Breaking News: U.S. Supreme Court Stops Gay Marriage In Utah

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[

There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are ‘at risk.’ ...

... the ‘children at risk’ argument fails, it’s merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.

Except orphaned children that via marriage in Utah can then be accessed by the new initiates into the top-tier preference: and the lawsuits they will file then if denied.

This presents a problem to Utah's orphans. Over 60 LGBT groups in the US, Canada and Mexico lobbied fiercely to have the Harvey Milk postage stamp issued. Harvey Milk is renowned by the LGBT community for being the first openly gay man to hold a public office.

Only, "openly gay" meant in his case, sodomizing teen orphaned/runaway boys on drugs, one after the other. Several of them committed suicide as a result.

Worse still, knowing this, those 60 LGBT groups promoted him anyway as representative of the values of the LGBT movement. So that presents a problem for Utah's "only married people can adopt" issue:

As has been correctly stated several times, this is neither objective nor documented.

 

[Flopper]

Tell that to Penn State.. Did they do the right thing or not Flopper ?

Penn State??

You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.

Sandusky was convicted of child sex abuse. Milk was never convicted, charged, or arrested. In fact, the only evidence is unsubstantiated accusations.

 

[Yurt]

clayton, can states violate your civil rights?

yes or no.

clayton?????

 

[Silhouette]

Penn State??

You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.

Sandusky was convicted of child sex abuse. Milk was never convicted, charged, or arrested. In fact, the only evidence is unsubstantiated accusations.

However, in all cases of child protective laws, one only has to have reasonable suspicion, like a biography accessible to all the 60+ LGBT groups that petitioned to have the postage stamp of Harvey Milk issued this year with the rainbow "USA" logo at the top right hand corner, to act on behalf of protecting children.

If you fail to act upon reasonable suspicion, without any hard proof necessary, you can be prosecuted.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.

Sandusky was convicted of child sex abuse. Milk was never convicted, charged, or arrested. In fact, the only evidence is unsubstantiated accusations.

However, in all cases of child protective laws, one only has to have reasonable suspicion, like a biography accessible to all the 60+ LGBT groups that petitioned to have the postage stamp of Harvey Milk issued this year with the rainbow "USA" logo at the top right hand corner, to act on behalf of protecting children.

If you fail to act upon reasonable suspicion, without any hard proof necessary, you can be prosecuted.

Are you, in your hatred of others you don't like, insane?

 

[Yurt]

yes they can

see prop 8

See the SCOTUS ruling, friend. States' cannot violate civil rights. Why would you lie about this?

jake is a special kind of retard

 

[dcraelin]

You have been given competent rebuttal.
Yes, judicial review is a part of the American legal history.
Tuff, but there it is.

judicial overreach is certainly part of American legal history....something we tried to reject with the revolutionary war.

That was removing trials to GB, buddy, not judicial review.

No I was talking about the kings stooges overturning colonial law, the practice you are basing your praise of judicial review on.

 

[Flopper]

You known the deal, or wait maybe you need to catch up by reading back just a little bit.

Sandusky was convicted of child sex abuse. Milk was never convicted, charged, or arrested. In fact, the only evidence is unsubstantiated accusations.

However, in all cases of child protective laws, one only has to have reasonable suspicion, like a biography accessible to all the 60+ LGBT groups that petitioned to have the postage stamp of Harvey Milk issued this year with the rainbow "USA" logo at the top right hand corner, to act on behalf of protecting children.

If you fail to act upon reasonable suspicion, without any hard proof necessary, you can be prosecuted.

Wrong on so many counts.

Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.


In "Mayor of Castor Street", Shilts biography of Harvey Milk, he does not accuse Milk of any sexual abuse, He alleges that there was a relationship between Milk and John "Jack" Galen McKinley, a teenager which of course is enough for any Homophobe to conclude sexual abuse. However, it's unlikely that Child Protective Services would see it as such, particular since McKinley was not underage. McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.)

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Mayor-Castro-Street-Harvey/dp/0312560850/ref=cm_aya_orig_subj]The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk: Randy Shilts: 9780312560850: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

 

[beagle9]

This is fundamentally inaccurate.

Government has the authority to place reasonable restrictions on our rights, which although inalienable, are not absolute; government may not ‘take away’ civil rights, and the burden rests most heavily on the state to justify any restrictions it wishes to place on our rights.

