Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

And we are supposed to count the lies? That's tough, since dixon lies in so many ways, on so many levels.

 

Well, since the case CONFIRMS that parentage was acknowledged on the Birth certificate, and you wont believe it, nothing I could bring would convince you. What would be the point?

 

This will be twice Ive told you, no one asked you to count the lies, I asked you to quote them. So far you've offered one, that was a fact and you demonstrated your ignorance of the subject, there was no lie.

 

You only demonstrate your ignorance. I said it was the ultimate authority in determining what state law IS, and made not even a mention of the determination of whether it conflicts with Federal law.
Im beginning to realize many of your strawmen in the past were instead demonstrations of your ignorance of what I am even talking about.

- - - Updated - - -

Another clueless one.

 

???? No I am criticizing what she is saying and not pretending anything.

 

What would be the point? Why would you want to actually prove that anything you claimed wasn't an outright fabrication? Certainly I would.

I challenged you to prove any of the 5 claims you made- you have not proven any of them- the closest you come is a weak attempt at E. Certainly you have not proven that the other spouse acknowledged parentage.

Well then prove them. Otherwise I will point out that each time you call them a fact that you are lying.

You made these specific claims regarding this couple

A)The child was born through invitro fertilization
B) with semen from a sperm donor
C) who surrendered all parental rights,
D) conducted by a Dr in a clinic
E) with the other spouse acknowledging parentage after the child was born.

When you first posted them, I was willing to assume that you were just making stuff up because you presumed them to be true.

Now I am saying that your claim is a lie- since you have not- and cannot establish that any of the things you claimed are true.

A-E- if you want to make the claim back it up.

You can't.

 

Revealing, you don't know the facts. Nothing in the case or article conflicts with any of the facts Ive presented, and yet your going to sit their and accuse me of lying. Based upon nothing other than your ignorance of the facts.

 

What facts? Seriously you have made claims- and have done nothing to prove them.

Once again

A)The child was born through invitro fertilization
B) with semen from a sperm donor
C) who surrendered all parental rights,
D) conducted by a Dr in a clinic
E) with the other spouse acknowledging parentage after the child was born.

All your claims- not a single proven fact there.

 

Oh I tried a quick google to find the article I had read on it with more details and couldn't locate it. YOUR article confirms that she acknowledged parentage on the birth certificate and you wont believe that. What could I possibly bring to convince you.

 

Here is what you posted in response to my post about the judges decision

dixon76710
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]

The judge never mentions any of those things.

You just pretended that was the basis of her ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

You could address the first 4 claims you made

A)The child was born through invitro fertilization
B) with semen from a sperm donor
C) who surrendered all parental rights,
D) conducted by a Dr in a clinic
E) with the other spouse acknowledging parentage after the child was born.

All your claims- not a single proven fact there.

 

It's amazing how adamant people of this thread are when the rights of the people are tossed aside by a select few in the courts. That doesn't sound very American. In the past, with ending segregation, these rights were enacted by the people, and ratified by all of the states.

Anyways, the only thing that this ruling proves is that:
(1) Your state's vote is meaningless.
(2) PA doesn't have judicial recall.

 

Lol.......

 

You just can't help making (*)(*)(*)(*) up can you?

- - - Updated - - -

 

Except they're not. Federal courts are.

 

Uh, rights are never subject to popular or legislative vote.

 

Have you seen the ridiculous divorce rate in the US. http://www.divorcestatistics.org/
~50% divorce rate seems to leave a lot of single mothers.

so as i said earlier. Under this reasoning, you would support marriages for any 2 consenting adults regardless of sex and relation. Right? Therefore you support SSM as long as it includes everybody.

 

By that logic, the current state of marriage is unequal by design, Opening it up to more people would make it more equal.

 

Of course it is. And here in America discrimination is judged by its relation to the governmental interest served, not by a head count. Marriage limited to heterosexual couples is rationally related to the governmental interest in reducing the number of single mothers on there own with absent or unknown fathers. While marriage limited to heterosexual and homosexual couples has no rational relation to the governmental interest in fostering the formation of stable homes. Gay marriage is MORE discriminatory than traditional marriage. As well in my view traditional marriage has a noble intent in improving the wellbeing of children while gay marriage has a not so noble intent in promoting homosexuality.

 

Now compare that to how many there would be without marriage. I did say REDUCE, not eliminate. And the obligations of support owed to a spouse and children continue after divorce. The marriage laws were much more effective in achieving their goals when government criminalized sex outside of marriage between men and women and only granted divorces for cause. But I would choose more freedom over the effectiveness of marriage.

 

And the courts keep telling you that you are wrong. There needs to be a state interest in EXCLUDING the couple from marriage. You and the states have yet to provide such an interest.

 

"Support" would be too strong of a word. There would be no constitutional argument against equal treatment for everybody. As a small government republican I don't much see the point in government involvement in peoples lives except in the case where there is a potential of children being created by the relationship.

 

How is allowing marriage to more people more discriminatory than allowing marriage to less people? Allowing SSM reduces discrimination it does not add to it. Allowing SSM doesn't eliminate traditional marriages, it has little to no effect. it is in no way more discriminatory.
We have already stated that SS couples can adopt kids, which would improve the well being of an adopted child.

 

Balderdash

The courts have repeatedly said that marriage is a right- and that the State must prove a compelling State interest in restricting that right

Zablocki
The statutory classification at issue here, however, clearly does interfere directly and substantially with the right to marry.

When a statutory classification significantly interferes with the exercise of a fundamental right, it cannot be upheld unless it is supported by sufficiently important state interests and is closely tailored to effectuate only those interests.

What is the 'important state interest' that the State has in preventing same gender couples from marrying?

 

and that would all apply to the children of gay spouses.

But I would choose more freedom over the effectiveness of marriage.

Clearly you choose against both- since you wish to restrict the freedom of gays to participate in the right to marriage that has been declared a right in America.