Let the States Decide- ALA Supreme Court Justice urges Defiance- Gay Marraige

[The Rabbi]

Oh, he doesn't enjoy it. He hates it. His wife makes him stay married. He's a VERY reluctant hypocrite.

Strawman

Is that a strawman or blatant slander?

Slander would require her to grasp the concept of heterosexual marriage where you can put your partner's interest before your own and do something you don't want because it's more important to your partner. She isn't capable of putting someone else's needs before her own. She sees a relationship as a negotiation and compromise, and if something is important to her she demands her way and if she doesn't get it shows them the door.

Heterosexual marriage is an entirely different thing. Sure, we compromise sometimes. But when something is that much more important to my partner, I do it her way. She does the same for me. If you're with the right person, that is a far better system than splitting everything down the middle. That is beyond her comprehension, and she keeps telling us that. She got the government validation she craves, but she is just playing the part of a "spouse." She doesn't comprehend what it means.

I told you homosexuality was rooted in narcissism and you didnt understand that comment. But you just described the essence of it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Translation: Nailed it.

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

Strawman, I'm not reluctant. I'm glad it makes my spouse happy. When you grasp that, maybe you can move past government marriage just being collective validation and start to get the real thing. Gays are not all like you BTW. My VP of sales for my business is gay. She has worked for me about three years. She has been in a serious committed relationship for about one. She and her partner very much do things for each other's interest. Isn't it interesting? You have the paper, she doesn't want it, but I consider her far more married than you are.

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreen.
I was wrong. There are 3 arguments for gay marriage:
1) Gays are really oppressed black people c.1965
2 We're winning in the courts
3) Give us the money.

 

[Silhouette]

You forgot number 4...

Give us the children..

 

[Syriusly]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Yes, Grown adults should stay out of others bedrooms. But that is not the case when you have two homosexual men or women who adopt orphaned children and teach them homosexuality.

Homosexuals are demanding government intervention, it is that simple.

No- its just that your viewpoint is simple and wrong.

Two homosexual men or two homosexual women who step up and adopt children abandoned by the children's natural parents are teaching them how to be good people- not how to be homosexuals.

You apparently would prefer that those children not be adopted, but remain abandoned and without families, to ultimately be abandoned by the system as the age out of the system.
.

You lost your argument, you just made it personal and about your beliefs.

You are describing the children as abandoned, why would you bring your personal feelings into this discussion while attempting to portray all orphaned children as abandoned. The simple answer is that facts do not support your feelings on this topic.

Yes, when you describe children in Orphanages as abandoned, and reiterate that theme throughout your post, it simply shows you have zero understanding of what happens in people's lives.

You should excuse your assumptions and emotions from this discussion, it does not help your argument at all.

Nope- not about my beliefs at all- frankly my posts are based upon the actual facts, yours are purely your personal beliefs, based upon your own assumptions and emotions.

The majority of children waiting for adoption at any time are children in foster care, whose biological parents have either voluntarily abandoned them- this is all too common with handicapped children- or involuntarily abandoned them when the State removed the children from their custody for the children's safety.

These children needs homes- but 32,000 children will wait over 3 years to be adopted. 23,000 children will age out of the foster care system with no family to support them emotionally or financially.

What about those children? They don't deserve parents just because there aren't enough heterosexual couples willing to adopt them?

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

 

[Syriusly]

How exactly do you propose checking to see which 'orphans' are heterosexuals?

Why do you propose teaching children homosexuality before they reach puberty is the issue, not some false premise of your illogical defense of your actions which harms children.

You expressed your alarm that heterosexual children were going to be adopted by homosexuals- I want to know how you plan on figuring out which children are heterosexuals, so you can 'protect them'

There
The premise of your question is false. Do you always argue a false premise.

Nope- not a false premise- here once again was your faux question:

And who will protect the orphaned heterosexual children from being adopted into homosexual lifestyles?

How are you going to determine which children are heterosexual so you can protect them?

No, its a false premise, period. You are making another assumption.

Why would you propose forcing any child into a homosexual lifestyle?

Tough question for you, huh, you have chased my post for months, and you still just can not answer why you think its okay to force children into a your ideal homosexual lifestyle.

Why is it so important to you that children be forced to live with homosexuals.

Demented and broken you are, to abuse the innocent with your idea of how they should live.

'ideal homosexual lifestyle'? LOL.....

I think children ideally should have a family rather than languish in foster care for years at a time, or be aged out of the system without any family to support them.

Presuming in all cases that the persons pass background checks and can support a child:
If there is a heterosexual couple who wants to adopt them- I am all for that.
If there is a single mom or dad who wants to adopt them- I am all for that.
If theres is a homosexual couple who wants to adopt them- I am all for that.

This is not about forcing any child into a heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle, nor is it about forcing a child into a single parent home or a two parent home- it is about getting children into homes.