The 14th Amendment prohibits the states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” meaning equal access to the law, including marriage law. The states are at liberty to seek to deny certain persons access to their laws provided such prohibitions are rationally based, are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end – absent these legal criteria any restriction would be in violation of the 14th Amendment, where laws prohibiting same-sex couples fail to manifest these legal criteria.

This is why laws prohibiting children under a certain age from marrying are Constitutional – such laws are applied to everyone equally, they are rationally based, they are predicated on objective, documented evidence, and they pursue a proper legislative end.

If, however, a state were to disallow only Asian-American children under a certain age from marrying, such a measure would be un-Constitutional as it lacks a rational basis, it seeks only to disadvantage one class of persons for no other reason than to make them different from everyone else.

Just as states lack a rational, objective motive to disallow only Asian-American children from marrying, so too do the states lack a rational, objective reason to disallow same-sex couples from marrying, as such measures seek only to disadvantage gay Americans.

Consequently, the Supreme Court does not ‘restore’ rights, rather they uphold or overturn a lower court’s ruling determining whether or not a given state met its burden where a law seeks to restrict a civil right.

With regard to same-sex couples’ right to access marriage law, the Supreme Court will likely review a Federal appeals court’s ruling upholding a Federal judge’s opinion invalidating a state measure denying same-sex couples their equal protection rights.

Isn't this what Sil has been arguing, and that it is her hopes that the feds or states will not allow access to those who would abuse that access when it comes to children, and the adoption of those children through the allowance of full blown marriage within what she describes as a cult who would abuse that access if were granted the full blown privilege as a right under the law ? Her findings are that they are glorifying a hustler and a bad man who is being lifted up by them even so, and here he has done some despicable things, and yet he is still glorified and lifted up regardless of this bad (or) is she wrong in concerns of that maybe ? Is she wrong within her findings in connection too that access because of what she has found in all that she has learned, and has found out about in the situation ? Could Sil's arguments be brought forth in a case for a state or states to consider, otherwise if she was a representative of such a state or states ? Is there any merits to her findings at all or is she to be ignored in her findings ?

There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are ‘at risk.’
Because seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law has no rational basis, is not supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues no proper legislative end, such laws are un-Constitutional, and are invalidated accordingly.

Amendment 3 sought only to make gay Americans different from everyone else. “This [Utah] cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Consequently the ‘children at risk’ argument fails, it’s merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.

I guess it will be the children themselves over time, that will ultimately report as to whether it was a problem or not, so time will tell I guess as to whether people are wrong or they were right about these things. Don't you agree ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

judicial overreach is certainly part of American legal history....something we tried to reject with the revolutionary war.

That was removing trials to GB, buddy, not judicial review.

No I was talking about the kings stooges overturning colonial law, the practice you are basing your praise of judicial review on.

The doctrine of judicial review in the US is not similar to the removal of the King's trial from the colonies to GB.

 

[Silhouette]

Wrong on so many counts.

Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.


In "Mayor of Castor Street", Shilts biography of Harvey Milk, he does not accuse Milk of any sexual abuse, He alleges that there was a relationship between Milk and John "Jack" Galen McKinley, a teenager which of course is enough for any Homophobe to conclude sexual abuse. However, it's unlikely that Child Protective Services would see it as such, particular since McKinley was not underage. McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.)

It is well known and documented that Harvey Milk had sex with the minor Jack McKinley who later killed himself on Milk's birthday. Reasonable suspicion is the documentation of that and many other sordid sexual behavior of Harvey Milk in Milk's biography, that Milk freely admitted to other people at the time.

People know that about him and defend it. We'll let the courts sort out whether or not the 60 + LGBT groups that promoted his postage stamp and the laws in California requiring school kids to celebrate that he was the first "openly gay man" to hold a public office is reflective of the culture's values.

 

[dcraelin]

That was removing trials to GB, buddy, not judicial review.

No I was talking about the kings stooges overturning colonial law, the practice you are basing your praise of judicial review on.

The doctrine of judicial review in the US is not similar to the removal of the King's trial from the colonies to GB.

your just being deliberately obtuse.

 

[beagle9]

Sandusky was convicted of child sex abuse. Milk was never convicted, charged, or arrested. In fact, the only evidence is unsubstantiated accusations.

