Heterosexual couple files gay marriage lawsuit in Kansas

You got it. Apathy is the reason for a lot of what is wrong with society. People are tired of hearing the America hating left wing democrat's garbage.

- - - Updated - - -

So if NAMBLA goes to court they will be legitimate as a protected group? Sounds like its time for an amendment to say otherwise.

 

It appears to me that the United States Supreme Court has already made a ruling on this then. They said that it would be up to the States to decide marriages. So why are they allowing federal courts to rule the state bans on gay marriage as unconstitutional and allowing (for now) these gay marriages to proceed?

 

So the people who live in Western Africa where Ebola is widespread are on the wrong side of nature, science, and religion? Black people are on the wrong side of nature, science, and religion because they're the only race who suffers from Sickle Cell? Diseases are found in specific populations for specific, biological reasons. It's not a "punishment from gawd". Not to mention, outside the USA it's largely a heterosexual disease, and lesbians spread STD's at rates even less than heterosexuals. Your entire premise is bunk.

 

They already did.

 

Well that's the argument that's wending its way through the court system now. Is separate but equal an acceptable way to treat citizens when their situations are similar with respect to the administration of the law?

Many of the original "bans" on SSM also stipulated ZERO recognition for any type of familial recognition for gay couples and their families. Maybe if fully functional civil unions had been offered to same-sex couples from the outset, things wouldn't have come this far this fast? Many people and groups lobbying today still don't believe gay families should have any legal recognition whatsoever. I think it's funny that the anti-gay forces only saw compromise as an option once they started losing.

Firstly I detest the phrase "play house". People, adult citizens of the US have one life. They're born, they live, they die. How they chose to live their adult existence is a very-real and unique experience for them. Once it's over, it's over. To reduce that experience to some kind of childish play act is demeaning and derogatory and constitutes the exact kind of animus that courts look for in establishing the motivation behind laws which effectively single out certain groups in discriminatory and irrational ways. Beyond that, straight couples in the 18 states which do not currently recognize same-sex marriage have the freedom to get married if they so chose. Gays do not.

The US is an experiment in culture, when did it ever remain static? I think it's our greatest strength.

No but before DOMA sec 3 fell they couldn't become PRs through spousal petition like married straights always could. They would have to go through either work based or investment based channels.

Now that DOMA section three is toast, their legal US citizen spouses can petition them for "first preference" family visas (just like a straight married couple) but it wasn't always that way.

At much additional cost and with little guarantee of efficacy. Why should they have to jump these hoops when straight married couples don't?

As previously stated, you do if it's marriage based residency, otherwise it's employment based (which can take years) or based on having a lot of money to invest in the economy. Straight married couples suffer neither requirement (thankfully neither do gays now their marriages are recognized for this purpose regardless of where they're performed.)

I'm not a CPA so I can't speak to that, regardless I doubt it's a free provision which it is when accompanied by a valid marriage license (once again a symbolic argument thanks to bye-bye DOMA).

Albinos aren't "normal" but it's normal for some people to be albinos. Actually recent survey statistics show the LGBT community to be closer to 5-6% not that it matters to me as long as the numbers are reasonably consistent across generations.

I'm sure that many will consider laws which effectively render adult citizens as permanent legal "children" unable to form lawfully recognized families pretty much do render them legally irrelevant. Especially when such laws can have a huge impact on aspects of their daily lives others take for granted.

But the Federal Government has a duty to ensure that individuals' rights are constitutionally protected from undue and irrational discrimination and that's the question at hand today.

 

Seems to me it's because they've decided (at least a 5-4 majority) that they AGREE with the conclusion that SSM bans are Unconstitutional and they're putting off making a ruling, either because there's not (yet?) a Circuit Split (so far, all Appeal's Courts that HAVE ruled have said the same thing, but not all have heard cases, and I know at least one has but has not yet ruled), they're delaying just for the sake of delaying to make it less "controversial" when/if they do ultimately rule (and they may not, if ALL Circuit Court's reach the same conclusion), or perhaps a little bit of both.

They KNEW full well that by refusing to hear the appeals it would not only make SSM marriage legal in the States that were appealing, but in the entire Circuit, and would remove any Stays that were in place. They are not stupid. It was a calculated move in incrementalism. Legally, not taking the appeal is the equivalent of taking it and upholding the lower Court's decision, but without the messiness of reading briefs, hearing arguments, and issuing formal findings.

