Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

Since Dixon seems determined to ignore that which he will not accept- I repost this example of homosexuals as parents at birth- because they are treated equally with opposite gender couples under the law.

 

Ive confirmed it repeatedly. You just cant let go of the strawman. No one denies that when a biological father has surrendered his parental rights in a fertility clinic, and the lesbian couple has an invitro fertilization agreement between them, and the child is born and then the lesbian who didn't give birth acknowledges parentage, THEN she is the legal parent. In case you didn't notice none of these other elements are involved in the statute I cited.

- - - Updated - - -

String together a few words and make an argument if you can.

 

Equal treatment would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire to be married but excluded by law. NOT just those who happen to be gay.

 

That has nothing to do with the NY judges decision.
You are just making this stuff up again.


http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.1594320


A lesbian couple who wanted to cement the custody of their 1-year-old son with an adoption were denied by a Brooklyn judge who cited the state's marriage equality law.

The baby's non-biological mother - who is legally married to her partner and whose name appears on the child's birth certificate - asked to also adopt him so the couple would be protected in a case of separation or a medical emergency in a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

But in a first of its kind decision, Brooklyn Surrogate Judge Margarita Lopez Torres ruled that a redundant adoption “is neither necessary nor available” and that “no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized and protected parent-child relationship.”

The women, identified in court papers as A.C. and M.M. got hitched in Connecticut in 2011, with the marriage affirmed in New York. M.M. gave birth to Sebastian last year and the couple sought the extra protection, as many same sex parents do.

In the past, Lopez Torres wrote, she would have granted the petition “without any hesitation whatsoever.”

But in light of New York's legalization of same-sex marriage, “such action would imply that, notwithstanding the existing and lawful marital relationship between the petitioner and her spouse, true marriage equality remains yet to be attained, and that, although legally recognized in this state, a same-sex marriage remains somehow insufficient to establish a parent-child relationship,” she explained.

She noted that children born to married couples are considered legally theirs and pointed to the Supreme Court decision last year ordering the federal government to recognize gay marriage.

 

And equal treatment for black male voters would have been if all people were given the vote, not just those who happened to be male, and adults.

No matter how much you try to spin it- giving homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexual couples is equal treatment- not special treatment.

And as I have pointed out the courts refer to the right of marriage of individuals over and over.

 

that is about to change buddy

 

we have been consistently, you just ignore most of what we post and get caught up on odd semantics.

 

No, I usually directly address what you post.

 

No Im not. Both gay couples and closely related couples of the same sex cannot procreate. I would treat them equally while you insist upon special treatment for the gays.

 

No you don't. You delete the vast majority of our posts, select what you feel like responding to, which is never the actual questions and give irrelevant and off-topic responses and intentionally obfuscate what you're saying.

 

Irrelevant to my point regarding the meaning of "marriage" in the court decision. Changes today don't retroactively change what they meant.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh point to anything Ive deleted that I haven't already addressed.

 

UM... This for instance.

 

Oh look you just did it again. Is it impossible for you to quote posts in their entirety and leave them IN CONTEXT?

 

What they meant isn't relevant.

 

Actually I directly addressed it.

Here as well

That's twice JUST TODAY!. I could probably find 10 other times Ive addressed this with SF.

 

No spin. Its special treatment for "homosexual couples" and "heterosexual couples" which closely related couples are excluded from.
Stable homes aren't important for a cozy place to have sex. They are important for providing and caring for children.

 

In your opinion ONLY.

 

Under that rationale, you're saying that heterosexual couples are currently receiving "special treatment". you'd therefore support opening up marriage to any 2 consenting adults regardless of gender and incest.

 

homosexuals some times have children.

 

Both Rahl and I have asked, over and over, what the courts have demanded - some compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. He has chopped this request out of every single post he's responded to. Without exception. Instead, we get more noise about how sexual orientation has nothing whatever to do with marriages between people of the same orientation!

 

Lol.........

Then address this

 

Any two people can some times have children. Nothing special about those who happen to be homosexual, now matter how thouroughly you convince yourself how special you are.

 

..........

 

Nonsense. Answered REPEATEDLY. Encouraging heterosexuals to marry reduces the number of single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging ANY other type of couple to do so does not achieve these goals.
NOW lets hear YOUR justification for INCLUDING homosexuals.

 

.......