However, in all cases of child protective laws, one only has to have reasonable suspicion, like a biography accessible to all the 60+ LGBT groups that petitioned to have the postage stamp of Harvey Milk issued this year with the rainbow "USA" logo at the top right hand corner, to act on behalf of protecting children.

If you fail to act upon reasonable suspicion, without any hard proof necessary, you can be prosecuted.

Wrong on so many counts.

Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.


In "Mayor of Castor Street", Shilts biography of Harvey Milk, he does not accuse Milk of any sexual abuse, He alleges that there was a relationship between Milk and John "Jack" Galen McKinley, a teenager which of course is enough for any Homophobe to conclude sexual abuse. However, it's unlikely that Child Protective Services would see it as such, particular since McKinley was not underage. McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.)

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/The-Mayor-Castro-Street-Harvey/dp/0312560850/ref=cm_aya_orig_subj]The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk: Randy Shilts: 9780312560850: Amazon.com: Books[/ame]

16, 17 or whatever, but wasn't this Milk guy in his 40's, and did he officiate as the young man's father as is claimed ? Is it that a 17 or 18 year old in the courts opinion back in the day, had intended that they be in relationships with people closer to their age, and not 20 years older than them (i.e. old enough to be their father), so otherwise when they ruled on the age of consent ruling for young teens who are of the age of 17 or 18 years old, did they think these things would happen in what is happening today ? If they figured that these young people were to be propositioned by people that are that much older than they are, then I wonder if they would have ever ruled in that way in hindsight of now ? Maybe they should have put some stipulations on what age people could visit and/or not re-visit certain ages when it comes to teens who are still this young ? For example if a teen is 17 (more than likely still in high school), then no one above the age of say 25 (a cut off age), can actually ask such a person out on a date or to try and date them, and then it is only with parental consent if they do try and date a person this young, otherwise if the older person is at the age of 25 or less.. Man 25 might even be to old, where as it may be that a 4 year span would be the correct bracket between the two. What say you ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Isn't this what Sil has been arguing, and that it is her hopes that the feds or states will not allow access to those who would abuse that access when it comes to children, and the adoption of those children through the allowance of full blown marriage within what she describes as a cult who would abuse that access if were granted the full blown privilege as a right under the law ? Her findings are that they are glorifying a hustler and a bad man who is being lifted up by them even so, and here he has done some despicable things, and yet he is still glorified and lifted up regardless of this bad (or) is she wrong in concerns of that maybe ? Is she wrong within her findings in connection too that access because of what she has found in all that she has learned, and has found out about in the situation ? Could Sil's arguments be brought forth in a case for a state or states to consider, otherwise if she was a representative of such a state or states ? Is there any merits to her findings at all or is she to be ignored in her findings ?

There is no objective, documented evidence that children in a family with same-sex parents are ‘at risk.’
Because seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law has no rational basis, is not supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursues no proper legislative end, such laws are un-Constitutional, and are invalidated accordingly.

Amendment 3 sought only to make gay Americans different from everyone else. “This [Utah] cannot do. A state cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996).

Consequently the ‘children at risk’ argument fails, it’s merely a pathetic, desperate, last-ditch attempt by those hostile to gay Americans to deny them their civil liberties.

I guess it will be the children themselves over time, that will ultimately report as to whether it was a problem or not, so time will tell I guess as to whether people are wrong or they were right about these things. Don't you agree ?

Disagree.

Research has already determined that children living in homes with unmarried same-sex parents are just as happy and well-adjusted as those living with opposite-sex parents.

For example:

Children raised by gay couples show good progress through school

By mining data from the 2000 Census, sociologist Michael Rosenfeld figured out the rates at which kids raised by gay and straight couples repeated a grade during elementary or middle school. He found that children of same-sex parents have essentially the same educational achievement as their peers growing up in heterosexual households.

Children raised by gay couples show good progress through school

Consequently, and again, the notion that children who live with same-sex parents are somehow ‘at risk’ is completely unfounded, and has no bearing whatsoever as to the right of gay Americans to access marriage law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No I was talking about the kings stooges overturning colonial law, the practice you are basing your praise of judicial review on.

The doctrine of judicial review in the US is not similar to the removal of the King's trial from the colonies to GB.

your just being deliberately obtuse.

As you’re being willfully ignorant.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No I was talking about the kings stooges overturning colonial law, the practice you are basing your praise of judicial review on.

