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

[Syriusly]

Shrugs......I'm here to discuss gay marriage. If Rabbi won't do it,

Luckily single parents are permitted by law to marry.

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

You don't think Silo actually believes his '100 blood from both parents' nonsense, do you?

I believe that Silo believes that any lie or misrepresentation that she makes is defensible so long as she is creating an environment of hate towards homosexuals.

Almost all of the 'harm' cited by Silo is caused by straight couples. Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....based on 'harm' caused almost exclusively by straights?

There's no part of Silo's argument that makes the slightest sense.

From the 6th Circuit:

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Confusing cause and effect.
Not that you would understand that.

You can tell it to the dissenting judge who wrote her opinion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Shrugs......I'm here to discuss gay marriage. If Rabbi won't do it,

You don't think Silo actually believes his '100 blood from both parents' nonsense, do you?

I believe that Silo believes that any lie or misrepresentation that she makes is defensible so long as she is creating an environment of hate towards homosexuals.

Almost all of the 'harm' cited by Silo is caused by straight couples. Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....based on 'harm' caused almost exclusively by straights?

There's no part of Silo's argument that makes the slightest sense.

From the 6th Circuit:

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Confusing cause and effect.
Not that you would understand that.

You can tell it to the dissenting judge who wrote her opinion.

Note the term "dissenting" indicating a losing argument.

 

[Skylar]

Shrugs......I'm here to discuss gay marriage. If Rabbi won't do it,

I believe that Silo believes that any lie or misrepresentation that she makes is defensible so long as she is creating an environment of hate towards homosexuals.

Almost all of the 'harm' cited by Silo is caused by straight couples. Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....based on 'harm' caused almost exclusively by straights?

There's no part of Silo's argument that makes the slightest sense.

From the 6th Circuit:

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Confusing cause and effect.
Not that you would understand that.

You can tell it to the dissenting judge who wrote her opinion.

Note the term "dissenting" indicating a losing argument.

With gay marriage bans overturned in 5 other circuit districts. And the USSC preserving every one of those rulings overturning gay marriage bans.

You were saying about 'losing arguments'?

 

[Syriusly]

Shrugs......I'm here to discuss gay marriage. If Rabbi won't do it,

I believe that Silo believes that any lie or misrepresentation that she makes is defensible so long as she is creating an environment of hate towards homosexuals.

Almost all of the 'harm' cited by Silo is caused by straight couples. Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....based on 'harm' caused almost exclusively by straights?

There's no part of Silo's argument that makes the slightest sense.

From the 6th Circuit:

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Confusing cause and effect.
Not that you would understand that.

You can tell it to the dissenting judge who wrote her opinion.

Note the term "dissenting" indicating a losing argument.

Oh no doubt- she had the dissenting opinion, in the one Appellate Court decision out of 5 Appellate Court decisions, that didn't rule in favor of marriage equality.

Shrugs......I'm here to discuss gay marriage. If Rabbi won't do it,

I believe that Silo believes that any lie or misrepresentation that she makes is defensible so long as she is creating an environment of hate towards homosexuals.

Almost all of the 'harm' cited by Silo is caused by straight couples. Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....based on 'harm' caused almost exclusively by straights?

There's no part of Silo's argument that makes the slightest sense.

From the 6th Circuit:

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Confusing cause and effect.
Not that you would understand that.

You can tell it to the dissenting judge who wrote her opinion.

Note the term "dissenting" indicating a losing argument.

Well maybe you would prefer something from one of 5 Appellate Court decisions that affirmed marriage equality?

Having heard and carefully considered the argument of the litigants, we conclude
that, consistent with the United States Constitution, the State of Utah may not do so. We
hold that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right to marry, establish a
family, raise children, and enjoy the full protection of a state’s marital laws. A state may
not deny the issuance of a marriage license to two persons, or refuse to recognize their
marriage, based solely upon the sex of the persons in the marriage union. For the reasons
stated in this opinion, we affirm.

And this

As the Court in Windsor held, restrictions on same-sex marriage “humiliate[] tens of thousands of children now
being raised by same-sex couples” and “make[] 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.” 133 S. Ct. at 2694. Such statutes
“bring[] financial harm to children of same-sex couples . . . raise[] the cost of health care
for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex
spouses” and “den[y] or reduce[] benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse
and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.” Id. at 2695. These laws
deny to the children of same-sex couples the recognition essential to stability,
predictability, and dignity. Read literally, they prohibit the grant or recognition of any
rights to such a family and discourage those children from being recognized as members
of a family by their peers.

