Arizona same-sex married couples are seeking adoptions

There is no presumption of paternity if the child's birth predates the marriage. I know this because my wife has children from her previous marriage. There is nothing about the way this works for same-sex couples that differs from the way things work for opposite sex couples that were married with preexisting children. The adoption cements the non-biological spouse's parental rights in the event that the biological parent dies.

The point is to protect families from being torn apart after the death of a parent by members of the biological parent's family and is especially important for same-sex couples because of the increased likelihood of one or more family members challenging the parental rights based on subjective discomfort with homosexuality. There is literally nothing new to see here except that now same-sex couples are following the same path that countless number of opposite sex couples have.

 

Thats because it doesnt work for ANY preexisting children.

 

http://www.sdhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=availableanimals

Lots of adoption possibilities here.

 

So then outside of physical evidence that they're pedophiles or a past history of doing so... you acknowledge the only thing we have to protect children in that situation is the statistical probability that they might be molested. And if that statistical likelihood is substantially large enough then it needs to be addressed.

That's incorrect. You're referencing TOTAL sexual assaults... look at the graph on the right side the 82% number includes adult victims as well. If you look at the numbers for children 12 years old and younger the statistics change. With children ages 12 and under you're looking at 27% of the total molestation victims are males.

And I'm trying to help your case by not including the # of molestations that occur that have not been reported. We can go there if you'd like, but considering that male victims of child molestation are FAR less likely to report than females I don't think you want to go through with that line of thinking. I'll leave that out for now though.

According to the BJS

~27% of victims of child molestation under 12 are males.
~96% of perpetrators of child molestation are males.

That means that of the 27% of victims of child molestation are males and 96% of those are molested by men. Let's say there are 1000 victims of child molestation. 270 of those are males. of those 270 ... 259 of those are victims of men.

So out of the total population of child molesters, males who have sex with males represent 25.9% of the child molesters. Now why in the **** does ~2% of the total population represent 25.9% of the total child molestation?

They are VASTLY overrepresented in regards to child molestation. 2600% more than what they represent in the total population... that's a problem.

Because I'm essentially asserting that engaging in sexual interaction with someone of the same sex is a symptom of a larger problem. That means that anyone who engages in sexual interaction with someone of the same sex would have that issue. That includes bisexuals as well as homosexuals.

So then you DON'T believe as you originally asserted "I don't believe in prohibiting something unless it is categorically harmful to other people". You do believe in prohibiting something even if it is not categorically harmful to other people. Otherwise you would be against punishing drunk drivers until they did something harmful to someone else.

 

What are you talking about? The 6th Circuit ruled AGAINST gay marriage.

You have no idea what you're talking about. DOMA was ruled unconstitutional because the federal government was attempting to define marriage and it has no right to do so. Kennedy was ruling IN FAVOR of State rights. He was ruling that the STATE had the right to define marriage and not the federal government. What YOU folks want him to do is to contradict his DOMA argument and rule AGAINST State rights now and rule that the Federal government DOES have the right to define marriage. If you think that's happening... you are INCREDIBLY delusional.

You realize that when the Supreme Court declares that the State's have the right to define marriage that all of those court decisions in lower courts will be overturned. Meaning that the ONLY states that will still have gay marriage are the ones that the PEOPLE voted in favor of gay marriage... not a judge.

That means you're only going to have 9 or 11, whatever it was.

 

I don't have a problem with gays or gay marriage, they're adults and they can do what they want - it's their business, however I don't believe it would be appropriate to involve children in their "taboo" lifestyle or "unorthodox" lifestyle .

Homosexuality is not normal and it shouldn't be treated as normal.

 

Anyone should be able to adopt.

 

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'll be more than happy to go through the DOMA opinion line by line and show everyone that your interpretation is patently absurd. Kennedy makes it clear over and over again that the ONLY protections that homosexuals have in regards to marriage are the protections that the people of those states CHOSE through a democratic process to provide them. The only constitutional protection that homosexuals have in that regards are that the laws which are on the books must be applied equally.

Here's an unbiased view of what happened with the Supreme Court and why they didn't take the appeals cases. We have 4 members of the court who are going to vote against gay marriage. We have 4 members of the court who are going to vote in favor of gay marriage. And we have 1 member of the court, Kennedy, who NEITHER side is 100% confident will vote in their favor. As such neither side wanted to take the risk that Kennedy would vote against them and because there was no lower court split they didn't have to do so.

Now they're forced to do so. And if you think Kennedy is going to go against the logic he provided in the DOMA opinion that Roberts addresses and makes clear his intent and the consequences of that reasoning.... I will enjoy watching the fallout.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes it most certainly does.

