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

[The Rabbi]

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. .

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

 

[Seawytch]

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

The irony of this post. All ya'll have been doing this entire thread is repeating failed arguments...from "gays can marry straight people" to "marriage is about procreation".

 

[PaintMyHouse]

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

The irony of this post. All ya'll have been doing this entire thread is repeating failed arguments...from "gays can marry straight people" to "marriage is about procreation".

Rabid is a projection machine. Maybe he thinks Jesus will return to fix this for him?

 

[The Rabbi]

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

The irony of this post. All ya'll have been doing this entire thread is repeating failed arguments...from "gays can marry straight people" to "marriage is about procreation".

And yet no one has refuted either fo those things.
Strange, no?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

The irony of this post. All ya'll have been doing this entire thread is repeating failed arguments...from "gays can marry straight people" to "marriage is about procreation".

And yet no one has refuted either fo those things.
Strange, no?

They've been refuted dozens of times, and in the courts no less, you're simply too stupid to grasp that. You are tired to your fag anchor, 300 feet under water and still going down.

 

[Syriusly]

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them.

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

 

[The Rabbi]

We won many court cases.
Argument #2.
You're so predictable.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

Yeah I think that seals it.
Bye bye, asshole.

 

[Syriusly]

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

"We won lots of court cases."
Yes, unable to think beyond three arguments.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

And that was predictable.

Repeating your same failed argument isnt arguing. It's mental illness. Get help.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

Yeah I think that seals it.
Bye bye, asshole.

'activist leftist judge' = any judge that Rabbi disagrees with regardless of their actual judicial record or who appointed them

 

[The Rabbi]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.
But gays are not a protected class in federal law. And with good reason. Blacks are identifiable. Jews are identifiable. Those labels tend to be permanent and deep. But gay is not. Leonard Bernstein was married and had children with a wife of many years before he divorced her (on her deathbed) and moved in with his gay lover. And that is not uncommon.
So since there is no federal protection for gays as there is for blacks the Court really cannot rule against states for discrimination here.

 

[Silhouette]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.
But gays are not a protected class in federal law. And with good reason. Blacks are identifiable. Jews are identifiable. Those labels tend to be permanent and deep. But gay is not. Leonard Bernstein was married and had children with a wife of many years before he divorced her (on her deathbed) and moved in with his gay lover. And that is not uncommon.
So since there is no federal protection for gays as there is for blacks the Court really cannot rule against states for discrimination here.

As far as I am aware, lifestyles don't qualify as minorities.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.
But gays are not a protected class in federal law. And with good reason. Blacks are identifiable. Jews are identifiable. Those labels tend to be permanent and deep. But gay is not. Leonard Bernstein was married and had children with a wife of many years before he divorced her (on her deathbed) and moved in with his gay lover. And that is not uncommon.
So since there is no federal protection for gays as there is for blacks the Court really cannot rule against states for discrimination here.

Legal in 35 states and two more just came up. Boy, it must really suck to be a homophobe like you and Sil now...

 

[Syriusly]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.
But gays are not a protected class in federal law. And with good reason. Blacks are identifiable. Jews are identifiable. Those labels tend to be permanent and deep. But gay is not. Leonard Bernstein was married and had children with a wife of many years before he divorced her (on her deathbed) and moved in with his gay lover. And that is not uncommon.
So since there is no federal protection for gays as there is for blacks the Court really cannot rule against states for discrimination here.

You just haven't read any of the court cases have you?

Those arguments are addressed. Homosexuals are as identifiable as Jews- and are at least as immutable as being Jewish.

Immutable is the term used by the courts.

Lets first look at Loving- the Court never mentions 'protected class' in Loving.