 

[Seawytch]

Shrugs......I'm here to discuss gay marriage. If Rabbi won't do it,

I believe that Silo believes that any lie or misrepresentation that she makes is defensible so long as she is creating an environment of hate towards homosexuals.

Almost all of the 'harm' cited by Silo is caused by straight couples. Why then would we deny gays and lesbians the right to marry....based on 'harm' caused almost exclusively by straights?

There's no part of Silo's argument that makes the slightest sense.

From the 6th Circuit:

For although my colleagues in the majority pay lip service to marriage as an institution conceived for the purpose of providing a stable family unit "within which children may flourish," they ignore the destabilizing effect of its absence in the homes of tens of thousands of same-sex parents throughout the four states of the Sixth Circuit.

Confusing cause and effect.
Not that you would understand that.

You can tell it to the dissenting judge who wrote her opinion.

Note the term "dissenting" indicating a losing argument.

Yes...much like the losing argument in dozens of states that now have marriage equality.

 

[Silhouette]

With gay marriage bans overturned in 5 other circuit districts. And the USSC preserving every one of those rulings overturning gay marriage bans.

You were saying about 'losing arguments'?

Well, with Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan all being able to preserve their definition of marriage as only man/woman, the US Supreme Court will have to step in.

They'll have to make a federal mandate to force all 50 states to incentivize homes where children will be where one blood parent or the complimentary gender-as-role-model is missing 100% of the time. Hurry! There's no time to waste! Children need this type of home situation incentivized ASAP!

 

[Skylar]

With gay marriage bans overturned in 5 other circuit districts. And the USSC preserving every one of those rulings overturning gay marriage bans.

You were saying about 'losing arguments'?

Well, with Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan all being able to preserve their definition of marriage as only man/woman, the US Supreme Court will have to step in.

Maybe. The ruling of the 6th was a 3 judge panel. It can be overruled by a full quorum of justices. So the USSC could conceivably send it back to the 6th circuit quorum. My impression is that the court clearly favors gay marriage. But clearly doesn't want to rule on the issue if they don't have to. They may give the 6th another chance at this one.

They'll have to make a federal mandate to force all 50 states to incentivize homes where children will be where one blood parent or the complimentary gender-as-role-model is missing 100% of the time. Hurry! There's no time to waste! Children need this type of home situation incentivized ASAP!

They won't have to do any such thing. Remember, when you're talking about what the courts 'have to do', you have no idea what you're talking about. Your record of predicting the courts actions are worse than guessing.

And given that Kennedy is the author of Lawerence, Romer and Windsor....and has already made it clear in Windsor of the harm done to children of gay parents when their parents can't get married, it seems likely that the courts will side with gay marriage. I call at least a 5 to 4. Likely 6 to 3. An outside chance of 7 to 2. Thomas and Scalia will likely always vote against. Among the other 7, I don't think any of them want to be this generation's Leon Bazile.

 

[Silhouette]

Maybe. The ruling of the 6th was a 3 judge panel. It can be overruled by a full quorum of justices. So the USSC could conceivably send it back to the 6th circuit quorum. My impression is that the court clearly favors gay marriage. But clearly doesn't want to rule on the issue if they don't have to. They may give the 6th another chance at this one.

You know what I'm hearing in that statement Skylar? I'm hearing that echo of the APA that has "audited group think" (CQR), where if different researchers come to different conclusions, they are "urged" (audited) by a group of peers to "fall into line" with the majority group think.

So you're saying SCOTUS should basically pressure the 6th to reverse its decision for political reasons. That's all you could be saying. You are saying "there is only one acceptable ruling on gay marriage and that is to madate it and force it upon the states federally." Even in spite of the fact that Judge Sutton's reasoning is flawless and the 6th has a right to come to its own conclusions.

Anyone that doubts the creeping fascism from the LGBT cult has to go no further than Skylar's prescription for "solving the little snag of dissent" in the 6th circuit. S/he is saying "of course your opinions and reasoning are allowed...as long as they do not waver from what we want you to say". That's just how Hitler got his feet wet in the 1930s...

 

[Syriusly]

With gay marriage bans overturned in 5 other circuit districts. And the USSC preserving every one of those rulings overturning gay marriage bans.

You were saying about 'losing arguments'?

Well, with Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky and Michigan all being able to preserve their definition of marriage as only man/woman, the US Supreme Court will have to step in.

