except in activist-courts. And hence the reason I labor as I do. Insanity can be socially transmitted. I'm administering the antidote. Sometimes, like with rabies, it takes many painful injections right in the belly over a long period of time to really get ahead of the disease and kill it before it kills the host..

Well, those courts are illegitimate, because of their activist nature. They serve the subjective purpose of the cult, thus they do not hear reason... they hear only what serves the pre-determined decision, which was certain from the moment the case is scheduled to be heard in those courts.

Therefore 'we' are NEVER going to win those court rooms. I hope you do not think that because they 'win' in the judiciary that the war is lost. Our victory is as certain as nature, which provides that the perverse reasoning will produce perverse results. Perverse results come at a catastrophic cost.

We're not the first culture to succumb to this temptation. The culture's before us endured this nonsense and it is THOSE experiences which provided for the taboos which forbid the behavior in the first place.

At this point we need only continue to combat the disease by rejecting it as it comes, but otherwise just sit back and wait for whatever disaster their behavior brings. Odds are nether of us, or anyone here will be around to witness it, but as sure as the sun rises, it is only a matter of time before the lowly homo's are sequestered to the top shelf, well to the rear of the proverbial closet.

Evil never wins... it simply cannot. Because the only potential result of evil is destruction. At which time, it all begins anew.

 

[Syriusly]

Immediate injury- what Justice Kennedy was concerned about versus imaginatory speculative injury

This situation is neither imaginative nor speculative:e.

That situation has nothing to do with the case that the Supreme Court has before them- and it is bizarre that you think it would.

Those two women are dealing with the same thing as other families dealing with gender confused kids- what you think that has to do with gay marriage is your problem.

 

[Syriusly]

Silhouette, you're responding to perverse reasoning. These people are not capable of reason as their every would-be point evidences.

They have literally lost this debate every way it can be lost... .

Except in activist-courts. And hence the reason I labor as I do. Insanity can be socially transmitted. I'm administering the antidote. Sometimes, like with rabies, it takes many painful injections right in the belly over a long period of time to really get ahead of the disease and kill it before it kills the host..

Well, those courts are illegitimate, because of.

no need to go further than 'illegimate'- bat guano crazy.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, marriage equality is not a form of rabies.

Your cognitive ability is degenerating, my dear.

Marriage equality hmm?...

You mean for polygamists?

What was it Sutton had to say about that..oh..yes..here it is...

********
(Page 23 of Sutton's Opinion):

"Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

*****

His logic is true, impervious and infallible. Gay marriage is equal to polygamy marriage in the legal arena. What Sutton was saying is "when and if gay marriage becomes a federal mandate, polygamy will instantly also". Because, in the interest of "marriage equality" you cannot arbitrarily discriminate calling your favorite type of completely new marriage "decent, good and normal" while calling one you disagree with "icky, wrong and bad"..subjectively. All non "a man and a woman" marriages will instantly become legal. Any attempts to rein them in would be utterly biased and arbitrary.

Marriage equality is marriage equality...for ALL, not just *some*. As it turns out, "LGBT" is a very limited group in the wide spectrum of what is possible in rewriting marriage for the states as a federal mandate under the blanket of "equal for all"..

So if and when Kennedy casts the key vote to mandate gay marriage across the 50 states, he is in the same stroke of his pen, signing in polygamy and ...?? Love is love after all..any children in polygmay marriages would be left suffering the shame , "immediate injury" etc. etc. of being caught up in their parent's lifestyle without the blessings of the states.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sutton came up with an argument, which has nothing to do with rabies.

But you are rabid on this subject, and rather silly.

Sotomayor has been for a decision like this. She can sweep the board and end the nonsense in favor of marriage equality once and for all.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Sil, marriage equality is not a form of rabies.

Your cognitive ability is degenerating, my dear.

Marriage equality hmm?...

You mean for polygamists?

What was it Sutton had to say about that..oh..yes..here it is...

