Kentucky Clerk Jailed for Contempt of Court

[Silhouette]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for childen who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Lol ! 183 pages !

 

[Silhouette]

Things got quiet all of a sudden. Was it something I said?..

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution. Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for childen who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

Protection of children as a valid legal argument against marriage equality. That is about as stupid as stupid gets:

Overview of Lesbian and Gay Parenting, Adoption and Foster Care

https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights_hiv-aids/overview-lesbian-and-gay-parenting-adoption-and-foster-care

You continue to demonstrate a pathetic and profound ignorance of the constitution. It’s apparent that you don’t understand that case law- binding precedents are equal to and build on the rights that are enumerated in the text, as well as those contained in the amendments:

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

Obergefell makes that 15 times. Furthermore:

The Legal Information Institute states”Fundamental rights are a group of rights that have been recognized by the Supreme Court as requiring a high degree of protection from government encroachment. These rights are specifically identified in the Constitution (especially in the Bill of Rights), or have been found under Due Process. Laws limiting these rights generally must pass strict scrutiny to be upheld as constitutional. Examples of fundamental rights not specifically listed in the Constitution include the right to marry and the right to privacy, which includes a right to contraception and the right to interstate travel” http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fundamental_right

Most rights that people enjoy and take for granted in this country, are not specified in the constitution but are legal rights and presumed to be constitutional unless challenged. The right to gay marriage has in fact been challenged and the challengers have have lost

Let me ask this….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights.


Getting back to children and their needing a mother and a father:

Marriage Equality…The Right Thing to do For The Children by Progressive Ratriot 9.26.13 (updated 9.13.15)

Many opponents of same sex marriage and adoption by gay people assert that” children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father” and” that when gay couples adopt or use a surrogate, they are denying that child that fundamental right” However, public policy in New Jersey states that children have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children.

And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else.

Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy. Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any significantly greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. Of course, some gay and lesbian couples will employ various means to have children, but those are children who would not have otherwise been born. The most significant effect by far will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents.

And, to deny gays the ability to adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and outright shameful to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how they would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible. Those who still oppose same sex marriage but claim to care about the children are liars and hypocrites.

Everything that you have to say……your entire so called argument is a pathetic and ridiculous fail

 

[Silhouette]

Everything that you have to say……your entire so called argument is a pathetic and ridiculous fail

Typically when people say that, they have no rebuttal and so they resort to a complete annihilation of the person they're debating instead of talking to their points.

So, thanks for the compliment. And for letting us know how worried you are that kids didn't get a voice in the "gay marriage" debate...and that soon they will....

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Everything that you have to say……your entire so called argument is a pathetic and ridiculous fail

Typically when people say that, they have no rebuttal and so they resort to a complete annihilation of the person they're debating instead of talking to their points.

So, thanks for the compliment. And for letting us know how worried you are that kids didn't get a voice in the "gay marriage" debate...and that soon they will....

I did address your idiotic points you fuckin moron!!

 

[dcraelin]

Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker

he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)

Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision.

Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell.

and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.

 

[asaratis]

Yes, I did. And that does not mean that I don't forgive hedonist Hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages. What is your point?

Nothing in particular, other than to point out that, like so many other RW folks, you see no irony in posting one thing, and doing a 180 degree turn on the next post, which is exactly what you did. I find it amusing. Kind of like screaming that something Obama did is unconstitutional, while maintaining that the SC has acted unconstitutionally, when outlawing gay marriage prohibitions.

Please describe the '180 degree turn' you say I made. At least give the two post numbers between which you claim it occurred.

I'll be waiting....in the wings.

There is really no point. you are blind to your own hypocrisy, and there is nothing I can do about it.

So you lied to the readers when you said I did 180.

You should stick to using facts regarding what I said or didn't say in a post.

A good debater doesn't have to lie to win a point. I know it's very comforting for you bed-wetters to compliment each other after misrepresenting what someone else said that may have been construed as being against your cause. It is expected. After all, small minded people gotta stick together.

BTW, what do you want to be when you grow fucking up?

Look, Asarat. First you whined that liberals would forgive hollywood celebrities for multiple marriages before we would forgive a homely woman of god. Then I asked you if Kim needs liberals' forgiveness. Then you replied that I missed the point. She doesn't need our forgiveness. Then, I said, that you are now doing a 180 turn by saying that your previous whining about liberals not forgiving Kim doesn't even matter, since only god's forgiveness. matters.