They'll have to make a federal mandate to force all 50 states to incentivize homes where children will be where one blood parent or the complimentary gender-as-role-model is missing 100% of the time. Hurry! There's no time to waste! Children need this type of home situation incentivized ASAP!

Well I would hope that the Supreme Court does follow the wise counsel of the majority of the courts and rule for marriage equality and for protection of children.

 

[Syriusly]

Anyone that doubts the creeping fascism from the LGBT cult has to go no further than Skylar's prescription for "solving the little snag of dissent" in the 6th circuit. S/he is saying "of course your opinions and reasoning are allowed...as long as they do not waver from what we want you to say". That's just how Hitler got his feet wet in the 1930s...

Or as rational people call it- using the Courts to enforce the Constitution....

 

[Skylar]

So you're saying SCOTUS should basically pressure the 6th to reverse its decision for political reasons. That's all you could be saying. You are saying "there is only one acceptable ruling on gay marriage and that is to madate it and force it upon the states federally." Even in spite of the fact that Judge Sutton's reasoning is flawless and the 6th has a right to come to its own conclusions.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm saying that it doesn't look like the USSC wants to rule on this issue if they don't have to. A full quorum of a circuit court is customary before a USSC ruling is made. And the USSC may punt the ball back to the full quorum rather than rule on the case in the hopes that the full quorum may eliminate the conflict that would otherwise mandate their action.

Anyone that doubts the creeping fascism from the LGBT cult has to go no further than Skylar's prescription for "solving the little snag of dissent" in the 6th circuit. S/he is saying "of course your opinions and reasoning are allowed...as long as they do not waver from what we want you to say". That's just how Hitler got his feet wet in the 1930s...

You do realize that the argument you're attacking isn't one I've ever made, don't you? And as always, you don't have the slightest clue what fascism actually is.

For the record, its not allowing a full quorum of justices in a lower court to rule before intervening.

 

[Syriusly]

So you're saying SCOTUS should basically pressure the 6th to reverse its decision for political reasons. That's all you could be saying. You are saying "there is only one acceptable ruling on gay marriage and that is to madate it and force it upon the states federally." Even in spite of the fact that Judge Sutton's reasoning is flawless and the 6th has a right to come to its own conclusions.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm saying that it doesn't look like the USSC wants to rule on this issue if they don't have to. A full quorum of a circuit court is customary before a USSC ruling is made. And the USSC may punt the ball back to the full quorum rather than rule on the case in the hopes that the full quorum may eliminate the conflict that would otherwise mandate their action.

Anyone that doubts the creeping fascism from the LGBT cult has to go no further than Skylar's prescription for "solving the little snag of dissent" in the 6th circuit. S/he is saying "of course your opinions and reasoning are allowed...as long as they do not waver from what we want you to say". That's just how Hitler got his feet wet in the 1930s...

You do realize that the argument you're attacking isn't one I've ever made, don't you? And as always, you don't have the slightest clue what fascism actually is.

For the record, its not allowing a full quorum of justices in a lower court to rule before intervening.

the only question is: Is Silouette just completely bat guano crazy? Or is she a manipulating, lying hater?

 

[Skylar]

So you're saying SCOTUS should basically pressure the 6th to reverse its decision for political reasons. That's all you could be saying. You are saying "there is only one acceptable ruling on gay marriage and that is to madate it and force it upon the states federally." Even in spite of the fact that Judge Sutton's reasoning is flawless and the 6th has a right to come to its own conclusions.

Nope. Not even close.

I'm saying that it doesn't look like the USSC wants to rule on this issue if they don't have to. A full quorum of a circuit court is customary before a USSC ruling is made. And the USSC may punt the ball back to the full quorum rather than rule on the case in the hopes that the full quorum may eliminate the conflict that would otherwise mandate their action.

Anyone that doubts the creeping fascism from the LGBT cult has to go no further than Skylar's prescription for "solving the little snag of dissent" in the 6th circuit. S/he is saying "of course your opinions and reasoning are allowed...as long as they do not waver from what we want you to say". That's just how Hitler got his feet wet in the 1930s...

You do realize that the argument you're attacking isn't one I've ever made, don't you? And as always, you don't have the slightest clue what fascism actually is.

For the record, its not allowing a full quorum of justices in a lower court to rule before intervening.

the only question is: Is Silouette just completely bat guano crazy? Or is she a manipulating, lying hater?

Every poster has a tell. Silo's is a sudden spike in melodrama.

 

[bripat9643]

I understand your position, it's just entirely wrong. The state hands out marriage licenses with no concern as to whether you will or even can have children. When two old people approach they don't refuse them a license. That's because they aren't concerned about the children you might produce.