********
(Page 23 of Sutton's Opinion):

"Consider how plaintiffs’ love-and-commitment definition of marriage would fare under their own rational basis test. Their definition does too much because it fails to account for the reality that no State in the country requires couples, whether gay or straight, to be in love. Their definition does too little because it fails to account for plural marriages, where there is no reason to think that three or four adults, whether gay, bisexual, or straight, lack the capacity to share love, affection, and commitment, or for that matter lack the capacity to be capable (and more plentiful) parents to boot. If it is constitutionally irrational to stand by the man-woman definition of marriage, it must be constitutionally irrational to stand by the monogamous definition of marriage. Plaintiffs have no answer to the point. What they might say they cannot: They might say that tradition or community mores provide a rational basis for States to stand by the monogamy definition of marriage, but they cannot say that because that is exactly what they claim is illegitimate about the States’ male-female definition of marriage. The predicament does not end there. No State is free of marriage policies that go too far in some directions and not far enough in others, making all of them vulnerable—if the claimants’ theory of rational basis review prevails." 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

*****

His logic is true, impervious and infallible. Gay marriage is equal to polygamy marriage in the legal arena. What Sutton was saying is "when and if gay marriage becomes a federal mandate, polygamy will instantly also". Because, in the interest of "marriage equality" you cannot arbitrarily discriminate calling your favorite type of completely new marriage "decent, good and normal" while calling one you disagree with "icky, wrong and bad"..subjectively. All non "a man and a woman" marriages will instantly become legal. Any attempts to rein them in would be utterly biased and arbitrary.

Marriage equality is marriage equality...for ALL, not just *some*. As it turns out, "LGBT" is a very limited group in the wide spectrum of what is possible in rewriting marriage for the states as a federal mandate under the blanket of "equal for all"..

In short he points out the certainty that slopes are slippery things indeed and that it is the standard which guard society from sliding down such slopes and that the best interests of society is served by recognizing the objective standard over the subjective needs of those who for whatever reason, fail to rise to the minimal threshold of that standard. The standards purpose is to discriminate against them... as such is critical to the very viability of the society.

 

[Silhouette]

Sutton came up with an argument, which has nothing to do with rabies.

But you are rabid on this subject, and rather silly.

Sotomayor has been for a decision like this. She can sweep the board and end the nonsense in favor of marriage equality once and for all.

I wasn't aware that the US Supreme Court was made up of only one Justice. I was always told in polysci that there are nine. For a damn good reason too, if memory serves. Your ilk has a very disturbing zeal for singular decisions that are repugnant to the majority in society who have their hands tied behind their backs...

Very disturbing indeed...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, what you don't know would fill a law library.

Decisions are crafted by one or two main players.

Sotomayor and Kennedy have been ready and waiting for the right case to put marriage equality squarely in protected law.

Sutton is it. Just like Warren waited for an crafted Brown vs the School Board.

 

[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.

I prefer to think that I am mocking you for your homophobic ways.

'making fun' sounds far too benign.

No doubt.
The truth is you are covering for your inability to engage me, understand my argument, and respond appropriately. This is because you are stupid.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Sutton came up with an argument, which has nothing to do with rabies.

But you are rabid on this subject, and rather silly.

Sotomayor has been for a decision like this. She can sweep the board and end the nonsense in favor of marriage equality once and for all.

It used to be that Supreme Court Justices were lauded for their fidelity to strict constitutional fidelity, particularly in areas where no specific authority has been given to the federal government and therefore the issue by default belongs to the states. The Supreme Court was established as a mainstay against a federal government that thinks it can do anything, control anything, and grow as oppressive as it pleases. Marriage is a state issue. It was never assigned to the federal government. It's disappointing how adverse you Leftists are against people controlling their own government.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The truth is that The Rabbis is unable to present an argument, engage others view points, and respond to the OP and evidence.

My boys, the reason is that he is not very bright.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, what you don't know would fill a law library.

Decisions are crafted by one or two main players.

Sotomayor and Kennedy have been ready and waiting for the right case to put marriage equality squarely in protected law.

Sutton is it. Just like Warren waited for an crafted Brown vs the School Board.

So then they've been waiting to mandate polygamy and all other consenting adults that want to marry...against the Will of the separate states?

Really? You really think so eh? Marriage equality is marriage equality. Don't go getting all judgmental that butt sex is somehow a superior parenting group to multiple parents. It isn't. Not morally, not traditionally, not legally. You say Sotomayor and Kennedy will be going down in history as pushing polygamy and all other non "a man and a woman" marriages in the interest of the strictest and purest interpretation of the phrase "marriage equality".

