Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

What silliness. Of course it is. 1000s of government laws and regulations provide for UNEQUAL treatment for the married compared to the unmarried. The only ridiculous reasoning here is yours believing the married are treated equal to the unmarried.

 

Unmarried straight people have the option of getting married. Unmarried gay people still do not have that option in most states. In addition those rights that you speak of are rights that do not apply to single people. Can a single person file a joint income tax return? With who? Can someone visit herself in the hospital? Can a single person avoid an inheritance tax after they are dead. Please tell us what rights single people are being deprived of that married people have. Should single people be able to call themselves married? Your are getting more ridiculous by the minute. Horse(*)(*)(*)(*) by design.

 

Well that is the argument the states keep losing- which is "We can discriminate against homosexuals because marriage is intended to be unequal"

 

Well thanks for confirming that the courts agree that same sex couples deserve the same recognition as opposite sex copules.

- - - Updated - - -

If marriage is important to the wellbeing of children, then it is important to the wellbeing of the children of gay couples also.

- - - Updated - - -

Not in the least.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually it would apply exactly the same.

I mean if there was really any actual interest in protecting children in the argument.

- - - Updated - - -

don't you ever get tired of lying in your anti-gay campaign?

You keep claiming would do this- and as i keep pointing out- that is just another of your blatant lies. I have never said I would exclude anyone- you just keep lying and saying I would.

- - - Updated - - -

The claim is that preventing homosexual couples from marrying is discriminatory- and that is what the courts keep agreeing- that it is discriminatory.

In light of Windsor and the many decisions that have invalidated restrictions on
same-sex marriage since Windsor, it appears that courts are moving toward a consensus that
it is time to embrace full legal equality for gay and lesbian citizens

 

- States can decide to have marriage- or not have marriage- but they can't treat groups unequally when it comes to marriage.

It is well-established that “the Constitution protects persons, not groups,” Adarand
Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995), so regardless of possible future events
affecting the larger community, my task under federal law is to decide the claims presented
by the plaintiffs in this case now, applying the provisions in the Fourteenth Amendment as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in cases such as Loving, Romer, Lawrence and Windsor.
Because my review of that law convinces me that plaintiffs are entitled to the same treatment
as any heterosexual couple, I conclude that the Wisconsin laws banning marriage between
same-sex couples are unconstitutional.

 

Of course, the single mother and grandmother are both straight, AND excluded by law from marriage so we know that isn't true. Straight or gay, people are free to marry AS LONG as they wish to marry who the government allows them to marry. Nothing special about gay people that exempts them from the requirements. Their desire to marry someone of the same sex no more creates a right to do so than the single mother and grandmothers desire to do so, creates a right to marry someone closely related. You can whine about equal protection but don't advocate unequal protection to selectively to include gays.

 

Yeah, kind of blows a hole in this silly idea that there is a constitutional right to government recognition of marriage.

Of course they can. As long as the distinction used is at a minimum, rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. If you want to treat the closely related couples differently from the gay couples you need SOME rational relation to SOME legitimate governmental interest in order to do so.

 

I didn't, I was confirming my statement above

Not when the importance and improvement in the wellbeing of the children derives from having both their biological mother and father in the home to provide and care for them. Children with a gay couple requires they be separated from one or both of their biological parents. Pretty much antithetical to the intent of encouraging marriage.

If hes in the home, that makes it a threesome, not a couple.

 

No, The argument in court is that 'We can discriminate against couples of the same sex because marriage is intended to be unequal' because only couples of the opposite sex in a sexual relation have the potential of procreation. And the courts argue, 'no its not, the state hates gays and limits marriage to men and women in order to "disparage and injure" homosexuals now lets see the state justify that.' Crafting a ridiculous strawman, attributing it to the state, and insisting the state defend the strawman. Nothing other than a torturous twisting of the facts and law to produce the results they want. Increasing "respect and dignity" for homosexuals, using intentional discrimination to bring it about.

 

Repeatedly refuted to,the point this is a deliberate lie.

 

State bans on same sex marriage is of course intended to disparage and injure them.

- - - Updated - - -

Except you can't justify it, which is why you keep losing. You need an actual constitutional justification to EXCLUDE same sex couples.

 

What is the legitimate interest in excluding same sex couples?

 

I and the states have one. But the courts keep demanding justification to exclude homosexual couples, not same sex couples.

 

Closed ~ Post capacity (750)