Quoting the court

Appellants point out that the State's concern in these statutes, as expressed in the words of the 1924 Act's title, "An Act to Preserve Racial Integrity," extends only to the integrity of the white race. While Virginia prohibits whites from marrying any nonwhite (subject to the exception for the descendants of Pocahontas), Negroes, Orientals, and any other racial class may intermarry without statutory interference. Appellants contend that this distinction renders Virginia's miscegenation statutes arbitrary and unreasonable even assuming the constitutional validity of an official purpose to preserve "racial integrity." We need not reach this contention, because we find the racial classifications in these statutes repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, even assuming an even-handed state purpose to protect the "integrity" of all races.

So your claim about what Loving was based upon is just false.

Now lets deal with 'immutable'- an important concept in discrimination cases- this is the analysis from Wisconsin:

With respect to immutability, the Supreme Court has applied heightened scrutiny to
discrimination on the basis of alienage, e.g., In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973); Sugarman
v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971), even though
aliens can become citizens. Sugarman, 413 U.S. at 657 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting) (“[T]here
is a marked difference between a status or condition such as illegitimacy, national origin, or
race, which cannot be altered by an individual and the ‘status' [that can be] changed by . .
. affirmative acts.”). The Court also applies heightened scrutiny to discrimination on the
basis of religion, e.g., Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (1982), even though religion is something that a person chooses

Rather than asking whether a person could change a particular characteristic, the
better question is whether the characteristic is something that the person should be required
to change because it is central to a person’s identity. Of course, even if one could change his
or her race or sex with ease, it is unlikely that courts (or virtually anyone else) would find
that race or sex discrimination is any more acceptable than it is now.

Further, sexual orientation has been compared to religion on the ground that both “often
simultaneously constitut[e] or infor[m] a status, an identity, a set of beliefs and practices,
and much else besides.” Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California

 

[Skylar]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.

The Loving decision the court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the States but subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision found.

But gays are not a protected class in federal law.

They are per the Supreme Court. Look at the Lawrence, Windsor and Romer decision. And then look at who wrote those decisions. That would be Mr. Swing Voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

You insist that gays aren't protected. Kennedy says they are. Guess who's conclusions have the most relevance on a SCOTUS decision.

 

[Skylar]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.
But gays are not a protected class in federal law. And with good reason. Blacks are identifiable. Jews are identifiable. Those labels tend to be permanent and deep. But gay is not. Leonard Bernstein was married and had children with a wife of many years before he divorced her (on her deathbed) and moved in with his gay lover. And that is not uncommon.
So since there is no federal protection for gays as there is for blacks the Court really cannot rule against states for discrimination here.

As far as I am aware, lifestyles don't qualify as minorities.

You may want to read the Romer and Windsor decision again when trying to determine if gays and lesbians are protected from the violating of their rights.

 

[Skylar]

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. The measures have largely failed in the court of public opinion.

Save quite a few Reagan appointees have come to the same conclusion as those appointed by democrats. Nixing even the logic of your claims. Worse, you're assessing the legitimacy of a ruling based on your agreement with it. And you're nobody.

o one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

So same sex marriage has always been legal?

Then what are you guys complaining about?

o one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

So you keep saying. And yet the number of States where same sex marriage is legal keeps rising. How do you resolve this obvious contradiction between your claims....and reality?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.
But gays are not a protected class in federal law. And with good reason. Blacks are identifiable. Jews are identifiable. Those labels tend to be permanent and deep. But gay is not. Leonard Bernstein was married and had children with a wife of many years before he divorced her (on her deathbed) and moved in with his gay lover. And that is not uncommon.
So since there is no federal protection for gays as there is for blacks the Court really cannot rule against states for discrimination here.

As far as I am aware, lifestyles don't qualify as minorities.

exactly.

 

[Silhouette]

Said Syriusly on the wrong thread:

How is marriage a right?