I say they won't want to go down in history as the Justices who forced polygamy on the states and incentivized homes for children with one blood parent/the complimentary gender-as-role-model missing 100% of the time. This comes down to just Kennedy anyway. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that..

 

[Listening]

Sil, what you don't know would fill a law library.

Decisions are crafted by one or two main players.

Sotomayor and Kennedy have been ready and waiting for the right case to put marriage equality squarely in protected law.

Sutton is it. Just like Warren waited for an crafted Brown vs the School Board.

So then they've been waiting to mandate polygamy and all other consenting adults that want to marry...against the Will of the separate states?

Really? You really think so eh? Marriage equality is marriage equality. Don't go getting all judgmental that butt sex is somehow a superior parenting group to multiple parents. It isn't. Not morally, not traditionally, not legally. You say Sotomayor and Kennedy will be going down in history as pushing polygamy and all other non "a man and a woman" marriages in the interest of the strictest and purest interpretation of the phrase "marriage equality".

I say they won't want to go down in history as the Justices who forced polygamy on the states and incentivized homes for children with one blood parent/the complimentary gender-as-role-model missing 100% of the time. This comes down to just Kennedy anyway. You know that. I know that. Everyone knows that..

Jake does not know anything.

He's a butthurt democrat poser.

 

[Syriusly]

Sil, marriage equality is not a form of rabies.

Your cognitive ability is degenerating, my dear.

Marriage equality hmm?...

You mean for polygamists?

His logic is true, impervious and infallible. Gay marriage is equal to polygamy marriage in the legal arena. .

Odd- if" true, impervious and infallible"- then why did 4 other Appellate Courts come to a different conclusion?

 

[Syriusly]

[
I say they won't want to go down in history as the Justices who forced polygamy\.

since Polygamy is not part of the court cases, they won't even address polygamy.

 

[Syriusly]

Sutton came up with an argument, which has nothing to do with rabies.

But you are rabid on this subject, and rather silly.

Sotomayor has been for a decision like this. She can sweep the board and end the nonsense in favor of marriage equality once and for all.

It used to be that Supreme Court Justices were lauded for their fidelity to strict constitutional fidelity, particularly in areas where no specific authority has been given to the federal government and therefore the issue by default belongs to the states. The Supreme Court was established as a mainstay against a federal government that thinks it can do anything, control anything, and grow as oppressive as it pleases. Marriage is a state issue. It was never assigned to the federal government. It's disappointing how adverse you Leftists are against people controlling their own government.

Loving v. Virginia.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Marriage is an issue already addressed by Loving v. Virginia.

Sexual behavior and polygamy will not be considered by the Court.

 

[Silhouette]

Odd- if" true, impervious and infallible"- then why did 4 other Appellate Courts come to a different conclusion?

Because some judges were appointed purely for political reasons and who were clearly incompetent when it comes to deductive reasoning.

If gay marriage is legal under the phrase "marriage equality" surely even someone working at playing dumb like you are has to admit that polygamy is too. Sutton's reasoning is rock solid. What LGBTs may say they cannot. They might cite that polygamy is against tradition and social mores, but that's precisely the argument they use in reverse to promote just their type of marriage. They say the states cannot pass moral judgments on their lifestyles and as such, "gays can be married even if states object". Same goes for polygamy. What makes your lifestyle superior to polygamists?

Kennedy will be making polygamy a mandate on all 50 states against their Will. Lifestyles are lifestyles. All will be equal under the law. And like Sutton said, polygamy may even be preferable to gay marriage first because there would be more parents to care for the children involved. Children would also have both blood parents in the home, wherease in gay marriages one would be missing 100% of the time.

So actually if the decision is made about children's welfare (future 100s of millions of children to be affected by the mandate vs just a few thousand today caught up in gay lifestyles not of their choosing), polygamy would come first for marriage and gay "marriage" would be next to last to gain the privelege...just above single parents being able to marry themselves. Using the justification that "children missing one of their blood parents in the home still would like the benefits of marriage"..

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kennedy will be doing no such thing.

It is time to curb the harm Sil is doing to people with civil injunctions filed in court with significant prison time and financial penalties for violation.

 

[Silhouette]

Someone is sounding desperate..lol..