- - - Updated - - -

Absolutely... but the difference is that the statistical probability of the homosexual being a child molester is FAR higher. Then when you include TWO of them in a home with a vulnerable child that they have full and unfettered access to... the risk raises even higher.

 

As I pointed out to someone else... heterosexual men are not NEARLY as over-represented as you folks would like to make them out to be. Especially when you take out the homosexuals from their numbers.

 

The sixth circuit did not make a ruling based on the constitution. If you read he ruling it made its decision based on a whole host of flawed arguments that have time and again been beaten in other courts.

As for your other argument about states rights. The Supreme Court has had multiple opportunities to make a ruling based on states rights. And what has it done at every one of those opportunities? It has deferred the cases back to lower court rulings, that argued at states rights, back to lower court rulings that made the bans on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Keep trying. Your side here had lost.

 

???? OF course their arguments and rulings were based upon the constitution. The fact that other circuits believed those constitutional arguments to be flawed isn't binding precedent on the sixth.

 

You're only highlighting your ignorance of the process of the Supreme Court. They didn't uphold the rulings of the lower courts, they simply punted on the issue to be decided at a later date.

If your logic is correct then the Supreme Court would never have overturned DOMA because it had the opportunity to overturn DOMA because of several lower court decisions. They chose not to do so and punted on the issue until a later date. But to assert that because they punted on the issue that means they agree with the lower courts is patently absurd.

My side hasn't lost anything. In fact, it's gaining momentum which is why this is going to the Supreme Court.

ETA: You were wrong about the opinion of the 6th Circuit... from the majority opinion: "That explanation, still relevant today, suffices to allow the States to retain authority over an issue they have regulated from the beginning. [Page 21]"

 

I think it takes a serious level of delusion to believe that the Supreme Court will allow gay marriage bans.

 

No it takes reading the DOMA opinion. Something which I'm confident you haven't done.

 

You mean the opinion where they overturned the gay marriage ban on a federal level, but allowed the States to set their own laws, which have been consistently and unerringly overturned by state courts?

I also just want to take this opportunity to lol at the idea that "your side" is gaining momentum.

 

No they have not consistently and unerringly been overturned as evidenced by the 6th Circuit appeals court rejecting gay marriage.

But sure, that's right... did you actually read it?

For instance did you read this part?

"The recognition of civil marriages is central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens. See Williams v. North Carolina, 317 U. S. 287, 298 (1942) (“Each state as a sovereign has a rightful and legitimate concern in the marital status of persons domiciled within its borders&#8221. The definition of marriage is the foundation of the State’s broader authority to regulate the subject of domestic relations with respect to the“[p]rotection of offspring, property interests, and the enforcement of marital responsibilities.” Ibid. “[T]he states, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, possessed full power over the subject of marriage and divorce . . . [and] the Constitution delegated no authority to the Government of the United States on the subject of marriage and divorce.” Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U. S. 562, 575 (1906); see also In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586, 593–594 (1890) (“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States&#8221.
Consistent with this allocation of authority, the Federal Government, through our history, has deferred to state law policy decisions with respect to domestic relations."

Did you read the part where the ONLY protection for marriage that Kennedy recognizes is what the STATES have provided as protections through the will of the people and the democratic process?

Did you read this part at the end of the opinion where he makes UNDENIABLY clear that the opinion is ONLY applicable to those marriages which the people of the STATE have defined as being legal marriage:

This opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.

Did you read Roberts' statement addressing that last portion of the opinion?

The majority goes out of its way to make this explicit in the penultimate sentence of its opinion. It states that “[t]his opinion and its holding are confined to those lawful marriages,” ante, at 26—referring to same-sex marriages that a State has already recognized as a result of the local “community’s considered perspective on the historical roots of the institution of marriage and its evolving understanding of the meaning of equality.” Ante, at 20. JUSTICE SCALIA believes this is a “‘bald, unreasoned disclaime[r].’” Post, at 22. In my view, though, the disclaimer is a logical and necessary consequence of the argument the majority has chosen to adopt. The dominant theme of the majority opinion is that the Federal Government’s intrusion into an area “central to state domestic relations law applicable to its residents and citizens” is sufficiently “unusual” to set off alarm bells. Ante, at 17, 20. I think the majority goes off course, as I have said, but it is undeniable that its judgment is based on federalism.

And did you see where Roberts addresses the FUTURE court cases dealing with this same issue?:

Thus, while “[t]he State’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance” to the majority’s decision to strike down DOMA here, ibid., that power will come into play on the other side of the board in future cases about the constitutionality of state marriage definitions. So too will the concerns for state diversity and sovereignty that weigh against DOMA’s constitutionality in this case.

Yeah I didn't think so.