 

[Syriusly]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

Your only argument against gay marriage is argument #3

 

[Syriusly]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Yeah- there are Americans who love the idea of violent overthrow of the American government.

Because revolution always works out so well.

 

[Syriusly]

As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.

Strawman argument/

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

You're joking, rght? THe constutional amendments etc that define marriage as between one man and one woman are exactly the issue. Those are exactly the measures that gay activists judges have been striking down. States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit. No one has made the argument that states are denying rights to people with misdemeanors when they deny them carry permits. The state is empowered to set criteria. Same with marriage licenses.

Wow- so close- yet so far.

States do have the right to define marriage- but that State marriage laws must be constitutional- just like State's gun laws must be constitutional.

The Supreme Court has over-ruled State's marriage laws and regulations at least 3 times on Constitutional grounds:
Loving v. Virginia
Turner v. Safley
Zablocki v. Rehail

The Zablocki case specifically addresses the claim that the 'state is empowered to set criteria'

The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

States cannot constitutionally make it illegal for all citizens to own guns- gun ownership is a 'fundamental right'- but it can deny gun ownership when 'it is supported by sufficiently important state interests'- like denying convicted felons the right to own guns.

States tried to deny the Lovings the fundamental right to marry- but Virginia could not make a convincing argument that bans in interracial marriage served a legitimate state interest.

So far- states- and yourself- have not been able to explain what 'sufficiently important state interests' are accomplished by preventing gay marriage.

And that is why the States- and you- keep losing this argument.

 

[Syriusly]

In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.

That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

You're joking, rght? THe constutional amendments etc that define marriage as between one man and one woman are exactly the issue. Those are exactly the measures that gay activists judges have been striking down. States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit. No one has made the argument that states are denying rights to people with misdemeanors when they deny them carry permits. The state is empowered to set criteria. Same with marriage licenses.

States do not have the authority to make laws that conflict with the Constitution or federal law.

Since there is no COnstitutional mention of marriage,nor is is in federal law as applying to states that would appear to be what we call "bullshit."

No- that is what we rational people call paying attention to legal reality. The Supreme Court regularly overturns state laws on Constitutional grounds.

Loving v Virginia

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

Zablocki v. Rehail

AlthoughLovingarose in the context of racial discrimination, prior and subsequent decisions of this Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance for all individuals.

Maynard v. Hill,125 U. S. 190(1888), the Court characterized marriage as "the most important relation in life,"id.at125 U. S. 205, and as "the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress,"

InMeyer v. Nebraska,262 U. S. 390(1923), the Court recognized that the right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children" is a central part of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause,

InGriswold v. Connecticut,381 U. S. 479(1965), the Court observed:

"We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions."

Carey v. Population Services International,431 U. S. 678(1977)

"While the outer limits of [the right of personal privacy] have not been marked by the Court, it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions 'relating to marriage,

Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur

"This Court has long recognized that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment"

 

[The Rabbi]

You forgot number 4...

Give us the children..

Yes, either in "families" or in schools. The push is on to insure that schools teach that homosexual couples are really just like normal couples.
Britain is moving to punish religious schools that dont teach this. There will be no way any of them could continue to operate under those conditions.

 

[Syriusly]

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

Yeah the Founders would be like for free marijuana and universal college education. And free beer and titties. Right?

The 'Founders' would be shocked about any federal drug laws.

And of course would be against women and African Americans being allowed into colleges- only monied white men need apply.

I will leave you the Founder 'titty fantasies' to you.

 

[Syriusly]

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be an American.

And probably never will.

 

[Syriusly]

You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.

The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.

We can if we decide to carry out what our founding fathers would expect us to do. That is overthrow a lawless Un-Constitutional government. The jury is no longer out on that conclusion

-Geaux

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Your belief that America can never be capable of producing a generation that could be smarter or better suited to judge our needs based on current conditions than were some men in the 18th century is more madness.

Conservatives trying to end progress, reverse course, and head back to the 18th century. lol

Red herring argument.
Rabbi Rules!

Rabbi drools.

 

[Syriusly]

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

I wonder how many generations the leftist here go back? From their actions,. one would think not very far

-Geaux

I would be glad to compare my lineage to yours. Yours seem more rooted in Prussia than the United States.

 

[Syriusly]

Considering ourselves perpetually subordinate and obedient to the wishes of an 18th century gang of rebels is madness.

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

Being American is treating the founders as Gods? lol

No, being American is exactly opposite what you are.

-Geaux

Telling other Americans that they are not Americans is about as un-American as a person can be.

 

[Syriusly]

No it's not. It's called American and appears you need not apply'

-Geaux

Maybe you don't understand the founders. They would mock the idea that we were here over 200 years later trying to conform to them like they were some sort of gods.

No, you obviously don't understand what it means to be American.

