LGBT & ? vs Utah: Legal Arguments at 10th Circuit Begin April 10, 2014

[Silhouette]

Doug NeJaime, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said he expects arguments from attorneys on behalf of same-sex couples during these arguments to focus on the impact of the states’ marriage bans on children.

“I expect we will see significant attention on the child centered rationales put forward by the state with responses regarding the detrimental impact on children raised by same-sex couples. Children are figuring prominently in these cases,” NeJaime said. “I also expect discussion about how Windsor affects the analysis of state bans on marriage.”

The harm to children raised by same-sex parents as a result of the Defense of Marriage Act was a significant factor in U.S. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy’s decision last year against the ban. Numerous district courts have cited that language in their decisions striking down marriage bans. Eyes on 10th Circuit for Utah, Okla. marriage arguments » Washington Blade - America's Leading Gay News Source

So the plan the LGBT church, Harvey Milk messiah, is to strum the heartstrings of Kennedy as to "the harm to children whose non-hetero non man/woman "parents" aren't married.

I think its time to bring up the Harvey Milk stamp. Or just have the attorneys for Utah all be wearing Harvey Milk stamp T-shirts with a slogan saying "ask me about Harvey Milk's sexual preference"...

...speaking of children and harm to them...

 

[Silhouette]

I really don't know which state I'm rooting for since I haven't looked at each individual challenge, but the poetic justice of Virginia being the state that makes it to the SCOTUS first is compelling.

Why not root for Utah? Or are you worried about polygamy snagging up "the right to marry" for consenting adults in that state?

I've got news for you Seawytch, no matter which state is before the US Supreme Court, they're going to be thinking "Utah/polygamy" in the back of their minds at all times. You may feel polygamists can be arbitrarily discriminated against even if the church of LGBT gains access to the bedrock of society [marriage], but the Justices see it through a different lens. And that lens is called "precedent". "Polygamy is icky" is not a sound argument to deny them once the far far ickier LGBT cult kicks down the door.

What could be more disgusting and objectionable to a majority of US citizens than a cult that has a leader [Harvey Milk] who sodomized teen boys addled on drug and mentally compromised/incapable of consent? I mean, over 60 groups in the US, Canada and Mexico lobbied hard to get the commemorative stamp of Milk [with rainbow "USA" at the top] issued from the US Postal service...after they knew about his sodomy of teens on drugs... That kind of speaks volumes about the fundamental value system of the LGBT cult. If they can gain access to orphaned kids via marriage, why not polygamists?

Let me guess....because "some polylgamists have shown that they approve of their iconic leaders having sex with minor teens"... Did I get that right?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sil, the LBGT cult exists in only your mind, not in the American mind.

 

[Silhouette]

Sil, the LBGT cult exists in only your mind, not in the American mind.

Are you talking about the "Ameican mind" sitting on a barstool in the Castro District in San Francisco or the American mind who watches Duck Dynasty, eats at Chic-Fil-A, goes to church on Sunday or who [returning to California] was one of the 7 millon who voted for Prop 8 and would do so again in a heartbeat?

Or the "American mind" who is appalled at the removal of free speech from people like the guy at Mozilla Firefox? Or the American mind being forced to make a "gay wedding cake" when their Bible tells them in Jude 1 they will go to hell for eternity for assisting the spread of a homosexual culture?

Be specific which American mind you're referring to because I can guarantee you there are more and more people each day seeing this LGBT thing as a cult instead of a "benign civil rights movement"... Gay is Passe'. That's a bumper sticker I'm thinking of printing and issuing at various retail outlets. It will definitely get a giggle out of quite a few people..

 

[Seawytch]

Sil, the LBGT cult exists in only your mind, not in the American mind.

Are you talking about the "Ameican mind" sitting on a barstool in the Castro District in San Francisco or the American mind who watches Duck Dynasty, eats at Chic-Fil-A, goes to church on Sunday or who [returning to California] was one of the 7 millon who voted for Prop 8 and would do so again in a heartbeat?



Or the "American mind" who is appalled at the removal of free speech from people like the guy at Mozilla Firefox? Or the American mind being forced to make a "gay wedding cake" when their Bible tells them in Jude 1 they will go to hell for eternity for assisting the spread of a homosexual culture?



Be specific which American mind you're referring to because I can guarantee you there are more and more people each day seeing this LGBT thing as a cult instead of a "benign civil rights movement"... Gay is Passe'. That's a bumper sticker I'm thinking of printing and issuing at various retail outlets. It will definitely get a giggle out of quite a few people..

Sorry Sil, that's not what public opinion polls are showing. Support for marriage equality is only going up.

 

[Silhouette]

Sorry Sil, that's not what public opinion polls are showing. Support for marriage equality is only going up.

Sorry Wytch..

I remember as the nation watched Prop 8 being fought against in California. Gays assured the nation that "Prop 8 was polling to lose" and "rest assured, a majority in California opposes Prop 8". What they didn't tell the public was that their pollling of legitimate Californians was done in the inner cities near the blue districts.

As it turns out, 75 out of 100 people polled in the Castro District isn't an accurate predictor of election results. Prop 8 won handily. And it would win again.

On what planet do you need to come from to skew reality so badly as to assume that as gays become more and more pushy suppressing regular folks like the guy at Mozilla and scores of others, that this will cause a sympathetic rush to the side of this cult?

If you're so sure of your numbers, why is it necessary for gays to keep pushing gay marriage on states behind their legitimate referendums? Seems if a majority supports gay marriage it would play out in the vote supporting it. Yet in all but 3 states, gay marraige is forbidden by law via majority rule. That sure is an odd way for "the majority" to express "its support" for gay marriage...

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the T-shirt the Utah legal team should wear now that they know the cult of LGBT is going to play the violin for Kennedy on "what's best for the children"...

Top Caption:

"60+ LGBT groups in Canada, Mexico & the US had this stamp commissioned"

And the caption below it:

"Ask me about Harvey Milk's sex partners"

 

[Seawytch]

Up, up, up Sil...

 

[Silhouette]

Up, up, up Sil...

Yep...just like the polling data for "those opposed to Prop 8"...just before it won handily in California...

Polls surrounding especially the objectionable cult of LGBT always seem to miss the mark in reality.

How it is again with all this popular support that LGBTs are consistently afraid of putting gay marriage up to normal referendum in the various states? Why is it again that the only way gay marriage winds up "winning" is via fascist dictatorship from activist judges attempting to overturn the Will of each state's majority with contemptuous denials of that state's right to govern itself a la Windsor?

Why such lengths to circumvent due process with such a "popular" concept?

I notice you sidestepped answering that.

 

[Seawytch]

Up, up, up Sil...

Yep...just like the polling data for "those opposed to Prop 8"...just before it won handily in California...



Polls surrounding especially the objectionable cult of LGBT always seem to miss the mark in reality.



How it is again with all this popular support that LGBTs are consistently afraid of putting gay marriage up to normal referendum in the various states? Why is it again that the only way gay marriage winds up "winning" is via fascist dictatorship from activist judges attempting to overturn the Will of each state's majority with contemptuous denials of that state's right to govern itself a la Windsor?



Why such lengths to circumvent due process with such a "popular" concept?



I notice you sidestepped answering that.

Oh, CA? Here's CA.

Due process is being followed. Ours....

 

[Silhouette]

You're not answering. Why if gay marriage is so popular did Prop 8 poll to "go down" and instead won? Why do the LGBT cultees rely on judges to try to overturn the will of the majority who define marraige as "one man, one woman"?

You still need to talk about why LGBTers are afraid of letting the majority decide when they insist the majority supports gay marriage?

Odd, wouldn't you say? Doesn't quite line up with the polling data. Don't you folks trust the polls you're saying is for real?

 

[frigidweirdo]

You're not answering. Why if gay marriage is so popular did Prop 8 poll to "go down" and instead won? Why do the LGBT cultees rely on judges to try to overturn the will of the majority who define marraige as "one man, one woman"?

You still need to talk about why LGBTers are afraid of letting the majority decide when they insist the majority supports gay marriage?

Odd, wouldn't you say? Doesn't quite line up with the polling data. Don't you folks trust the polls you're saying is for real?

When have rights been a matter of the mob deciding? They haven't. The Bill of Rights was never part of a referendum, and never have been.

Rights are protected constitutionally for a reason. Rights shouldn't be about the mob deciding, they are supposed to be INHERENT.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sil, the LBGT cult exists in only your mind, not in the American mind.

Are you talking about the "Ameican mind" sitting on a barstool in the Castro District in San Francisco or the American mind who watches Duck Dynasty, eats at Chic-Fil-A, goes to church on Sunday or who [returning to California] was one of the 7 millon who voted for Prop 8 and would do so again in a heartbeat?

Or the "American mind" who is appalled at the removal of free speech from people like the guy at Mozilla Firefox? Or the American mind being forced to make a "gay wedding cake" when their Bible tells them in Jude 1 they will go to hell for eternity for assisting the spread of a homosexual culture?

Be specific which American mind you're referring to because I can guarantee you there are more and more people each day seeing this LGBT thing as a cult instead of a "benign civil rights movement"... Gay is Passe'. That's a bumper sticker I'm thinking of printing and issuing at various retail outlets. It will definitely get a giggle out of quite a few people..

How is the guy's free speech being violated exactly? He said what he wanted to say, he lost his job because of it. Wow. Are you suggesting companies can't fire people because of what they say. Wait, tomorrow i'm going to go tell my boss to "f*** o**" and then sue him for firing me, saying my free speech is being infringed upon.

How's that going to go down with you?

As for Jude saying if you assist the "homosexual culture" if you make a wedding cake for gay people, you're going to have to prove this one, oh, you won't be able to simply because it doesn't say this.

You just interpret things however you want, and then treat people badly and call it "belief" so that you can justify this.

Doesn't it say in the bible to treat people as you would want to be treated?

But the whole argument of free speech just makes it look like you don't understand rights and the constitutional protection of rights.

 

[Seawytch]

You're not answering. Why if gay marriage is so popular did Prop 8 poll to "go down" and instead won? Why do the LGBT cultees rely on judges to try to overturn the will of the majority who define marraige as "one man, one woman"?

You still need to talk about why LGBTers are afraid of letting the majority decide when they insist the majority supports gay marriage?

Odd, wouldn't you say? Doesn't quite line up with the polling data. Don't you folks trust the polls you're saying is for real?

There is a world of difference between 2008 and 2014 as I showed you in the polls.

Sil, what was the "will of the people" when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia? Any idea?

 

[Silhouette]

There is a world of difference between 2008 and 2014 as I showed you in the polls.

Sil, what was the "will of the people" when the SCOTUS ruled on Loving v Virginia? Any idea?

If there's a world of difference between 2014 [don't know why there would be in people's fundamental views], why is it still so vogue to try to use activist judges to force gay marriage on states whose majority doesn't want it? Why not just put up a referendum and trust the statistics Seawytch?

Doesn't matter about Loving v Virginia because gay sex behaviors are not a race, religion, country of origin or gender.

Seems on the one had Wytch, you are saying "a clear majority polls in support of gay marriage" and on the other hand you're sayng "let's escape the tyranny of the majority suppressing gay marriage by trying to manipulate the word "sex" in the 14th to mean a verb instead of a noun."

Why do you need the 14th at all when state by state you can easily win gay marriage with just a vote on it...you know...according to the polls...?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn't matter about Loving v Virginia because gay sex behaviors are not a race, religion, country of origin or gender.

#1 Romer v. Evans (as you've been shown before) shows that homosexual are protected by the 14th.

#2 Please site any Civil Marriage law in the union where the conditions are defined in terms of sexual behavior. Bet I can show you a lot more there they are defined in terms of gender.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Doesn't matter about Loving v Virginia because gay sex behaviors are not a race, religion, country of origin or gender.

#1 Romer v. Evans (as you've been shown before) shows that homosexual are protected by the 14th.

#2 Please site any Civil Marriage law in the union where the conditions are defined in terms of sexual behavior. Bet I can show you a lot more there they are defined in terms of gender.
>>>>

#1 Like the Justices said, "where in the constitution is marriage a guaranteed right?" and
in Windsor they cited Loving and went ahead to say that the question of gay marriage was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states...at the end of that Decision they allowed that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states". I guess that means Loving doesn't apply to gay marriage.

#2 The citation is implied. "between a man and a woman" means heterosexual behavior is approved for marriage. You can try to dehydrate law but not that much..lol..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Doesn't matter about Loving v Virginia because gay sex behaviors are not a race, religion, country of origin or gender.

#1 Romer v. Evans (as you've been shown before) shows that homosexual are protected by the 14th.

#2 Please site any Civil Marriage law in the union where the conditions are defined in terms of sexual behavior. Bet I can show you a lot more there they are defined in terms of gender.
>>>>

#1 Like the Justices said, "where in the constitution is marriage a guaranteed right?" and
in Windsor they cited Loving and went ahead to say that the question of gay marriage was the "unquestioned authority" of the separate states...at the end of that Decision they allowed that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states". I guess that means Loving doesn't apply to gay marriage.

They also said that State Civil Marriage laws were subject to Constitutional guarantees.

You keep leaving that part out. Loving was cited as a case where the states had exceeded these Constitutional guarantees and therefore the States laws were invalid.

#2 The citation is implied. "between a man and a woman" means heterosexual behavior is approved for marriage. You can try to dehydrate law but not that much..lol..

Ohhh so now "implied" is how laws are to be interpreted, let's ignore the actual text of laws and go with "implied". Activist judges would love you.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Ohhh so now "implied" is how laws are to be interpreted, let's ignore the actual text of laws and go with "implied". Activist judges would love you.


They also said that State Civil Marriage laws were subject to Constitutional guarantees.

You keep leaving that part out. Loving was cited as a case where the states had exceeded these Constitutional guarantees and therefore the States laws were invalid.

Attorneys argue implied law all the time. What's your point? You're saying only the cult of LGBT can argue implied law? That would be another set of "special priveleges" you're after?

Loving was indeed cited in Windsor. Just before the Court concluded that a state has a constitutionally-protected right to choose via broad consensus on gay marriage retroactive to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". And at the end the Court, in spite of citing Loving as a potential exception to that finding, said that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states".

You're pretending your very best game of pretend to not understand what that conclusion implies...speaking of implied law. Care to test it and ask the Court for clarity? That's exactly what Utah is going to do..

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ohhh so now "implied" is how laws are to be interpreted, let's ignore the actual text of laws and go with "implied". Activist judges would love you.


They also said that State Civil Marriage laws were subject to Constitutional guarantees.

You keep leaving that part out. Loving was cited as a case where the states had exceeded these Constitutional guarantees and therefore the States laws were invalid.

Attorneys argue implied law all the time. What's your point? You're saying only the cult of LGBT can argue implied law? That would be another set of "special priveleges" you're after?

Loving was indeed cited in Windsor. Just before the Court concluded that a state has a constitutionally-protected right to choose via broad consensus on gay marriage retroactive to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended". And at the end the Court, in spite of citing Loving as a potential exception to that finding, said that gay marriage was "only allowed" "in some states".

You're pretending your very best game of pretend to not understand what that conclusion implies...speaking of implied law. Care to test it and ask the Court for clarity? That's exactly what Utah is going to do..

There is someone pretending about what Windsor says, here's a hint...

It's not me.

My interpretation of Windsor is in line with:

* The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court

* The California Supreme Court

* The California Governor and Attorney General

* The author of the Windsor decision (Justice Kennedy) he refused to issue a further stay of SSCM in California

* The Federal Judge in Utah

* The Federal Judge in Oklahoma

* The Federal Judge in Kentucky

* TWO different Federal Judge's in Virginia

* The Federal Judge in Texas

* The Federal Judge in Ohio

* The Federal Judge in Michigan​

I can't think of one judge that has agreed with your out of context snippets trying to make Windsor say what you want it to say.



>>>>