Kennedy ruled in favor of STATE rights being able to define marriage and AGAINST the federal government's right to define it differently than the people of a State has decided. What YOU think is going to happen is that he's going to contradict his reasoning in the DOMA decision, rule AGAINST State rights and rule in FAVOR of Federal government over State rights. If you think that's going to happen you're HIGHLY delusional.

 

You haven't been paying attention to the Supreme Court if you think they are consistent and unwilling to alter previous decisions bro.

 

Of course they are... but not their OWN decision.

None of the 4 conservatives are going to vote in favor of gay marriage. And none of the 4 liberals are going to vote against gay marriage. So that ONLY leaves Kennedy as the deciding vote. And Kennedy already put forth his reasoning as to why he voted against DOMA. If you think he's going to contradict his OWN reasoning... you're just deluding yourself.

He's going to rule that State's can define marriage any way they like as long as they apply those laws equally. He'll then say that a couple married in one state can still receive FEDERAL benefits in another state but that the State itself will have no obligation to provide benefits to that gay couple or recognize their marriage.

 

???? No they havent, State courts have overwhelmingly upheld marriage limited to men and women as Constitutional. It has been the FEDERAL courts overturning these limitations as unconstitutional as of late.

 

It's not even about that for me. It's just about the fact that kids have it hard enough as it is in modern society. And deliberately putting them in an environment that does not provide them with a healthy male and female role model for the sake of the ego gratification of selfish adults is beyond (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up. It's selfish and cruel. An adult's desire to adopt a kid does not trump that kid's need for a healthy environment. And I get so sick of these self-righteous PC liberal dip(*)(*)(*)(*)s that have no problem at all throwing kids under the bus in the name of "equal rights." They don't care about people at all. They only care about their stupid agenda. Kids need a mom and a dad. They should never be treated as collateral damage for somebody's pompous, pedantic social crusades.

 

What infuriates me is that its not just "equal" rights they are after. They insist that homosexual couples be given the exact same preference we give to biological parents, when it comes to children. That any preference in the law for biological parents, is in fact discrimination against homosexuals and not allowed.

 

Kennedy deciding that traditional marriage is a violation of the equal protection right of homosexuals, wouldn't contradict his reasoning. He will argue that states have the authority to draft their own marriage laws WITHIN the requirements of the US Constitution and that marriage limited to men and women violates those requirements.

 

Not only is that illogical it DOES contradict his argument.

He argued throughout the DOMA decision that the STATE's are the ones who chose to provide protections to homosexuals for marriage and that the federal government has no authority to supersede the State. He would have to argue that the federal government has the authority to provide protections to homosexuals and define marriage against the will of the State.

This is from the opinion:

The significance of state responsibilities for the definition and regulation of marriage dates to the Nation’s beginning; for “when the Constitution was adopted the common understanding was that the domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child were matters reserved to the States.” Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280
U. S. 379, 383–384 (1930). Marriage laws vary in some respects from State to State. For example, the required minimum age is 16 in Vermont, but only 13 in New Hampshire. Compare Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, §5142 (2012),with N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §457:4 (West Supp. 2012). Likewise the permissible degree of consanguinity can vary(most States permit first cousins to marry, but a handful—such as Iowa and Washington, see Iowa Code §595.19(2009); Wash. Rev. Code §26.04.020 (2012)—prohibit the practice). But these rules are in every event consistent within each State.

Notice how he makes allowances for States to have different requirements and even allowances for who can and cannot marry. Some states allow first cousins to marry but others prohibit it... and then he states something which I've been telling you folks over and over again. He says, "But these rules are in every event consistent within each State."

There's ZERO justification why he would ALLOW (and even use it as justification) some states to have incest and others not as long as the rules are applied consistently within the State... yet he would NOT allow some states to allow gay marriage and others not as long as the rules are applied consistently within the State.

Homosexuals are going to lose in the Supreme Court.

 

Just as they did for interracial couples. Just as they would if some state prohibited men who haven't paid their child support from another marriage, from marrying. Just as they would if some state prohibited marriages between Muslims, Philippinos, Democrats or any other classification that isn't at a minimum, rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest.

Kennedy is the one who accepts the factual determination that DOMA, enacted in the 90s when all marriages were between men and women, DOMA, that doesn't as much as even mention sexual orientation, was enacted by legislators with an intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals, AND FOR THAT REASON, violates the US Constitution. He will likewise accept that any state law that limits marriage to husbands and wives, was likewise enacted with the intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals, and therefore unconstitutional.

I wish you were right. I don't think you are.

 

Beautiful demonstration of Kennedy's hypocrisy. According to him "domestic relations of husband and wife and parent and child" aren't limited to men and women because only a man and a woman produce a "child", but instead with an intent to "disparage and injure" homosexuals who generally would chose not to form such a union. Absurd.