So, Asarat, THAT is your 180 degree turn. First, we are terrible for not forgiving her, and then we don't understand that it doesn't matter if we don't forgive her. Now, Please try to stay up. There may be a pop quiz at any time. Also, there are many conservatives in the remedial logic classes, here, and I can not spend all my time tutoring only you.

I am not shocked by your lack of comprehension of what I actually said.

First, I was not 'whining' about liberals. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of using the Church Lady's history regarding frequency of marriage and living through spousal misfits as evidence of bad character while on the other hand worshiping the Hollywood Celebrity Key Club as they legally swap mates and fuck like rabbits. That's the first point you missed.

Then you asked if the Church Lady needed your forgiveness. I said she did not.

Your second question had no seed in my statement that liberals are being hypocritical in character judgement. My answer that she did not need your forgiveness relates to a separate issue.

I merely made two points in two consecutive posts.

1. You are a hypocritical liberal.

2. Church Lady's do not need your forgiveness.



Your snide remarks at the ends of your failed attempts to use logic in argument may win you accolades from among your ilk, but will get you nowhere in a real logic class.

Your score here is ZERO!

 

[Vandalshandle]

If you say so, Asarat. Your backpedaling is pretty good. Did you learn that on a unicycle?

 

[Silhouette]

Oh goody, another flame war...

 

[Silhouette]

Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.

Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case. That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.

As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker

he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)

Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision.

Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell.

and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.

So because Sutton said that Baker still controls, and because he said that only a rational basis review is required, and because you like what he said, that constitutes "ripping apart" the opinions of all those other courts?

 

[Skylar]

Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.

Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.

Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.

That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.

As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.

As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.

Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.

 

[Skylar]

Oh please, cut the crap! What mistake was that? Please name a United States Supreme Court case in which they ruled that the 14th amendment only pertains to former slaves , or shut up and go away

Got one better for you. Please cite in the 14th Amendment where it says "just some deviant sex behaviors are now a special class".....But meanwhile I can point you to part of the Constitution that says Kim Davis had a right to not participate or put her name on any "gay marriage" license under her control. And I can point to another part of the Constitution that says your Johnny-come-lately PA laws cannot water down the 1st Amendment....Get back to me with that "the 14th says just some deviant sex behaviors are a new special class" thing when you find it, OK? And if you CAN find such a clause in the 14th, let me know who put it there because it sure as hell can't have been SCOTUS. They don't have the power to amend the US Constitution. Only Congress can.

you either never bothered to read the Obergefell decision, and if you did, you are obviously lacking the intellectual and analytical acumen to have understood it. Otherwise, you would understand that the court did not create a new protected class. While they could have gone that route, the majority, instead applied heightened scrutiny to the bans on same sex marriage and found that the rights of gays to marry was being violated as a matter of equal protection under the law.
.

There is no "right to marry" in the US Constitution.

The constitution doesn't list all rights, as the 9th amendment makes ludicriously clear. Rememeber, just because you ignore the 9th amendment, the 5th and the 14th....doesn't mean they disappear.

Just as there is no "right to drive" in the US Constitution. Both are priveleges extended to qualified persons by each state. And each state has the jurisdiction over who qualifies.

The State marriage laws are subject to constitutional guarantees. As Obergefell and Windsor made clear. You simply ignore those portions of the ruling, ignore those constitutional guarantees and then conclude that because you ignored them, they don't apply.

If only reality worked that way.

Blind people cannot drive. They lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for other people on the road. People who want to marry the same gender cannot operate a marriage. By that I mean they lack the physical components to make that a safe prospect for childen who share the marriage contract by implication. "Gay marriage" cannot provide both a mother and father vital to children...which is the reason states are involved in incentivizing marriage at all. Otherwise it's a net loss for the states.

No one is required to have children or be able to have them in order to get married. Nixing your analogy.

Children, completely left out of the conversation illegally by the SCOTUS, grow up psychologically stunted and become burdens upon the state statistically when they lack either a mother or father in their home: Prince's Trust Survey & The Voices of the Voteless (Children) in Gay Marriage Debate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum So, because of the findings of that very large and comprehensive survey, states have a material and valid interest in regulating who may marry within their boundaries...

Obvious nosnense. The court went into elaborate detail of all the harms caused to the children of same sex parents by denying their parents marriage. They went on for paragraphs of the humiliation, the loss of financial resources, and how the denial of marriage damaged their family.

You merely ignored it all. And is your habit, concluded that if you ignored it, it doesn't exist.

Which is obviously meaningless.

 

[dcraelin]

Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.

Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.

Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.

That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.

As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.

As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.

Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.

