Gay Marriages in States Forced by Circuit Courts to Allow Them Are Not Legal

[Silhouette]

It's not a lie. They may be limited on who they can marry but that isn't denying them the ability to marry. Nothing is absolute. I'm denied the ability to open carry a gun. That doesn't take away my right to own one just limits where and how I can carry it. Learn the difference unless you want to claim marriage as an absolute right. I find that with people like you it's OK to limit things you think should be limited yet if it's something you support, it should be unlimited. If you think marriage is a right and people should be able to marry whomever they want, do you agree that brothers and sisters should be able to marry?

Well the point of this thread is more about how the lower federal circuits violated procedure and therefore their decisions aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Gay marriage in states that forbade it is still forbidden. I have as much authority to overrule SCOTUS from underneath as those circuit judges do. In other words since Baker and Windsor upheld states' choice on gay marriage, SCOTUS has not overturned itself..those decisions are still the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Hey, the thread isn't about religion. It's about the welfare of kids and why states incentivize marriages as man/woman only. Check the OP

The title of the thread doesn't even mention kids.

But I am always glad to quote Justice Kennedy again:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

As Justice Kennedy points out there is an immediate harm to the children of gay parents by not allowing them to marry. And there is no harm to children of opposite gender parents- since they will- or will not marry- regardless of what same gender couples do.

 

[Syriusly]

It's not a lie. They may be limited on who they can marry but that isn't denying them the ability to marry. Nothing is absolute. I'm denied the ability to open carry a gun. That doesn't take away my right to own one just limits where and how I can carry it. Learn the difference unless you want to claim marriage as an absolute right. I find that with people like you it's OK to limit things you think should be limited yet if it's something you support, it should be unlimited. If you think marriage is a right and people should be able to marry whomever they want, do you agree that brothers and sisters should be able to marry?

Well the point of this thread is more about how the lower federal circuits violated procedure and therefore their decisions aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Gay marriage in states that forbade it is still forbidden. I have as much authority to overrule SCOTUS from underneath as those circuit judges do. In other words since Baker and Windsor upheld states' choice on gay marriage, SCOTUS has not overturned itself..those decisions are still the law.

j

Silly Silhouette and her silly legal logic.

The 6th Circuit decision only affects the circuit courts under the 6th Circuit.
The Supreme Court had the opportunity to overturn the other Appellates courts but declined to hear the case- leaving the decisions of the Appellate - and Circuit courts intact- meaning yes same gender marriage is legal in those states.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That claim has been the basis of far too many abuses over history to base laws upon.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Hey, the thread isn't about religion. It's about the welfare of kids and why states incentivize marriages as man/woman only. Check the OP

The title of the thread doesn't even mention kids.

But I am always glad to quote Justice Kennedy again:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

As Justice Kennedy points out there is an immediate harm to the children of gay parents by not allowing them to marry. And there is no harm to children of opposite gender parents- since they will- or will not marry- regardless of what same gender couples do.

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That claim has been the basis of far too many abuses over history to base laws upon.

The lefts claims are nothing but hot air and bull.

 

[hazlnut]

According to the 6th Circuit judge Sutton, gay marriages are illegal that are being peformed in states that voted to keep marriage just between man/woman.

It's a procedural flaw. Sutton says that because Baker, 1971 and Windsor, 2013 both Uphold that states have the unquestioned authority of choice on this matter, that what other circuit courts have done is attempted to overrule Baker and Windsor from underneath SCOTUS. This is something that is not allowed. So their decisions are not worth the paper they are written on. Any state whose AG is not following this or not protecting his voters' civil rights to have their vote count, needs to be fired:

Here's what Sutton had to say: 14-1341 184 6th Circuit Decision in Marriage Cases

Page 8... of Opinion


************

Baker and McConnell appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Court rejected their challenge, issuing a one-line order stating that the appeal did not raise “a substantial federal question.”
Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 810 (1972). This type of summary decision, it is true, does not bind the Supreme Court in later cases. But it does confine lower federal courts in later cases. It matters not whether we think the decision was right in its time, remains right today, or will be followed by the Court in the future. Only the Supreme Court may overrule its own precedents, and we remain bound even by its summary decisions “until such time as the Court informs [us] that [we] are not.”
Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 345 (1975) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court has yet to inform us that we are not, and we have no license to engage in a guessing game about whether the Court will change its mind or, more aggressively, to assume authority to overrule Baker ourselves..

..
now, claimants insist, must account for United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), which invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, a law that refused for purposes of federal statutory benefits to respect gay marriages authorized by state law. Yet Windsor does not answer today’s question. The decision never mentions Baker, much less overrules it. And the outcomes of the cases do not clash. Windsor invalidated a federal law that refused to respect state laws permitting gay marriage, while Baker upheld the right of the people of a State to define marriage as they see it. To respect one decision does not slight the other. Nor does Windsor ’s reasoning clash with Baker. Windsor hinges on the Defense of Marriage Act’s unprecedented intrusion into the States’ authority over domestic relations. Id. at 2691–92.

