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

[Silhouette]

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.

Don't forget prison Jakey like you threatened on the other thread just now..

I would LOVE that to happen. Do you know how I would spend my time in prison? I would spend it talking to my civil rights attorney for your violation of my right to free speech and how much money we would countersue you for in front of a jury. Then I would expose your tyranny on every major media outlet known to mankind, and maybe a few on Mars too..lol.. When I was done with the likes of you, your LGBT label would be synonymous with "the Nazi Party". And if you want to sue me, go ahead. I think to my name right now I have a bucket of goat shit you could win. And a couple of dead cars from the early 1990s in the yard. Knock yourself out.

Then I would write a book and when I got out early on good behavior, I would sell it and make zillions of dollars off the millions or so who "liked" the "Boycott A&E" Facebook page (within 24 hours of it being set up) in protest of squelching Phil Robertson's right to free speech. Maybe I'd even get an interview with the Roberson family for extra exposure to the harms brought against me. I could see a photo of me and Phil standing together with stern, unflinchable looks in our flinty eyes, shoulder to shoulder.

Then I would take that money and donate it to traditional family advocates so that each election cycle on people's local TV stations we could run ads around the clock showing the details of Harvey Milk's sex life and who supports him and defends his lifestyle even to this day.
So, do you feel lucky punk? Well, do you?

 

[Syriusly]

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. ..

And of course you presume that Sutton was not appointed for political reasons and is not incompetant- but the majority of justices in the other 4 Appellette courts and the lower courts too- were all incompetent- lol.

No- same gender marriage equality has no effect on the argument for polygamy.

I defer to the learned judge from the Wisconsin case

I make three observations in response to defendants’ concern about the slippery slope.
First, and most important, the task of this court is to address the claim presented and not
to engage in speculation about issues not raised that may or may not arise at some later time
in another case. Socha v. Pollard, 621 F.3d 667, 670 (7th Cir. 2010) (“If [an] order
represents a mere advisory opinion not addressed to resolving a ‘case or controversy,’ then
it marks an attempted exercise of judicial authority beyond constitutional bounds.”). Thus,
the important question for this case is not whether another individual’s marriage claim may
be analogous to plaintiffs’ claim, but whether plaintiffs’ claim is like the claims raised in cases
such as Loving, Zablocki, Turner and Windsor. I have concluded that it is. When the
Supreme Court struck down the marriage restrictions in those other cases, it did not engage
in hypothetical discussions about what might come next. See also Lewis v. Harris, 875 A.2d
259, 287-88 (N.J. Super. A.D. 2005) (Collester, J., dissenting) (“It is . . . unnecessary for us
to consider here the question of the constitutional rights of polygamists to marry persons of
their choosing. . . . One issue of fundamental constitutional rights is enough for now.”).

Second, there are obvious differences between the justifications for the ban on samesex
marriage and other types of marriage restrictions. For example, polygamy and incest
raise concerns about abuse, exploitation and threats to the social safety net. A more
fundamental point is that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is different from other
marriage restrictions because it completely excludes gay persons from participating in the
institution of marriage in any meaningful sense. In other words, gay persons simply are
asking for the right to marry someone. With the obvious exception of minors, no other class
is being denied this right. As in Romer, plaintiffs are not asking for “special rights”; they are
asking only for the rights that every adult already has.
Third, opponents of marriage between same-sex couples have been raising concerns
about the slippery slope for many years, but these concerns have not proved well-founded.
Again, there is no evidence from Europe that lifting the restriction on same-sex marriage has
had an effect on other marriage restrictions related to age, consanguinity or number of
partners. Eskridge and Spedale, supra, at 40. Similarly, in Vermont and Massachusetts, the
first states to give legal recognition to same-sex couples, there has been no movement toward
polygamy or incest. Further, I am aware of no court that even has questioned the validity
of those restrictions. Marriage Cases, 183 P.3d at 434 n.52 (rejecting comparison to
polygamy and incest); Goodridge, 798 N.E.2d at 969 n.34 (2003) (same). Accordingly, this
interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici, does not provide a legitimate
basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Don't forget prison Jakey like you threatened on the other thread just now..

I would LOVE that to happen. Do you know how I would spend my time in prison? I would spend it talking to my civil rights attorney for your violation of my right to free speech and how much money we would countersue you for in front of a jury. Then I would expose your tyranny on every major media outlet known to mankind, and maybe a few on Mars too..lol.. When I was done with the likes of you, your LGBT label would be synonymous with "the Nazi Party". And if you want to sue me, go ahead. I think to my name right now I have a bucket of goat shit you could win. And a couple of dead cars from the early 1990s in the yard. Knock yourself out.