-Geaux

He understands it. He just hates it.

Shall we honor the founders' belief that women shouldn't have the right to vote?

Did things get better or worse after they got that right?

What do you think Rabbi?

You against the right of women to vote?

 

[Syriusly]

Sure Rabbi, you "nailed it". I'll wait for the subpoena. Why not ask the reluctant hypocrite himself?

Strawman, I'm not reluctant. I'm glad it makes my spouse happy. When you grasp that, maybe you can move past government marriage just being collective validation and start to get the real thing. Gays are not all like you BTW. My VP of sales for my business is gay. She has worked for me about three years. She has been in a serious committed relationship for about one. She and her partner very much do things for each other's interest. Isn't it interesting? You have the paper, she doesn't want it, but I consider her far more married than you are.

Oh...so you're happy to be a raging hypocrite. Good to know. Can I call you the happy hypocrite instead?

Really? You're gonna try the "I have a gay friend" thing too?

Being civilly married was in the interest of both my spouse and I. We both wanted it and to you that means we're worthy of derision...because we want the same civil marriage you and your wife wanted that now only she wants.

And your opinion of my marriage doesn't make me any less married or any less in love with my wife.

You should consider that sometimes when you do things because they are in your partner's interest rather than your own and you don't demand your way or even a compromise, you get more in your own interest than getting your way. Blows your mind, doesn't it?

And I conceded you have the paper, you have government marriage. You just don't know what marriage is.

And you assume I do without any knowledge.

I have a marriage. We've been together 20 and married 7.

Let me tell you what that "piece of paper" has done for our family. First and foremost, our children can say their parents are married and if you talk to child experts, they'll tell you that's important to the children. Also importantly for our children, our civil marriage has allowed my spouse to not work. She can be on my employer sponsored health plan and so she can stay home and be there when the kids get home from school, have a hot meal cooked, clean clothes and a house for them.

What it could have done if we had access to it 15 years ago was save a lot of money. Instead of paying thousands of dollars for my spouse to legally adopt our children and change her name, a $75 marriage license would have taken care of the whole shebang in one fell swoop.

It's great you compromise. You deserve husband of the year for staying married when you don't want to. What makes you a dick is wanting to deny those same rights, benefits and privileges to gay couples who want to care for their spouses like you do.

Civil marriage has enabled you to sponge off others. That's really the bottom line here. All the crap about civil rights and liberties etc is just smokesreeny.

Argument #2
"Gays just want to marry to sponge off of others"

By having the same rights as a heterosexual married couple....

 

[Syriusly]

You forgot number 4...

Give us the children..

Or in your case- "prevent gay marriage so children of homosexuals never have married parents'

 

[Skylar]

What actually happened was that legislatures passed laws consistent with their state constitutions, often amended by large majorities of voters. The fags couldnt sell their snake oil to the public so after a few electoral beatings they shopped for gay judges who would gin up a non existent equal protection rationale to impose gay marriage on populations that consistently rejected it.

You say its non-existent. Yet the federal courts has recognized, again and again, that it does exist. Your assumption that the equal protection clause for gay marriage doesn't exist is thus contradicted by overwhelming legal evidence: contradictory rulings.

You've done nothing to factually establish your claim, save to type it. While almost all federal court decisions on the matter contradicting you.

Until the Circuit Court ruling that stopped that nonsense in some states.

So far, one circuit court has ruled against gay marriage. Just one. And the USSC's response is significant. Every lower court ruling that overturned gay marriage bans, the courts preserved by denying cert. Every single one. The only circuit court decision that the court chose to review was the one ruling that affirmed gay marriage bans.

If it was the court's intention to affirm gay marriage bans, why preserve every lower court ruling that overturned them? Why hear only the one case that affirms such bans, giving them an opportunity to overturn it?

The answer is obvious. And Scalia explains it in his dissent on the Windsor ruling:

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today’s opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today’s opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ ‘bare . . . desire to harm’ ” couples in same-sex marriages. Supra, at 18. How easy it is, indeed how inevitable, to reach the same conclusion with regard to state laws denying same-sex couples marital status.

Justice Scalia, in dissent Windsor v. US

Justice Scalia, an opponent of same sex marriage, declared that the court's position on state same sex marriage bans was 'beyond mistaking'. And that the court overturning such state same sex marriage bans using the logic of the Windsor ruling was 'inevitable'.

You can ignore the overwhelming majority of the federal court rulings and the SCOTUS's logic in Windsor. But you can't make the courts ignore it.

 

[Syriusly]

You forgot number 4...

Give us the children..

Yes, either in "families" or in schools. The push is on to insure that schools teach that homosexual couples are really just like normal couples..

Actually the push is on in the schools to end bullying, by teaching that homosexuals are normal and should not be bullied because they are homosexuals.

Lots of homophobes resent this effort to prevent bullying of homosexuals.