Baker v. Nelson: The case y'all don't want to talk about

[The Rabbi]

Keep hearing conservative bigots in the media say Gay Couples cannot have children.

What century are they living in?

So what if they can't have children. Federal law does not require you to have children to file a married tax return, to receive Social Security survivor benefits, or to qualify for federal employment insurance benefits.

"Fags can't have kids" is a total red herring.

So is your post.
The expectation (not certainty) that most marriages will result in off spring is a fundamental interest of the state in fostering such unions.

 

[g5000]

The flaw in your thinking is that even at a low level of scrutiny one cannot find any good reason against marriage equality for same sex couples.

Expectation of biological children?

Well that and the fact that marriage has been between one man and one woman for the entire history of this country. The USSC is being asked to overturn the entire history of the US. I doubt they will do that.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices know that "We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

 

[The Rabbi]

Expectation of biological children?

Well that and the fact that marriage has been between one man and one woman for the entire history of this country. The USSC is being asked to overturn the entire history of the US. I doubt they will do that.

"We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

It's called "precedent" and happens to be a bedrock legal principle.

 

[The Rabbi]

Expectation of biological children?

Well that and the fact that marriage has been between one man and one woman for the entire history of this country. The USSC is being asked to overturn the entire history of the US. I doubt they will do that.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices know that "We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

Lots of assumptions. Like the cases represent a wrong. Arguable no one is wronged at all in the cases in question and they will dismiss them on that basis alone.
In any case, how do you know what the justices do or do not know?

 

[g5000]

Well that and the fact that marriage has been between one man and one woman for the entire history of this country. The USSC is being asked to overturn the entire history of the US. I doubt they will do that.

"We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

It's called "precedent" and happens to be a bedrock legal principle.

You clearly have no understanding of stare decisis.

 

[g5000]

Well that and the fact that marriage has been between one man and one woman for the entire history of this country. The USSC is being asked to overturn the entire history of the US. I doubt they will do that.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices know that "We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

Lots of assumptions. Like the cases represent a wrong. Arguable no one is wronged at all in the cases in question and they will dismiss them on that basis alone.
In any case, how do you know what the justices do or do not know?

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

 

[g5000]

Keep hearing conservative bigots in the media say Gay Couples cannot have children.

What century are they living in?

So what if they can't have children. Federal law does not require you to have children to file a married tax return, to receive Social Security survivor benefits, or to qualify for federal employment insurance benefits.

"Fags can't have kids" is a total red herring.

So is your post.
The expectation (not certainty) that most marriages will result in off spring is a fundamental interest of the state in fostering such unions.

So you are perfectly okay with the federal government performing collective social engineering.

Glad to have you on record for that.

 

[The Rabbi]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices know that "We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

Lots of assumptions. Like the cases represent a wrong. Arguable no one is wronged at all in the cases in question and they will dismiss them on that basis alone.
In any case, how do you know what the justices do or do not know?

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

Neither can single people. I fail to see how this wrongs anyone.
The culture of grievance is strong in the gay community

 

[The Rabbi]

So what if they can't have children. Federal law does not require you to have children to file a married tax return, to receive Social Security survivor benefits, or to qualify for federal employment insurance benefits.

"Fags can't have kids" is a total red herring.

So is your post.
The expectation (not certainty) that most marriages will result in off spring is a fundamental interest of the state in fostering such unions.

So you are perfectly okay with the federal government performing collective social engineering.

Glad to have you on record for that.

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

 

[g5000]

So is your post.
The expectation (not certainty) that most marriages will result in off spring is a fundamental interest of the state in fostering such unions.

So you are perfectly okay with the federal government performing collective social engineering.

Glad to have you on record for that.

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

 

[legaleagle_45]

1. Never tried to imply that Civil Marriage laws passed hundreds of years ago were passed to explicitly exclude same-sex couples. However laws passed in 2000, 2004, 2006, 2008, and 2009 were explicitly passed to exclude same-sex couples from Civil Marriage.

2. And while the laws that were passed targeted a group based on their sexual orientation, each and every law passed in those recent years were based on gender. I don't remember any law that says Civil Marriage is defined as only for those who are heterosexual (sexual orientation), all that I remember defined Civil Marriage as a man and a woman (gender or "sex" if you prefer).