Doesn't surprise me in the least.

 

[Silhouette]

And of course you presume that Sutton was not appointed for political reasons and is not incompetant- but the majority of justices in the other 4 Appellette courts and the lower courts too- were all incompetent- lol.

You always want to make this about the man...OK...I'll play along.

Let's say Sutton is a corrupt incompetent ass, for arguments sake. Now that I've accused that in the other appointed judges we have a level playing field. Let's turn to their reasoning instead:

Find the flaws in Sutton's reasoning here and delineate them for me one by one. Use numbers. 1. He was wrong that... 2. He was wrong that...

...and so on:

*******

14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases
(Page 23)
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

 

[Syriusly]

And of course you presume that Sutton was not appointed for political reasons and is not incompetant- but the majority of justices in the other 4 Appellette courts and the lower courts too- were all incompetent- lol.

You always want to make this about the man...OK...I'll play along.

You were the one who made this claim

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

You just applied that speculation to the judges you disagree with- and presumed it did not apply to Sutton.

There are 4 other Appellate Courts where the majority came to a different conclusion than Sutton's majority, decisions more like the dissent to Sutton's opinion.

You are convinced that Sutton is correct- which is your perogative. But you also ignore that there are other equally legally valid opinions by 4 other Appellate Courts.

And to try to argue that they are incompetent simply because you disagree with them is just pure bigotry.

 

[Silhouette]

And to try to argue that they are incompetent simply because you disagree with them is just pure bigotry.

Speak to Judge Sutton's comments in my last post. Find flaws in his reasoning using 1. 2. 3. and so forth. Time's a-wasting.. Your diversions make your arguments, your motivations and yourself look sinister..

 

[Syriusly]

And to try to argue that they are incompetent simply because you disagree with them is just pure bigotry.

Speak to Judge Sutton's comments in my last post. Find flaws in his reasoning using 1. 2. 3. and so forth. Time's a-wasting.. Your diversions make your arguments, your motivations and yourself look sinister..

LOL.....look to the other Appellate Court decisions and see how they disagree with this Appellate Court decision.

I have no interest in playing your reindeer game.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL.....look to the other Appellate Court decisions and see how they disagree with this Appellate Court decision.

I have no interest in playing your reindeer game.

You are afraid to address Sutton's comments. Address them. Find fault in them. I dare you. You cannot. You are slimey and evasive. You are a sham. You and your arguments both are paper tigers. Show some teeth. Strike at Sutton's reasoning with claws. Or be seen for what you are, a troll who posts four to five one paragraph posts on a page to make important points disappear. In other words, your sole function here at USMB as part of "the internet team" is to make important and dangerous points that expose your cult "disappear off the page". You are under strict orders to not address Sutton's points. Which is why I'm challenging you to and exposing the fact that you won't.

..which is worse for your cause than if you just tried to take a stab at them...

 

[Syriusly]

LOL.....look to the other Appellate Court decisions and see how they disagree with this Appellate Court decision.

I have no interest in playing your reindeer game.

You are afraid to address Sutton's comments. ..

LOL.....look to the other Appellate Court decisions and see how they disagree with this Appellate Court decision.

I have no interest in playing your reindeer game.

 

[Silhouette]

LOL.....look to the other Appellate Court decisions and see how they disagree with this Appellate Court decision.

I have no interest in playing your reindeer game.

OK, quote from one of the other decisions you like and put it next to Sutton's reasoning on polygamy. Show how he is wrong. If you cannot find your own words to rebut Sutton's reasoning, use theirs. I don't care. Just specify how Sutton is wrong somehow, or I will presume you are incapable of finding fault with his reasoning and thus, you must agree with it.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL.....look to the other Appellate Court decisions and see how they disagree with this Appellate Court decision.

I have no interest in playing your reindeer game.

OK, quote from one of the other decisions you like and put it next to Sutton's reasoning on polygamy. Show how he is wrong. If you cannot find your own words to rebut Sutton's reasoning, use theirs. I don't care. Just specify how Sutton is wrong somehow, or I will presume you are incapable of finding fault with his reasoning and thus, you must agree with it.

First of all- I just wanted to point out that everything in your signature is a fabrication by you.

Everything.

 

[Syriusly]

LOL.....look to the other Appellate Court decisions and see how they disagree with this Appellate Court decision.

I have no interest in playing your reindeer game.