Sutton answers this argument about "ignor[ing] Romer, Lawrence and Windsor"....its obvious that the USSC overturned Sutton's decision.......it is certainly NOT obvious he was wrong, because he wasn't.

 

[Skylar]

Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.

Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.

Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.

That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.

As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.

As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.

Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.

Sutton answers this argument about "ignor[ing] Romer, Lawrence and Windsor"....its obvious that the USSC overturned Sutton's decision.......it is certainly NOT obvious he was wrong, because he wasn't.

Sutton was obviously wrong. As demonstrated by both the USSC's ruling overturning his ruling and virtually every other lower court to rule on the topic contradicting him. And you did arbitrarily and utterly ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor. There's no reason the lower courts would do the same.

Lawrence established protections for gays in making personal decisions.....which include marriage. Romer explicitly forbid laws targeted against gays. And Windsor clearly found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Windsor was so clear and communicated the court's position so clearly that even Scalia recognized that the court's position was 'beyond mistaking' and the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

You ignore it all. As I told Silo......your argument is based solely in replacing binding legal precedent with your emotions. And that's an argument that's gloriously irrelevant to the law.

 

[dcraelin]

Sutton's opinion from the 6th circuit rips apart other lower courts excuses for ignoring precedent in Baker...he then goes on to rip apart these same courts reasoning on rational basis revue...(so that even if you think you can get by the binding precedent of Baker you hit this wall) (some courts stupidly even claim more"heightened" standards of revue)...Sutton's opinion in the face of overwhelming group-think on the part of the federal judiciary will go down as the most reasoned (majority) one in the debate and was not answered in the SC's majority Obergefell decision....Thomas's dissent in Arizona legislature v Arizona independent commission will forever catalog the hypocrisy of the majority 5 in Obergefell....and the Valentine's Day decision will forever be emblematic of the emotional basis of the courts regarding gay marriage.

Which is scary. The 9 most-wise and most unbiased people in America are supposed to be the members of the USSC. Two of them were required by their own law to recuse themselves from the Obergefell case.

Nope. Neither were required to recuse themselves. You don't know what you're talking about.

That alone may be the hinge for overturning. But there are many others marching right up there as we speak.

As usual dcraelin, you're spot on and informative.

As usual Dcraelin is ignores caselaw and just imagines what he likes. His argument requires him to ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.....for no particuilar reason. None of the lower courts were similarly obligated. And almost all of the lower courts came to the same conclusion: that precedent required them to overturn state sex sex marriage bans.

Sutton was among the few exceptions. And obvious Sutton was wrong, as demonstrated by the USSC that overturned his decision.

Sutton answers this argument about "ignor[ing] Romer, Lawrence and Windsor"....its obvious that the USSC overturned Sutton's decision.......it is certainly NOT obvious he was wrong, because he wasn't.

Sutton was obviously wrong. As demonstrated by both the USSC's ruling overturning his ruling and virtually every other lower court to rule on the topic contradicting him. And you did arbitrarily and utterly ignore Romer, Lawrence and Windsor. There's no reason the lower courts would do the same.

Lawrence established protections for gays in making personal decisions.....which include marriage. Romer explicitly forbid laws targeted against gays. And Windsor clearly found that state marriage laws were subject to constitutional guarantees.

Windsor was so clear and communicated the court's position so clearly that even Scalia recognized that the court's position was 'beyond mistaking' and the application of the logic of Windsor to overturn state same sex marriage bans was 'inevitable'.

You ignore it all. As I told Silo......your argument is based solely in replacing binding legal precedent with your emotions. And that's an argument that's gloriously irrelevant to the law.

I personally have spoken to Romer, Lawrence and Windsor ad nauseam.......I was speaking of Sutton who answers all arguments that these could somehow be used as excuses to ignore (by the lower courts) the binding precedent of Baker.

saying that Scalia recognized that the die was set due to the majorities willful blindness to logic......is not the same thing as saying Scalia approved of ignoring the precedent set in Baker. Yet, that is what you repeatedly imply, as if repetition makes it true.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?

If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?

 

[koshergrl]

If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?

If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?

One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.

 

[ABikerSailor]

If the main reason for marriage is to have kids to keep the human race marching along, then why isn't one of the requirements to get a marriage license a fertility test?

If your swimmers don't swim, or if your eggs are all cracked, does that mean a denial of marriage is appropriate in this case as well?

One of the requirements to get a license used to be taking, and passing, a full physical.

When I got married in Norfolk VA in 1985, the only requirement was a blood test to make sure we were both healthy. Nothing else.

Can you provide a link showing states that require a full physical, or, if it's your state that does that, can you provide a link showing a full physical is required?