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

 

[bripat9643]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

Clearly that is false.

Wisconsin would not allow first cousins to marry- but only if they proved their infertility- if marriage is '100% about the children anticipated to be there'.

There is no connection at all between the 'incentives' of marriage' and couples having children.

That fact proves that marriage is about children. Why should the state care if you're fertile when you marry your first cousin? It would only care if producing children was the issue regarding marriage.

I've noticed that the apologists for so-called "gay marriage" aren't very good at this logic stuff.

 

[bripat9643]

No one is stopping single gay parents from marrying singles of the opposite sex.
Even straight single parents cannot marry anyone of the same sex.
Still alleging discrimination?

In those States where single gay parents can marry a person of the gender of their choice, there is no discrimination.

And in states where anyone is not allowed to marry someone of the same sex there is no discrimination either.

Of course there is.

Mere assertion fallacy!
Rabbi Rules!

Please tell me where there is discrimination where no one can marry a member of the same sex.

More like Rabbi drools.

As noted in Wisconsin's ruling:

The Court said nothing about state laws such as Wisconsin’s marriage amendment that require discrimination and the
Court did not suggest that such laws are immune from constitutional review.

In this case, the ultimate question under both provisions
is whether the state may discriminate against same-sex couples in the context of issuing
marriage licenses and recognizing marriages performed in other states

What's going to happen with Utah starts allowing polygamy again? Is the court going to rule other states have to respect these multiple marriages? According to you, they will.

 

[The Rabbi]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

Clearly that is false.

Wisconsin would not allow first cousins to marry- but only if they proved their infertility- if marriage is '100% about the children anticipated to be there'.

There is no connection at all between the 'incentives' of marriage' and couples having children.

That fact proves that marriage is about children. Why should the state care if you're fertile when you marry your first cousin? It would only care if producing children was the issue regarding marriage.

I've noticed that the apologists for so-called "gay marriage" aren't very good at this logic stuff.

Thank you. You are 100% correct. The idiots here cannot grasp any argument that does not follow their view. This is because they are stupid.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I understand your position, it's just entirely wrong. The state hands out marriage licenses with no concern as to whether you will or even can have children. When two old people approach they don't refuse them a license. That's because they aren't concerned about the children you might produce.

No, they understand that if the two old people are male/female, the structure of "those who may marry" (we are arguing about qualifications after all) isn't harmed at all. It's when two people of the same gender, or numbers more than two apply. That causes a rupture to the definition set for the benefit of children.

No, it doesn't, and marriage is not about children. You should be happy gay people want to get married, they raise a lot of children and two-parent households are more stable than one.

"marriage is not about children."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I crack up every time I see someone post that.

Tell me something, PMH, if marriage isn't about children, then why did the U.S.A. have an institution known as the "shotgun wedding?"

Because there was once a stigma against being unmarried and pregnant but the state had nothing to do with that. That was society just as society is now saying it's legal for gays to get married.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

Clearly that is false.

Wisconsin would not allow first cousins to marry- but only if they proved their infertility- if marriage is '100% about the children anticipated to be there'.

There is no connection at all between the 'incentives' of marriage' and couples having children.

That fact proves that marriage is about children. Why should the state care if you're fertile when you marry your first cousin? It would only care if producing children was the issue regarding marriage.

I've noticed that the apologists for so-called "gay marriage" aren't very good at this logic stuff.

In this case their interest is in you not producing children. The fact that children are a common byproduct of marriage doesn't make marriage about children.

The state has an interest in healthy children and hopes people don't produce morons, which didn't work in your case and so many others here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The state's role in marriage is 100% about the children anticipated to be there. You will find this out soon enough as attorneys opposed to your position begin to really turn up the heat in arguments geared to protect untold millions of children well into each state's distant future..

Clearly that is false.

Wisconsin would not allow first cousins to marry- but only if they proved their infertility- if marriage is '100% about the children anticipated to be there'.

There is no connection at all between the 'incentives' of marriage' and couples having children.

That fact proves that marriage is about children. Why should the state care if you're fertile when you marry your first cousin? It would only care if producing children was the issue regarding marriage.

I've noticed that the apologists for so-called "gay marriage" aren't very good at this logic stuff.

Thank you. You are 100% correct. The idiots here cannot grasp any argument that does not follow their view. This is because they are stupid.

The stupid one is the one who can't grasp that his argument has been presented to the courts over and over again, and lost over and over again.