TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
your pompous need to climb on your high horse and prove yourself morally superior is tedious, sad and pathetic. What you have set out to show is un-proveable by its very nature. I am glad to see tho that you are half-acknowledging that you have lost the legal argument.
I will start tho to wade through your arguments.
More rantings from the dark world according to DCraelin ? Of course you will attack the truth that you are threatened by and It’s apparent that you are threatened because of your need to insult me. Now hear this, I did not concede the legal argument. I acknowledged that fact that I have my biases, something that you do not seem to have the integrity to do. What I said was that I will never convince you of the fallacy of your legal argument as you will never prove me wrong. All that you can do is to choose to ignore the majority opinion of the SC as well, the vast majority of the lower court’s rulings, and an extensive body of case law.
this is a quasi legal argument ...using an emotional tug to play to heightened scrutiny. It certainly doesn't point to a necessary way to accommodate....a required way to accommodate. Many children in our society have disadvantages, some may think being raised by gay parents is a disadvantage.
That’s right, it is emotional. This is an emotional matter. Children are an emotional issue. If you don’t think so there is something wrong with you. But heighted scrutiny was applied as a matter of law. the welfare of our children is a legitimate state interest. However, limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples fails to further this interest. Instead, needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children who are being raised by the loving couples targeted by Virginia’s Marriage Laws betrays that interest. [Schall and Townley's daughter], like the thousands of children being raised by same-sex couples, is needless deprived of the protection, the stability, the recognition and the legitimacy that marriage conveys.
Federal Judge: Virginia’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage Needlessly Stigmatizes And Humiliates Children
Maybe some do have "procreative urges" tho this puts the lie I think to the idea of"born that way" ...the government is under no obligation to provide outlets to all who have urges. You are jumping to pompous arrogant conclusions about this being a bigoted view.
I’m not jumping to anything. Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center! What the fuck does parental instincts and the issue of “ born that way” have to do with each other. Please give me a sign that you are not so fucking stupid as to think that if someone is “really gay” that they do not want children. PLEASE!
And how the hell is the government providing an outlet for anything? This just ignores everything that has been said about the benefits of marriage to children. If you want to call me pompous and arrogant (again) because I advocate for children be my guest. You are the one looking pompous and arrogant as well as callous and stupid.
Sutton quotes a basis to rational revue " legislative choices may rest on “rational speculation unsupported by evidence or empirical data,”
Studies can be and often are these days proven wrong. This isnt a criminal proceeding. It is a question of constitutional law. The contract between the government and the people, who should decide these matters. You may have some good arguments as to desirability,....but it is up to the people to decide.
More horseshit. As I said before. The overwhelming body of evidence shows clearly that gay parenting is equal to straight parenting and that the respective genders of the parents is of little consequence. EVERY study that contradicts that-including the one that Michigan used-has been discredited. I have them all as was as about 70 peer reviewed studies that support gay parenting. I would share but I don’t think that you are actually interested
If there was a credible body of evidence that showed that having same sex parents was somehow harmful –why did Michigan stupidly commission a highly biased and flawed study to try to prove that? And the really insane thing is that whether or not gays make good or adequate parents was not even the right question to be asking because at that point the case was about marriage, not adoption. And as you know, gay people will have kids married or not.
Marriage is not a right, it is a license from the government. .....the case we recently argued about said voting is not a right....if THAT is not a right.....surely something with the name license is not a right....that even implies it could be a local decision...lower than the state level.
Really old sport ? You can’t compare marriage to voting. It’s another of your false equivalencies. Voting has in fact not been established as a right. However, fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals14 Supreme Court Cases: Marriage is a Fundamental Right | American Foundation for Equal Rights Make that 15 with Obegefell.
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” Fundamental Right | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
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 challanged. The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
Still not convinced? 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 emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt
Good, I lean towards the idea that government should not have been involved in this area to begin with. It is really a relic of the church-state of England, where taxes went to the church.
Why married couples get a tax break based solely on their being married when single people do not is beyond me.....I had hoped that if the SC ruled as they did on gay marriage they would at least see this unfairness and strike it down...of course they did not.
That “government out of marriage” nonsense is just another undoable pipe dream. Get over it. And this thing about single people is just another logical fallacy, this time a red herring, and yes, another false equivalency. First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand In addition, I have to ask, what are these tax breaks that you refer to? Married people get to file joint returns but that doesn’t mean that they pay less taxes. Some do and some don’t. Every situation is different. Now will you please get out of here?!needlessly stigmatizing and humiliating children
shear BS, perhaps some children are stigmatized and humiliated by having gay "parents" ...more likely ....but stigmatizing and humiliation cannot be cured by legal status, and should not be a consideration.
your arrogance in repeating calling opponents to gay marriage bigots is apparent. (see below) to turn around and complain abpout me insulting you is laughable.threatened because of your need to insult me.
Here your profound ignorance and bigotry is front and center
NO what you repeatedly say is horseshit...Sutton points out that rational basis revue requires no studies......These "studies" usually come off of socially liberal college campuses and are suspect regardless. Sutton does accept "rational basis revue" which is itself I think somewhat irrational and turns normal court proof requirements on their head. I believe some justices have a problem with this also.More horseshit.
What do you care about numbers?....you reject the democratic process so what do you care?....and I think you overstate the case anyway. I dont think any really established as a right except obergefellMake that 15 with Obegefell.
WHAT THE FUCK is this?....... a paste from an old post you left in?The time is not far off when the right to same sex marriage will be established by SCOTUS and gay marriage as a legal right will soon follow
no there are many possible answershe only possible answer is “privilege”
First of all there was no question before court concerning taxes and marital status so you hoping for a ruling on that just shows once again how little you understand
marriage is a package of various laws.....which points to another idiocy of these cases and the SCs approach...each state probably has slight differences in marriage laws...........so the court should have examined these all...it is really not their place to redefine a word.
among those packages of laws..are tax laws...something gay marriage proponents raised as some of their litany of unfairness-es. So the fairness of tax laws based on marriage should have been considered. ...their avoidance of that issue shows they werent really concerned with consistency and equality in law but were ruling on an emotional based argument alone.
Just more inane blathering. You are boring and tedious. And yes, you are a bigot. You're deliberately making a simple matter, equal protection under the law into a tangled and incoherent mess-and you do it deliberately to avoid and mask the fact that you have no rational, logical or viable legal argument against same sex marriage. But don't feel bad-no one does. We are done here.
New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders New Study Suggests Connections Between Homophobia And Mental Disorders
Last edited:
