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

[Wacky Quacky]

They are not separate, there is no separation in what I said. If there is, show it to me.

Separate in, a gay person cannot marry a consenting adult of their CHOICE, whereas a straight person can.

Incorrect, a straight guy can't marry another guy even if he wanted to just to get the benefits.

And why not?

 

[OKTexas]

Incorrect, a straight guy can't marry another guy even if he wanted to just to get the benefits.

Do you really need to be pedantic here?

Marrying for benefits is FRAUD, it's ILLEGAL.

Hence why a gay person marrying a person of the opposite sex would more likely than not amount to FRAUD>

Boy are you naive, people marry for the benefits all the damn time, mostly so a woman can draw a mans social security benefits in later life.

 

[OKTexas]

Separate in, a gay person cannot marry a consenting adult of their CHOICE, whereas a straight person can.

Incorrect, a straight guy can't marry another guy even if he wanted to just to get the benefits.

And why not?

The discussion is about places where fag marriage isn't legal, do try to keep up.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Boy are you naive, people marry for the benefits all the damn time, mostly so a woman can draw a mans social security benefits in later life.

Are you making a point here?

You expect gay men to marry women just so they can claim benefits? Or gay women to marry men just for the benefits?

 

[jillian]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

Actually the right to marital privacy has been a part of the US Constitution since Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

I mean, that's a long time. 50 years next year, and somehow people are still having this right peed upon by others.

Those who are denied marriage. Children. Yeah, because right and responsibilities are limited in minors. I don't see gay people having their rights and responsibilities limited, they can own guns, they can work, they can do just about everything everyone else can do, but not marry.

Incest is something that is known to harm babies who are produced from incest.

Polygamy is banned, however this is equal for all.
All individuals should be free to choose to marry whoever they like. The law states one person at a time, white people, women, black people and everyone else is limited to marrying one person. You can argue the toss over whether this should be like this or not, but it's FAIR for all. Banning gay marriage prevents individuals marrying a consenting adult of their choice.
But, from the LEGAL point of view and a CONSTITUTIONAL point of view (you remember the constitution?), the 14 amendment has an "equal protection of the laws" clause, ie, you can't stop individuals being able to have equal protection. Two consenting adults can marry who they choose and get all sorts of laws in their favor, tax breaks or whatever, gay people cannot. It goes against the constitution.

Important functions like marriage and driving? Are you kidding me and putting these two on the same level?
Actually, the US govt DOESN'T control all driving. You can drive on your own land how the hell you like, as long as you don't hurt someone. So can I marry who I like on my own land? er... no. Not if I were gay.

Now here's the really funny part.

"It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity"

Straight marriage has nigh on 50% divorce rate. Integrity? I think not.

Now you want marriage about best interests. I'm sorry, but when a couple gets married, the US govt, nor state govts, don't say "is this in the best interests of the state for you two to be married?"

Then you go and talk about POPULATION DECLINE. Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. (I hate that phrase but whatever).
7 BILLION people on the planet, TOO MANY. 300 million in the US, TOO many. And you're worried we won't be producing children enough.

And then you think if gay people don't marry they'll go marry a straight person, just to marry. Sorry, they'll still be shagging their same sex people.

You say the family nucleus will go into a free for all. Sorry, for a large part it's already there. 40% of first marriages end in divorce, plenty of kids are in single parent families, plenty of kids are in families with two parents (straight) which are abusive.

You think the barn door will open? Sorry, straight people kicked the damn thing open and broke it down in their rush for MONEY and MATERIAL ITEMS and CHEAP SEX. You know married people sometimes cheat on their partners and then get kicked out of the house? I saw it happen last week.

your arguments are weak and your understanding of Griswold non-existent. While Griswold did state there is a zone of privacy around the marital relationship, that was to protect it FROM government and FROM religious zealots who would ban contraception.

The case you SHOULD be looking at, which you seem to have intentionally ignored, was Loving v Virginia which DID state that marriage is a fundamental right. That means in order to restrict such right, government has to have an overriding interest. As in Loving, bigotry is not an overriding interest.

 

[OKTexas]

Boy are you naive, people marry for the benefits all the damn time, mostly so a woman can draw a mans social security benefits in later life.

Are you making a point here?

You expect gay men to marry women just so they can claim benefits? Or gay women to marry men just for the benefits?

Seems like it's past your bed time, you appear to be losing a sense of context here. Go back and see what led up to that reply. In the mean time, it is past my bed time, I read your reply later.

 

[frigidweirdo]

your arguments are weak and your understanding of Griswold non-existent. While Griswold did state there is a zone of privacy around the marital relationship, that was to protect it FROM government and FROM religious zealots who would ban contraception.

The case you SHOULD be looking at, which you seem to have intentionally ignored, was Loving v Virginia which DID state that marriage is a fundamental right. That means in order to restrict such right, government has to have an overriding interest. As in Loving, bigotry is not an overriding interest.

So what you're saying is what I have been saying?

So my argument is weak, what does that make yours? Oh, sure, we could exchange a spat or two, but what's the point.

Point is, there have been justices making the claim for a right to marry.

What overriding interest is there? Well we're discussing the fact that divorce is high, and the country is increasing by about 1.4 million people a year naturally.

What interest is there for the govt to promote child birth? Almost none. What interest is there in stopping gay people marrying to increase child birth? None, if a person is gay they're not going to them marry a women because they can't marry a man.

You get my points or not?

 

[OKTexas]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

Actually the right to marital privacy has been a part of the US Constitution since Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

I mean, that's a long time. 50 years next year, and somehow people are still having this right peed upon by others.

Those who are denied marriage. Children. Yeah, because right and responsibilities are limited in minors. I don't see gay people having their rights and responsibilities limited, they can own guns, they can work, they can do just about everything everyone else can do, but not marry.

Incest is something that is known to harm babies who are produced from incest.

Polygamy is banned, however this is equal for all.
All individuals should be free to choose to marry whoever they like. The law states one person at a time, white people, women, black people and everyone else is limited to marrying one person. You can argue the toss over whether this should be like this or not, but it's FAIR for all. Banning gay marriage prevents individuals marrying a consenting adult of their choice.
But, from the LEGAL point of view and a CONSTITUTIONAL point of view (you remember the constitution?), the 14 amendment has an "equal protection of the laws" clause, ie, you can't stop individuals being able to have equal protection. Two consenting adults can marry who they choose and get all sorts of laws in their favor, tax breaks or whatever, gay people cannot. It goes against the constitution.

Important functions like marriage and driving? Are you kidding me and putting these two on the same level?
Actually, the US govt DOESN'T control all driving. You can drive on your own land how the hell you like, as long as you don't hurt someone. So can I marry who I like on my own land? er... no. Not if I were gay.

Now here's the really funny part.

"It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity"

Straight marriage has nigh on 50% divorce rate. Integrity? I think not.

Now you want marriage about best interests. I'm sorry, but when a couple gets married, the US govt, nor state govts, don't say "is this in the best interests of the state for you two to be married?"

Then you go and talk about POPULATION DECLINE. Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. (I hate that phrase but whatever).
7 BILLION people on the planet, TOO MANY. 300 million in the US, TOO many. And you're worried we won't be producing children enough.

And then you think if gay people don't marry they'll go marry a straight person, just to marry. Sorry, they'll still be shagging their same sex people.

You say the family nucleus will go into a free for all. Sorry, for a large part it's already there. 40% of first marriages end in divorce, plenty of kids are in single parent families, plenty of kids are in families with two parents (straight) which are abusive.

You think the barn door will open? Sorry, straight people kicked the damn thing open and broke it down in their rush for MONEY and MATERIAL ITEMS and CHEAP SEX. You know married people sometimes cheat on their partners and then get kicked out of the house? I saw it happen last week.

your arguments are weak and your understanding of Griswold non-existent. While Griswold did state there is a zone of privacy around the marital relationship, that was to protect it FROM government and FROM religious zealots who would ban contraception.

The case you SHOULD be looking at, which you seem to have intentionally ignored, was Loving v Virginia which DID state that marriage is a fundamental right. That means in order to restrict such right, government has to have an overriding interest. As in Loving, bigotry is not an overriding interest.

Bigotry is not an overriding interest, correct, biology on the other hand is a different story. The government would have no interest in blessing unnatural biologic unions.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seems like it's past your bed time, you appear to be losing a sense of context here. Go back and see what led up to that reply. In the mean time, it is past my bed time, I read your reply later.

Losing a sense of context?

Not at all. I know what the context is.

Fairness, liberty, freedom, govt keeping its dirty nose out of people's business, and people getting on with their lives and making decisions for themselves that don't harm other people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Bigotry is not an overriding interest, correct, biology on the other hand is a different story. The government would have no interest in blessing unnatural biologic unions.

Why do they have any interest in blessing any union? What's it to do with them?

 

[The Rabbi]

So gay and lesbian couples want the same marital benefits that are afforded to married heterosexual couples? Why is that a bad thing?

Why should they have them? Heterosexual couples should have them because the state has an interest in fostering heterosexual marriages. The state has no interest in fostering homosexual marriages.

They should have them because that's EQUALITY UNDER THE FUCKING LAW.

RuPaul is a gay man dressed up like a woman. Are you aware of this? If you are indeed a fan of RuPaul as you seem to suggest at the end of every single one of your posts, then why do you not want him to have the same rights and privileges as every other American? Are you one of those old white racist fucks who loved Al Jolson but wouldn't ever want to see him in a voting booth?

Do you seriously believe any of the shit that you write?

They already have equality under the law. Big fonts in your post dont change that. Remind me what "right" they supposedly don't have that I do.

 

[The Rabbi]

50% divorce rate (and that's inaccurate) is irrelevant to the fact that most people who get married have children.
If there is a right to marry, then the power to define marriage rests with the states, not unelected judges. Something about they derive their legitimate power from the consent of the goverened.

Of course it's inaccurate, there are no readily available statistics on this as far as I can find. But it's about right. 1st marriage is probably about 40%.

However the divorce rate is high.

Let's compare marriage to divorce. It's not great because people get divorced in different years to when they get married, so stats are always going to be estimates.

Alabama, marriage 9.8 per 1,000 people. Divorce 5.4 per 1,000. That's a divorce rate that's more than 50% the marriage rate.

Some states do have lower than 50%, but in general it's about at the 50% mark. 2 marriages to one divorce. Arizona is closer to 66% for example.


So, now this issue is purely about having children, and not whether the parents stay together for the good of the kids? Hmm.

But then again, the US doesn't have a problem producing children. In fact we should be looking at a reduction in the number of children being born, not an increase.

Our birthrate is barely at replacement rate. We need more kids, not fewer.
THe divorce rate is a red herring, irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[The Rabbi]

They have equality under the law, admit it, any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man. You keep dancing and deflecting but can't prove me wrong, can you?

That isn't equality for homosexuals and lesbians and you know it, so stop being a moron.

Do you write things like that with the intention of being taken seriously?

Tell us something straight men can do that gay men cannot do. We'll wait.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They have equality under the law, admit it, any man can marry any woman and any woman can marry any man. You keep dancing and deflecting but can't prove me wrong, can you?

That isn't equality for homosexuals and lesbians and you know it, so stop being a moron.

Do you write things like that with the intention of being taken seriously?

Tell us something straight men can do that gay men cannot do. We'll wait.

Marry the adult they love.

Your turn: Name one other contract that requires one to be male and one to be female?

 

[The Rabbi]

Seems like it's past your bed time, you appear to be losing a sense of context here. Go back and see what led up to that reply. In the mean time, it is past my bed time, I read your reply later.

Losing a sense of context?

Not at all. I know what the context is.

Fairness, liberty, freedom, govt keeping its dirty nose out of people's business, and people getting on with their lives and making decisions for themselves that don't harm other people.

Those are the talking points of the gay movement, true. But under scrutiny we discover it is no such thing.
Fairness--gays can do exactly what straight people do.
Liberty--no one is interfering with gays' lives, including the ability to marry in whatever ceremony they want
Freedom--ditto
Gov't keeping its nose out of other people's business--what you want precisely is for gov't to intervene in other people's business. You want gov't to recognize some people's marriages over other people's marriages. It is the opposite of what you say.
People getting on with their lives-who is stopping anybody?
Making decisions for themselves--who is stopping anybody?

 

[The Rabbi]

That isn't equality for homosexuals and lesbians and you know it, so stop being a moron.

Do you write things like that with the intention of being taken seriously?

Tell us something straight men can do that gay men cannot do. We'll wait.

Marry the adult they love.

Wrong.
I am married. I cannot marry any other adult, regardless of love.
/fail.
/total fail.
/facepalm fail

 

[Wacky Quacky]

What is "other than equality"? What are gay and lesbian couples asking for beyond a legally recognized marriage?

In what way does gay marriage threaten your freedom?