Loving v Virginia
"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

Marriage is "fundametal to our very existence and survival" and "the foundation of the family and of society". It seems to me that children are the paramount members of marriage. And so it is to their rights the states set definitions, such as "no incest, no polygamy, no homosexual" marriages. Incest we can predict would produce genetically hampered children. Polygamy we have seen divides the attention of one blood parent (usually the father) too thinly between his often very numerous children..and lessens is individual devotions to each wife....which ultimately makes them like quasi-single mothers. Single parents the children are lacking one of the blood parents 100% of the time, and that's no good either. Homosexuals even worse, guarantee a missing blood parent 100% of the time PLUS they offer zero exposure and daily interaction for the children for the complimentary gender-as-role-model.

So as you can see, the issue of marriage is family, society and survival. All those things begin with the children in marriage, who then grow to become married themselves based on what they saw modeled before them in their parents. So it is that the state becomes interested in marriage, to preserve all those good things by setting incentives for two, just two, blood parents of the children who most likely will result, to be in their home to raise them with the best social advantage and promise as future rocks at the foundation of any subsequent generation. Male/female is that guarantee, or best shot at the ideal.

A black marrying a white woman is still a man marrying a woman. So naturally, to ban that was functionally indefensible. But banning polygamy, banning incest, banning single parents, banning homosexuals? All those things make rock solid, objective, emotionless, sober good sense for the best interest of the children in the home. Just as a black man marrying a white woman didn't tarnish the brass ring, neither do two sterile heteros. Because if they adopt, at least they provide the "complimentary gender-as-role-model" which is vital to a child's well-rounded formation in society; which contains men and women, males and females. A sterile hetero couple, like a black man and a white woman do not tarnish the "male/female" structure approved by the state for the best interest of children.

In the overwhelming majority of male/female marriages our future people/citizens are created. We'd do well to inspect any new petition to disrupt that apple tree to make sure socieity's children (its very future) isn't being sold a bushel of rotten fruit hidden at the bottom..

 

[The Rabbi]

In the Loving decision the Court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the states, and they set their own criteria. But those criteria cannot infringe on protected minorities' rights, such as blacks in the case of Loving.

The Loving decision the court affirmed that marriage is controlled by the States but subject to certain constitutional guarantees. Exactly as the Windsor decision found.

But gays are not a protected class in federal law.

They are per the Supreme Court. Look at the Lawrence, Windsor and Romer decision. And then look at who wrote those decisions. That would be Mr. Swing Voter himself, Justice Kennedy.

You insist that gays aren't protected. Kennedy says they are. Guess who's conclusions have the most relevance on a SCOTUS decision.

Please show me which federal statute makes discrimination on the basis of being gay illegal.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. The measures have largely failed in the court of public opinion.

Save quite a few Reagan appointees have come to the same conclusion as those appointed by democrats. Nixing even the logic of your claims. Worse, you're assessing the legitimacy of a ruling based on your agreement with it. And you're nobody.

o one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

So same sex marriage has always been legal?

Then what are you guys complaining about?

o one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

So you keep saying. And yet the number of States where same sex marriage is legal keeps rising. How do you resolve this obvious contradiction between your claims....and reality?

Yes gays can marry in every state of the union.
What we object to is the state treating gay unions on the same footing as straight unions. Straight unions deserve special status for all the reasons we've laid out. Gay unions are matters of private life.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's a demonstration that activist leftist judges like to be popular. The measures have largely failed in the court of public opinion.

Save quite a few Reagan appointees have come to the same conclusion as those appointed by democrats. Nixing even the logic of your claims. Worse, you're assessing the legitimacy of a ruling based on your agreement with it. And you're nobody.

o one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

So same sex marriage has always been legal?

Then what are you guys complaining about?

o one is stopping gays and lesbians from marrying. If they want a state issued license they can marry a member of the opposite sex. If they want any ceremony they can have it in every state of the union.

So you keep saying. And yet the number of States where same sex marriage is legal keeps rising. How do you resolve this obvious contradiction between your claims....and reality?

Yes gays can marry in every state of the union.
What we object to is the state treating gay unions on the same footing as straight unions. Straight unions deserve special status for all the reasons we've laid out. Gay unions are matters of private life.

Your objection has been overruled. Now what?