********

Supporters of traditional marriages maintain that states have the right to set incentives as "marriage" for children's sake. A state has the right to set up marriage to qualify just those types people that only can result in two blood parents of children in the home. Gay marriages guarantee the state incentivizing the that the children in that home will 1. be deprived of one of their blood parents, 100% of the time and 2. Be deprived of the opposite gender as-adult-role-model 100% of the time. This interaction is vital to a child's final adjustments through his formative years to interact with soceity at large and to develop his/her sense of esteem and place in the world.

Though it has not been proven conclusively, the case of Thomas Lobel in California illustrates why states must not be stripped of the right to protect the best interests of children. It is the case of a boy who at age 8, living under the roof of two lesbians "as parents" decided he wanted to mutilate his own genitals and become a girl instead. Instead of becoming alarmed and trying to help the boy overcome his mental crisis, the two lesbian women started drugging him (with tacit or outright APA and AMA approval, I might add), to suppress his puberty so that "he can make the best choice" whether or not to proceed with amputating his healthy genitals with APA and medical approval.

Just mull this over when you're wondering how to vote on the poll above:

Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That claim has been the basis of far too many abuses over history to base laws upon.

The lefts claims are nothing but hot air and bull.

Unfortunately for you, what you call 'hot air and bull' the courts call 'Constitutional Rights"

 

[Syriusly]

Hey, the thread isn't about religion. It's about the welfare of kids and why states incentivize marriages as man/woman only. Check the OP

The title of the thread doesn't even mention kids.

But I am always glad to quote Justice Kennedy again:

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

As Justice Kennedy points out there is an immediate harm to the children of gay parents by not allowing them to marry. And there is no harm to children of opposite gender parents- since they will- or will not marry- regardless of what same gender couples do.

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

LOL.....tell that to Justice Kennedy.

 

[Silhouette]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Marriage is sacred between a Man and a Woman, anything else is sick and an abomination.

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That claim has been the basis of far too many abuses over history to base laws upon.

The lefts claims are nothing but hot air and bull.

Unfortunately for you, what you call 'hot air and bull' the courts call 'Constitutional Rights"

Gay unnatural marriage is not in the constitution.

 

[Syriusly]

Your right to your perverted religious beliefs does not extend to denying others their rights.

My religious beliefs happen to be the truth, whether you believe so or not.

That claim has been the basis of far too many abuses over history to base laws upon.

The lefts claims are nothing but hot air and bull.

Unfortunately for you, what you call 'hot air and bull' the courts call 'Constitutional Rights"

Gay unnatural marriage is not in the constitution.

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

 

[Syriusly]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

All that hot air and you still didn't answer the question. I can make a safe bet they didn't and there are more children that probably are adversely affected by unnatural gay marriage than you care to admit. Gay is a mental disorder.

Then all you have to do is prove that.

Either one of those claims.

Your religious bigotry is not proof.

 

[Syriusly]

Did they interview everyone of those so called 40,000 kids? If I even believe that number.

Well to be fair this thread is about kids inasmuch as it's about the states' rights to set incentives via the institution "marriage" for kids' best shot at life. That is both blood parents in the home from a standpoint of reasearch and of common sense. There is no instinct to protect and nurture dominant to blood offspring of both parents.

Gay marriage guarantees the state it is petitioning for acceptance to offer an environment bereft of one of the child[rens] blood parents 100% of the time. And states have a right to say no to that until such time or if such time as SCOTUS does or does not overturn Baker or Windsor. Until that time, Baker and Windsor stand.

LOL....once again Silhouette spouts bat guano craziness.

 

[Silhouette]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

 

[Syriusly]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

 

[Silhouette]

If children have the constitutional right to have both blood parents in their home then we wouldn't allow those parents to divorce.

Stop pretending you care about children.

This is all about fomenting hatred towards homosexuals for you.

Well so you're saying children don't have civil rights? A state can decide to grant divorce if the blood parent environment becomes too toxic for them. It's just that states want the best shot for kids at marriage and that is their two blood parents in the home. It isn't always perfection, but it is the best for them of any arrangement called "marriage".

Do you allege that homes where one of the blood parents is missing 100% of the time, as guaranteed by the very structure of the marriage (gay), is something a state should be in the business of incentivizing?

 

[Inevitable]

Marriage is not in the Constitution.

Yet it is still a Constitutional right.

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

What article of the constitution is that?

 

[Silhouette]

The constitutional rights of children to have both blood parents incentivized to be in their home trumps any gays claiming they have rights to marry.

What article of the constitution is that?

The same article that guarantees gay marriage ...