The doctrine of judicial review in the US is not similar to the removal of the King's trial from the colonies to GB.

your just being deliberately obtuse.

I am being very clear. You are calling the removal of where a trial would be held (to GB) the antecedents of our judicial review. It is not.

 

[Seawytch]

I guess it will be the children themselves over time, that will ultimately report as to whether it was a problem or not, so time will tell I guess as to whether people are wrong or they were right about these things. Don't you agree ?

We've already heard from them. They're fine.

"Good evening, Mr. Chairman," the young man said. "My name is Zach Wahls. I'm a sixth-generation Iowan and an engineering student at the University of Iowa, and I was raised by two women."

"Over the next two hours, I'm sure we're going to hear plenty of testimony about how damaging having gay parents is on kids. But in my 19 years not once have I ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that I was raised by a gay couple.

"And you know why? Because the sexual orientation of my parents has had zero effect on the content of my character..."​

Here's what the American Academy of Pediatrics had to say:

A great deal of scientific research documents there is no cause-and-effect relationship between parents’ sexual orientation and children’s well-being, according to the AAP policy. In fact, many studies attest to the normal development of children of same-gender couples when the child is wanted, the parents have a commitment to shared parenting, and the parents have strong social and economic support. Critical factors that affect the normal development and mental health of children are parental stress, economic and social stability, community resources, discrimination, and children’s exposure to toxic stressors at home or in their communities -- not the sexual orientation of their parents.

 

[Seawytch]

Wrong on so many counts.

Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.


In "Mayor of Castor Street", Shilts biography of Harvey Milk, he does not accuse Milk of any sexual abuse, He alleges that there was a relationship between Milk and John "Jack" Galen McKinley, a teenager which of course is enough for any Homophobe to conclude sexual abuse. However, it's unlikely that Child Protective Services would see it as such, particular since McKinley was not underage. McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.)

It is well known and documented that Harvey Milk had sex with the minor Jack McKinley who later killed himself on Milk's birthday. Reasonable suspicion is the documentation of that and many other sordid sexual behavior of Harvey Milk in Milk's biography, that Milk freely admitted to other people at the time.

People know that about him and defend it. We'll let the courts sort out whether or not the 60 + LGBT groups that promoted his postage stamp and the laws in California requiring school kids to celebrate that he was the first "openly gay man" to hold a public office is reflective of the culture's values.

More lies Sil?

Born Harvey Bernard Milk, May 22, 1930

Jack Galen McKinley committed suicide on February 14th 1980

 

[Silhouette]

More lies Sil?

Born Harvey Bernard Milk, May 22, 1930

Jack Galen McKinley committed suicide on February 14th 1980

You know, I stand corrected. He jumped to his death on Valentine's Day at the exact age Milk was, 33, when Milk started sodomizing him as a 16 year old minor in New York.

Maybe it would be a good idea for readers here to read The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk to really get a feel for the facts?

What do you think, Seawytch? Should as many people as possible read Milk's biography by Randy Shilts?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Accusing a person of having a relationship, not necessarily sexual with someone under the age of consent, who by law is not underage isn't a reasonable suspicion.


In "Mayor of Castor Street", Shilts biography of Harvey Milk, he does not accuse Milk of any sexual abuse, He alleges that there was a relationship between Milk and John "Jack" Galen McKinley, a teenager which of course is enough for any Homophobe to conclude sexual abuse. However, it's unlikely that Child Protective Services would see it as such, particular since McKinley was not underage. McKinley was born October 18, 1946, so he was seventeen or eighteen when he first met Milk in late 1964. Seventeen is the age of consent in New York, so Milk's relationship was not with someone underage, as many of Milk's detractors have claimed.)

The Mayor of Castro Street: The Life and Times of Harvey Milk: Randy Shilts: 9780312560850: Amazon.com: Books

Maybe it would be a good idea for readers here to read The Mayor of Castro Street; The Life and Times of Harvey Milk to really get a feel for the facts?

What do you think, Seawytch? Should as many people as possible read Milk's biography by Randy Shilts?

Last I checked 1964-1946 = 18 so the youngest (if Randy Shilts data is correct, remember you are saying his biography is correct) is 17 (depending on the day of the year).

New York age of consent is 17. ("New York - The age of consent is 17." -->> Statutory Rape: The Age of Consent | LegalMatch Law Library)



>>>>