>>>>

Most of the laws dating from way back define marriage as a union between one man and one woman... mostly in response to polygamy and Mormons not because of homosexuality.

 

[The Rabbi]

So you are perfectly okay with the federal government performing collective social engineering.

Glad to have you on record for that.

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

Well you do understand one thing, amazingly enough. It's all about the money. It's the gimme-crowd, back for more. It has nothing to do with civil rights, discrimination or anything else.
Gays are asking for soemthing that belongs to someone else. They can get married and have all the benefits of marriage just like anyone else. But they want special rights. And they can go fuck themselves (and would if it were possible). Just like you.

 

[bripat9643]

So you are perfectly okay with the federal government performing collective social engineering.

Glad to have you on record for that.

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

That cash and those prized are given out for the benefit of mothers and children. Gays can never be mothers or have children, so there's no social justification for giving them any of the benefits that married couples receive.

 

[g5000]

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

Well you do understand one thing, amazingly enough. It's all about the money. It's the gimme-crowd, back for more. It has nothing to do with civil rights, discrimination or anything else.
Gays are asking for soemthing that belongs to someone else. They can get married and have all the benefits of marriage just like anyone else. But they want special rights. And they can go fuck themselves (and would if it were possible). Just like you.

What a crock of shit. YOU are the one who already has the special privileges. You want to WITHHOLD those privileges from others. You want them ALL TO YOURSELF.

YOU are the one opposed to equality.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Cite a single case where a marriage license issued by one state was not recognized by another. (Except MINE, of course.)

Florida doesn't accept any "marriages" that are not between one man and one woman.

That's the point. Your license is good in all 50 states, mine isn't.

That is because I am married to a woman.

Now if I were married to two women, it wouldn't be.

 

[g5000]

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

That cash and those prized are given out for the benefit of mothers and children. Gays can never be mothers or have children, so there's no social justification for giving them any of the benefits that married couples receive.

Jesus, did you not read my posts before saying this?

Once again, the federal government does not require you to have children to file a married tax return. DOES IT?

Once again, the federal government does not require you to have children to collect Social Security survivor benefits. DOES IT?

Once again, the federal government does not require you to have children for the spouse of a federal employee to qualify for insurance benefits. DOES IT?

The answer to these is NO. It does not. Married people DO NOT have to have children to collect the cash and prizes the government gives them for being married.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Fortunately, the Supreme Court justices know that "We've always done it that way" is the worst logical fallacy of all for perpetuating a wrong.

Lots of assumptions. Like the cases represent a wrong. Arguable no one is wronged at all in the cases in question and they will dismiss them on that basis alone.
In any case, how do you know what the justices do or do not know?

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

 

[Seawytch]

The federal gov't does not define marriage.
Sorry you were misinformed.

The federal government decides who receives the cash and prizes for being married. THAT is what this is all about, dipshit. Gays are just asking for the same cash and prizes as everyone else.

When will that get through that incredibly thick skull of yours?

That cash and those prized are given out for the benefit of mothers and children. Gays can never be mothers or have children, so there's no social justification for giving them any of the benefits that married couples receive.

Only an idiot would say that gays cannot have children. Our pipes still work fine for procreation...as I can WELL attest. (5 babies)

 

[Seawytch]

Lots of assumptions. Like the cases represent a wrong. Arguable no one is wronged at all in the cases in question and they will dismiss them on that basis alone.
In any case, how do you know what the justices do or do not know?

Homosexuals are wronged. They cannot file a married tax return, collect Social Security survivor benefits, or receive federal employment insurance benefits for their spouses.

Sure they can.

As soon as they marry a member of the opposite sex.

Which is discrimination. I have no interest in marrying a man. I'm legally married to a woman. Try to justify treating my legal marriage differently.i guarantee that anything you can come up with will fail in court.

 

[Seawytch]

Florida doesn't accept any "marriages" that are not between one man and one woman.

That's the point. Your license is good in all 50 states, mine isn't.

That is because I am married to a woman.

Now if I were married to two women, it wouldn't be.

Which is a violation of FF&C. Once Sec 3 of DOMA is struck down...just wait for the Sec 2 challenges.