Arizona same-sex married couples are seeking adoptions

26 years dude! and I'm still involved with the issue. I'm in touch with these people and the people in the field. What the hell is you're problem? I will not allow you to waist my time wit this crap. And it's not that rare. You just scared to death that you might just be wrong, am I right? You are terrified by gay rights.

 

So before the States involved in the US government decided to legally recognize marriage and provide benefits... marriage didn't exist?

Source?

Source?

 

Nope. 1997 NJ made same sex adoption legal. You retired in 2005. 8 years.

 

Apparently you really haven't read the constitution. Go read the fourteenth amendment and get back to me.

 

Yes, because heterosexual, 'traditional' homes don't produce the molested and abused children which same-sex couples then go on to raise?

 

How is it changing? Show me where the adoption procedure has changed.

 

That is correct... except when the state does.

When the state chooses to make marriages legal and solomised by recognizing those marriages, then the state must adhere to the US Constitution in the application of that solemnization or legalization.

An analogous example is driving. Driving is not a right and the state has no obligation to offer driver's licences. BUT... If a state DOES permit it residents the ability to obtain a driver's licence.... then the state must apply that opportunity to all those that qualify to drive. The State can not discriminate against able drivers based on race, gender, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. The State must adhere to the US Constitution in the application even of a privilege.

 

Why do you keep doing your best to demonstrate how desperate, dishonest and ridiculous you are.? The policy on joint adoptions by unmarried people changed in 97. There was never a policy against adoptions by gay people.

In addition, I stated that I still live where I worked and I'm in touch with people who I worked with. Even if you want to use the 97 date, it has now been about 18 years. Gay people with children, adopted or not are just families like anyone else. They live among us and there are no issues with that.

Same sex marriage has been legal in NJ for a little over a year now. Most people didn't even notice. It didn't even make the front page of the paper. But since then several thousand same sex couples have been married and they, and especially their children are better off as a result. But you don't really care about the children and don't try to tell anyone that you do. Your disdain for gay people far exceeds your concern for children.

Notice , also how the poster who I was responding to has, thus far, had nothing to say in his defense. Don't bother me with your equine excrement again!

 

Correct.

http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-court-rulings-on-marriage/

http://www.afer.org/blog/video-14-supreme-court-rulings-on-marriage/

- - - Updated - - -

You don't understand. He's one of those conspiracy nuts who thinks the 14th amendment was never ratified.

 

So marriage didn't exist before the States? It's funny... any historical source proves you wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

You're so wrong one source won't do so I need to go ahead and put up the entire history of marriage which extends 5000+ years.

I just read through them all. Which one says that the benefits derived from the legal recognition of marriage are a right?

I just read through all of them, which one says that the State is OBLIGATED to legally recognize a certain type of marriage?

- - - Updated - - -



You don't understand. He's one of those conspiracy nuts who thinks the 14th amendment was never ratified.[/QUOTE]

- - - Updated - - -

Not at nearly the rate of males who have sex with males.

 

- - - Updated - - -



Not at nearly the rate of males who have sex with males.[/QUOTE]

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what thendiscussion is about. Actually you are deliberately misrepresenting what the discussion is about.

Marriage is a legal institution. That institution comes with thousands of benefits attached. Marriage, as a legal institution creates a legal kinship where none existed before.

Without legal recognition, it isn't a marriage.

Same sex couples are denied the right to marry, in 18 states.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

 

False, as Kennedy points out the State can recognize WHOMEVER they want to be married for WHATEVER reason they want and they are not required to recognize any marriage they don't want:

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 a couple of things. He shows that they CAN be different within each state as he references the age of legalized marriage and incestuous marriages recognized in some states but not others.

And what does he say the ONLY requirement is? "But these rules are in every event consistent within each state."

That's not going to help your case. In fact it helps mine.

In some States they recognize a "full privilege driver's license" at 16 years old such as in Montana. But a State like Missouri only offers a "full privilege driver's license" at 18. So if someone from Montana who has already gotten a driver's license drives into Missouri at 16 years old, he's NOT legally allowed to drive fully. Because the legal age for full privilege driver's license in Missouri is 18 years old.

The laws within the States can differ. As long as the laws within EACH State are consistent, it's perfectly constitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

That's absolutely false. If that were the case then what did Kennedy mean when pointed to minimum age of marriage and incestuous couples when he said this:

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.

If what you are saying is true EVERY state would be required to allow incest between first cousins and EVERY state would be required to recognize legal marriage at the age of 13.

Why do they not have to do so?

 

Gays couldn't marry in 1997 Einstein. [/QUOTE]

 

[/QUOTE]

Did I say that they could? Is that the best response that you have?

- - - Updated - - -

 

............

 

they have never taken their case to court.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you think an outdated and overturned case helps you?

 

Of course they have taken it to court. WTF are you talking about?

Are you now reduced to being SO transparent when you make (*)(*)(*)(*) up in a debate with me?

And why did Kennedy reference them in the context of pointing out how State's can differ in what they legally recognize as marriage as long as the laws are consistent within each state? Is he so stupid he doesn't understand they're unconstitutional?

 

When did a 13 year old take their case to court for being denied marriage? or a brother and sister?

no, you just aren't able to understand what he said, or that what you keep quoting is dicta and not the ruling.

 

Marriage and procreation. Notice it mentions them separately.

And notice that Skinner V. Oklahoma stopped the forced sterilization and allowed prisoners to marry. Because marriage is a fundamental human right.

 

You are almost correct.

Kennedy was making the distinction in the differences between the rights of the states on marriage versus the federal government's involvement.

Kennedy also made the distinction of the different restrictions each state could impose in comparisons with each other state
such as minimum age or blood relation.

... But Kennedy never said that the state could define marriage in a manor that violated the resident's Constitutional rights.
Kennedy was quite clear on that point.

Kennedy never made the distinction that the right lay with the state alone to define marriage as the state saw fit...even if that definition violated the residents' Constitutional rights.

 

Notice the date of this article....1997!! So what exactly is the problem with what is happening in Arizona??

Even prior to that, individual gay folks were able to adopt in NJ and many other places:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/us/25stepdaughter.html?fta=y&_r=0
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1464717.html

Then tell me what it says:

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.

 

Neither the Minnesota Supreme Court or the US Supreme court has ever overturned the decision. The only two courts that could.

 

How is denying marriage to a homosexual couple in one state and not another state any less constitutional than denying marriage to an incestuous couple in one state and not another?

The ONLY constitutional requirement that Kennedy placed on it was that the rules be consistent within the State itself.

 

Marriage is a fundamental right because founding a family is a human right.

Article 16.
•(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family........
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Only "men and women" can become husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children. And while no one has yet been fool enough to entertain the argument to the UN that "gay marriage" is a Human Right, the European Commission on Human rights with the same language in their charter, recently ruled that there is no such right to gay marriage.