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

Consenting adults.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "consenting adults". I want you to google the phrase "consenting adults". Then I want you to read about the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law. Then you can come back and tell us why your post was wrong thanks to the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law.

Now, can we finally stop suggesting that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dog?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell us something straight men can do that gay men cannot do. We'll wait.

Marry the adult they love.

Wrong.
I am married. I cannot marry any other adult, regardless of love.
/fail.
/total fail.
/facepalm fail

If you got married once then you've already done more than they can do, but not for long.

 

[The Rabbi]

What is "other than equality"? What are gay and lesbian couples asking for beyond a legally recognized marriage?

In what way does gay marriage threaten your freedom?

They want the right to do something the rest of us don't have.
If marriage can mean anything, then it means nothing. People will marry their dogs. People will marry their brothers.

Consenting adults.

Have you ever heard of the phrase "consenting adults". I want you to google the phrase "consenting adults". Then I want you to read about the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law. Then you can come back and tell us why your post was wrong thanks to the phrase "consenting adults" as it relates to contract law.

Now, can we finally stop suggesting that gay marriage will lead to people marrying their dog?

Are you for discriminating against people marrying their animals? "Adult" refers to human.
Your post is typically wrong and ill informed.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your arguments are weak, and very weak at that.

It's not a right. Who says so? You?

Actually the right to marital privacy has been a part of the US Constitution since Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

I mean, that's a long time. 50 years next year, and somehow people are still having this right peed upon by others.

Those who are denied marriage. Children. Yeah, because right and responsibilities are limited in minors. I don't see gay people having their rights and responsibilities limited, they can own guns, they can work, they can do just about everything everyone else can do, but not marry.

Incest is something that is known to harm babies who are produced from incest.

Polygamy is banned, however this is equal for all.
All individuals should be free to choose to marry whoever they like. The law states one person at a time, white people, women, black people and everyone else is limited to marrying one person. You can argue the toss over whether this should be like this or not, but it's FAIR for all. Banning gay marriage prevents individuals marrying a consenting adult of their choice.
But, from the LEGAL point of view and a CONSTITUTIONAL point of view (you remember the constitution?), the 14 amendment has an "equal protection of the laws" clause, ie, you can't stop individuals being able to have equal protection. Two consenting adults can marry who they choose and get all sorts of laws in their favor, tax breaks or whatever, gay people cannot. It goes against the constitution.

Important functions like marriage and driving? Are you kidding me and putting these two on the same level?
Actually, the US govt DOESN'T control all driving. You can drive on your own land how the hell you like, as long as you don't hurt someone. So can I marry who I like on my own land? er... no. Not if I were gay.

Now here's the really funny part.

"It has a right to exclude certain people from those functions in order to maintain their integrity"

Straight marriage has nigh on 50% divorce rate. Integrity? I think not.

Now you want marriage about best interests. I'm sorry, but when a couple gets married, the US govt, nor state govts, don't say "is this in the best interests of the state for you two to be married?"

Then you go and talk about POPULATION DECLINE. Oh my GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD. (I hate that phrase but whatever).
7 BILLION people on the planet, TOO MANY. 300 million in the US, TOO many. And you're worried we won't be producing children enough.

And then you think if gay people don't marry they'll go marry a straight person, just to marry. Sorry, they'll still be shagging their same sex people.

You say the family nucleus will go into a free for all. Sorry, for a large part it's already there. 40% of first marriages end in divorce, plenty of kids are in single parent families, plenty of kids are in families with two parents (straight) which are abusive.

You think the barn door will open? Sorry, straight people kicked the damn thing open and broke it down in their rush for MONEY and MATERIAL ITEMS and CHEAP SEX. You know married people sometimes cheat on their partners and then get kicked out of the house? I saw it happen last week.

your arguments are weak and your understanding of Griswold non-existent. While Griswold did state there is a zone of privacy around the marital relationship, that was to protect it FROM government and FROM religious zealots who would ban contraception.

The case you SHOULD be looking at, which you seem to have intentionally ignored, was Loving v Virginia which DID state that marriage is a fundamental right. That means in order to restrict such right, government has to have an overriding interest. As in Loving, bigotry is not an overriding interest.

Bigotry is not an overriding interest, correct, biology on the other hand is a different story. The government would have no interest in blessing unnatural biologic unions.

Government has no compelling interest to not recognize marriage equality, none.