 

You are tired of hearing Democratic trash..but yours rings like music. LOL

How many times do people have to correct you on NAMBLA and all the other asinine comparisons before reality sinks in?

 

Benefits are not PART of marriage. Benefits are provided to married couples by the taxpayer for a reason.

What reason is that?

 

Because you guys are intentionally misreading the ruling.

They ruled states can define marriage WITHIN CONSTITUTIONAL BOUNDS. Same sex bans, like interracial bans, violate the constitution.

 

"Ginsburg said cases pending before the circuit covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee would probably play a role in the high court's timing. She said "there will be some urgency" if that appeals court allows same-sex marriage bans to stand. Such a decision would run contrary to a legal trend favoring gay marriage and force the Supreme Court to step in..."

The 6th Circuit Appeals is going to rule sometime within the month (I'm guessing the next two weeks). And they're poised to uphold the gay marriage ban. Which will send this to the Supreme Court.

This is from the judge in the 6th Circuit:

Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, one of the Bush appointees and a likely swing vote among the three, repeatedly asked why gay rights advocates wanted to use the courts to hasten an outcome they were gradually winning through elections and changes in attitude.

“I’d have thought the best way to get respect and dignity is through the democratic process,” he said, expressing a view that, in practice, would most likely deliver a victory to the states seeking to keep bans on same-sex marriage.

Offering a new variation in arguments against licensing same-sex marriage, Kentucky officials offered an economic rationale, saying that only heterosexual couples could procreate naturally and that procreation was essential for creating a strong economy, evidenced by reports that the declining birthrate in Europe had harmed economic growth.

Asked by Judge Daughtrey to explain why barring gay men and lesbians from marrying served this state interest, Leigh Gross Latherow, a private lawyer hired by Kentucky, said that “same-sex couples cannot procreate” and that only heterosexual couples, “who can procreate and we believe do procreate,” should receive the state-sponsored benefit of legal marriage.

 

Demonstrably false.

They are a single legal entity. Not procrestion.

- - - Updated - - -

Demonstrably false.

They are a single legal entity. Not procrestion.

 

And the ONLY constitutional protection that Kennedy says homosexuals are provided is Due Process and equal application of the laws.

As long as the State applies it's laws equally then it IS within Constitutional Bounds.

Kennedy EXPLICITLY states that the protections for MARRIAGE come from the STATE.

Hence why the last part of the opinion states:

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.

- - - Updated - - -

I accept your concession.

 

“No, but it would affect the joy and celebration that we think of a when we think of marriage, because we would also have to have in mind on a daily basis that its now shared with people, that, who have the same sex relationships. The word would be a disturbing emotion for us on a daily basis, know that the word is being shared with people who are in a same sex relationship.”

That's why ugly people should not be allowed to wed - because folks like the Unrues might entertain lurid fantasies about them.

Who is "we" and how much do we "pay" to heterosexual married couples?

Aren't the contractual obligations and benefits the same for any married couple?

You really need to stop getting in such a tizzy over equality.

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” ― H.L. Mencken

 

We are the taxpayers and citizens of this country.

But why are we treating the average, healthy homosexual couple whose relationship is INHERENTLY inferior to the average, healthy heterosexual couple's relationship?

Whether you folks want to admit or not, they are NOT equal... hell they're not even equally SITUATED. That average, healthy heterosexual couple is capable of producing a child without having to engage a third party and can do so over and over and over again and provide a tangible benefit to society.

The homosexual couple is INCAPABLE of doing so.

So if we have Employee A (or relationship A) which has a unique skill and we have Employee B (or relationship B) that is INCAPABLE of providing that same skill... why the (*)(*)(*)(*) would we pay them the same?

They want to get married, fine go get married, have a little ceremony and give each other rings and kiss and all that good stuff. But why the hell should they get any benefits?

 

You left out the relative parts of the DOMA decision. The passage above was to make the point that States had the historical and traditional purview of marriage and DOMA overstepped that bound.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-12-307_OPINION_3

 

LoL Way to completely ignore the important parts. I'm going to put in red the parts that show your interpretation is incorrect.

Notice who Kennedy says provides the protection for MARRIAGE to the homosexuals. It's not the constitution... it is the STATE. The constitution provides them ZERO protections as far as marriage goes. The ONLY thing the constitution provides them is equal application of the laws. Kennedy made that clear several times.

NOWHERE in the ENTIRE opinion does Kennedy assert that homosexuals have ANY constitutional protections except for Due Process and equal application of the laws. The protections provided are from THE STATE. Without the STATE providing them the protection, they have no protection for marriage.