OK, quote from one of the other decisions you like and put it next to Sutton's reasoning on polygamy. Show how he is wrong. If you cannot find your own words to rebut Sutton's reasoning, use theirs. I don't care. Just specify how Sutton is wrong somehow, or I will presume you are incapable of finding fault with his reasoning and thus, you must agree with it.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-b...4/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0

I find the 7th circuit persuasive- they ignore the slippery slope argument altogether- and their argument is solid


Indiana permits joint adoption by homosexuals (Wisconsin
does not). But an unmarried homosexual couple is less
stable than a married one, or so at least the state’s insistence
that marriage is better for children implies. If marriage is
better for children who are being brought up by their biological
parents, it must be better for children who are being
brought up by their adoptive parents. The state should want
homosexual couples who adopt children—as, to repeat, they
are permitted to do—to be married, if it is serious in arguing
that the only governmental interest in marriage derives from
the problem of accidental births. (We doubt that it is serious.)

 

[Silhouette]

I find the 7th circuit persuasive- they ignore the slippery slope argument altogether- and their argument is solid

Indiana permits joint adoption by homosexuals (Wisconsin
does not). But an unmarried homosexual couple is less
stable than a married one, or so at least the state’s insistence
that marriage is better for children implies. If marriage is
better for children who are being brought up by their biological
parents, it must be better for children who are being
brought up by their adoptive parents. The state should want
homosexual couples who adopt children—as, to repeat, they
are permitted to do—to be married, if it is serious in arguing
that the only governmental interest in marriage derives from
the problem of accidental births. (We doubt that it is serious.)

hmmm...well then I suppose married polygamist parents are much more stable than non-married ones?

How do you feel about all those millions of children of single parents who are being deprived of the benefits of marriage? Suppose people choose to be single parents, must they marry another person to save their children the distress of not being in a married home? Couldn't people choose to love and marry themselves? Or are society's mores not quite ready for that? Maybe that's off in the future eh?

 

[Syriusly]

How do you feel about all those millions of children of single parents who are being deprived of the benefits of marriage? Suppose people choose to be single parents, must they marry another person to save their children the distress of not being in a married home? Couldn't people choose to love and marry themselves? Or are society's mores not quite ready for that? Maybe that's off in the future eh?

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

 

[Silhouette]

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

Just as gays are permitted to marry also. Singles may not marry themselves and gays may not marry each other. Marriage for the sake of children having two blood parents in the home is between men and women only.

Gays complain they don't want to marry hetero. Singles complain they don't want to have to marry anyone for their kids to enjoy the benefits of marraige. In either home, the children present are missing one of their blood parents 100% of the time..

You're learning. Good.

When you've figured out that the state's only role in marriage is to incentivize a situation where children will have both blood parents in the home for their best benefit, let me know, OK?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

Just as gays are permitted to marry also. Singles may not marry themselves and gays may not marry each other. Marriage for the sake of children having two blood parents in the home is between men and women only.

You're learning. Good.

Marriage isn't about children. Neither is fucking interestingly enough. Children are a byproduct in both cases, and an unnecessary concern as well.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

When you've figured out that the state's only role in marriage is to incentivize a situation where children will have both blood parents in the home for their best benefit, let me know, OK?

That's idiotic and entirely untrue. Thanks for playing, move along.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage isn't about children. Neither is fucking interestingly enough. Children are a byproduct in both cases, and an unnecessary concern as well.

What other interest does a state have for itself in incentivizing two blood parents of children to stay in the home while they raise them? That's the long and the short of any state's total interest in having marriage benefits at all.

Gay marriage and single parenthood guarantee that one of the blood parents of any child in that home is missing 100% of the time. This is not what the state wants for children so any state has a right to refuse to incentivize those situations with the privelege of marriage.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage isn't about children. Neither is fucking interestingly enough. Children are a byproduct in both cases, and an unnecessary concern as well.

What other interest does a state have for itself in incentivizing two blood parents of children to stay in the home while they raise them? That's the long and the short of any state's total interest in having marriage benefits at all.

Gay marriage and single parenthood guarantee that one of the blood parents of any child in that home is missing 100% of the time. This is not what the state wants for children so any state has a right to refuse to incentivize those situations with the privelege of marriage.

Marriage isn't about children you idiot, it's about the legal standing of couples, traditionally Husband and Wife and now expanded to some gay people.

 

[The Rabbi]

How do you feel about all those millions of children of single parents who are being deprived of the benefits of marriage? Suppose people choose to be single parents, must they marry another person to save their children the distress of not being in a married home? Couldn't people choose to love and marry themselves? Or are society's mores not quite ready for that? Maybe that's off in the future eh?

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

Something single gay parents want to have the same ability to do.

Single gay parents already have that ability. Single straught parents also cannot marry members of the same sex.
There is no discrimination, as you just showed.