Hence the last portion of the opinion:

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.

 

You are speaking for "taxpayers and citizens of this country"? - including all the same-sex married couples and the majority of Americans that support equality in marriage law?

Presumptuous of you.

I suppose there were a few jamokes who got pissy when the Supreme Court, in 1967, declared that interracial couples were entitled to be "paid" the benefits available to other married couples, and some extremist then might have railed about whatever "cost" he pulled out of his butt.

The longer the diehards obsess, the sillier they appear.

 

Being black and white does not prohibit you from procreating with your partner. Ergo they can still EARN their benefits. Being a homosexual DOES prohibit you from procreating with your partner. Ergo it's IMPOSSIBLE for those two to earn their benefits.

 

No I don't confuse the legal rights bestowed on married individuals with a "benefit of the institution", but apparently you do.

I provided you with facts about legal rights extended to mates that you conveniently ignored. I provided you with scientific evidence of the many psychological, other health and economic benefits of marriage (regardless of gender) that you conveniently ignored. The Supreme court rules that gay marriage bans are unconstitutional so you claim SCOTUS is wrong and what they view as an equal rights issues isn't anything of the kind.

I get where you are coming from.

I am constantly amazed by those who think nothing of denying fellow citizens equal rights because they dont' think they deserve them.
Apparently they have a rather perverse idea of what equal rights actually means.

 

As patient folks keep trying to explain to you. marriage contracts do not require procreation, nor even an inclination to procreate.

Celibate couples, both heterosexual and homosexual, are entitled to all the benefits you begrudge, the benefits most American taxpayers support extending to all married couples.

You really need to compose yourself and come to grips with the progress.

 

And I'm well aware that you hold that position. Unfortunately for you, the position is not based upon reality.

1: Your assertion that we can't deny homosexuals benefits because we don't make sure that every other person is capable of procreation is tantamount to claiming that we can't deny people who have been put into a mental institute the right to bear arms because we don't require every other person to show evidence that they don't have a mental illness.

2: If what you're saying is true... then justify providing ANYBODY benefits... straight or gay. What tangible, economic justification can you provide for providing literally hundreds of millions of dollars every year to these people?

 

Your mistake is believing that marriage rights, much less any civil right, are somehow dependent upon some sort of economic cost/benefit threshold/test. Our Constitution doesn't work that way. No court has ever held that. Even the procreative argument fails to pass muster.

 

Nobody is being denied the right to marriage. They can go get married anywhere, anytime they want. What they WANT are the BENEFITS that come from marriage and they're not a right for ANYONE. We as a society provide subsidies for a REASON, not because we like giving away our money.

And if procreation is not the REASON we provide those subsidies... then I want to know what is. Because I can see and we can actually value the tangible economic benefit from procreation. If it's not procreation then what's the reason for providing hundreds of millions of dollars in marriage benefits every single year? What the hell is society getting from it?

 

What you quote refutes what you claim!

The ruling says that states can regulate marriage within the confines of the US Constitution.
The ruling says that New York, in performing and recognizing same-sex marriage, did not violate the US Constitution.
The ruling says that THEREFORE, because New York's marriages are lawful, the Federal government must recognize them as such.

Now, what's interesting is what the court did NOT say in the DOMA decision. For one thing, they didn't say that same-sex marriage is a guaranteed constitutional right. Only that granting such marriages is permitted under the constitution, but not required. The requirement they left for a later date, but they determined unambiguously that such marriages are lawful.

I think it's important to realize that the Windsor case did not contest the validity of same-sex marriage. Windsor sued the IRS for taxing an estate that by law was rightfully hers, as the spouse of the deceased. A spouse does not pay income tax on property owned by the other spouse upon death. That's inherent in a marriage. The Court ruled that their marriage was lawful, therefore the IRS can't levy that tax.

However, if you read any of the many decisions eliminating the same sex marriage bans, you see that almost without exception, the judges looked at DOMA and saw that SCOTUS recognized Windsor's marriage as being a lawful marriage. It is unconstitutional to ban a lawful marriage. Not real complicated, you know?

 

Satisfaction. Contentment. Love. Emotional commitment. Logistical benefits. Recognition that humans do pair bonding and always have. My love for my wife cannot be measured in dollars, and I would have married (and would remain married) even if doing so meant a financial burden to us.

It should be obvious to the veriest dunce that the state could CHARGE those hundreds of millions, paid for by married couples, without deterring marriage in the slightest.