Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

Whether these courts are following the constitution or twisting its meaning to achieve the results they desire, isn't really a question dealing in such absolutes.

 

They do now, if they choose to enter into a contract of marriage. So do interracial couples. Any states that attempt to restrict marriage to only heterosexual couples will have their discriminatory laws struck down by the Supreme Court.

 

Marriage equality now exists in the District of Columbia and the following 19 states: CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, IA, IL, MA, MD, ME, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT and WA.

.The tide has turned...time to pack your bags for Uganda

 

We of course, were speaking of marriage limited to men and women.

- - - Updated - - -

Perhaps you were unaware that we have 50 states now.

 

Perhaps you are unaware that ten years ago the were NO state with same sex marriage. Now 38% of states do. I think that 44% of the population of the US lives in a gay marriage state. In another ten years or quite possibly a lot less, this fight will be over. Might as well get used to it.

 

And are your beliefs winning states or losing states, dixon?

 

Gays are winning but only because non of these judges or lawmakers actually understand Constitutional law. Only Dixon understands Constitutional law. Isn't that right Dixon? What law school did you say that you dropped out of?

 

???? Ive made no predictions as to the outcome and with two new lesbians on the Supreme Court I dont have much faith in the supreme court making the right decision. Ive learned to get use to them not doing so even without the two lesbians.

 

When the Final Decision comes.....I'm sure dixon with his vast scholarship in Constitutional law will claim greater knowledge than some US Supreme Court Justices.

 

I'd say that this is the most substantial argument that you have yet made to support your position.

 

Their mistake is their erroneous factual determination. that marriages limitation to men and women is motivated by an intent to discriminate against gays. That procreation is now and has always been irrelevant to the limitation. That it is instead motivated by animus towards gays.
And you watch, some day when two closely related people of the same sex challenge their exclusion from marriage, the same courts, without batting an eye will argue that the prohibitions against closely related couples marrying is motivated by a desire to prevent procreation between closely related couples. Even though they are prohibited from marrying even if they have no willingness to procreate. Even though they are 90 years old with no ability to procreate, they are prohibited from marrying in order to prevent procreation from occuring. EVEN IF they are of the same sex, they would argue the prohibition is motivated by an intent o prevent procreation between closely related couples.
Yeah, procreation is irrelevant to marriages limitation to men and women because it excludes the gays but marrriage is suddenly all about procreation when it comes to excluding closely related couples. What hypocrisy.

 

The argument in no way supports my position. Not the sharpest crayon in the box.

- - - Updated - - -

No I would claim I am not motivated by a desire to transform the law by judicial fiat while they are.

 

What absolutes? Nothing is absolute, with the possible exception of your opinion. I'm content to be probably correct.

 

I didn't think dixon could get any less honest, but I underestimated him. So let's try to clear up the latest crock full of it:

But of course, this is not the "fact" they are finding. What they are finding is that these laws DO discriminate against gays. It's not necessary to establish the intent.

And another lie, imagine that. So no, there is no animus motivation. Procreation is simply not a requirement of ANY marriage.

This is fascinating, really. Dixon is mocking a hypothetical court for making some future decision on grounds dixon is already misrepresenting. But in fact, the issue of consanguinity in same-sex marriage has not been contested at all. A sensible court might decide that such restrictions simply do not apply to same-sex marriages, since in fact they do not.

What nonsense! Laws against incest are not concerned with "procreation", they are concerned with inbreeding. Once again, procreation is not the purpose of marriage, not a requirement of marriage, nor is marriage a requirement for procreation.

 

What two lesbians?

 

Actually its a fundamental step in the process of equal protection analysis under the US Constitution. All the cases make the allegation.

- - - Updated - - -

The only two. Sotomayor and Kagan.

 

Every state with gay marriage applies those restrictions.

What siliness. Inbreeding requires procreation.

 

No, they do not. All cases allege that these laws DO discriminate. It's not necessary to additionally allege the intent. EVEN IF the State could demonstrate that discrimination was the furthest thing from their mind, the FACT is that these laws discriminate and that's not legal.

Fascinating. And which of the males are gay?

 

You're terribly, terribly confused my boy. Animus is a mind set, its a motivating force. Discrimination is the act of treating people differently such as depriving them of rights for no reason EXCEPT that animus. But it does not matter what the motive is. The only thing that matters is the effect of discriminatory laws. It does not matter what the intent of laws restricting access to marriage, although that is obvious.

You don't have to prove motive to prove murder. All that is needed is to prove that person A killed person B.

 

These restrictions have not yet been contested. Do you understand that a legislature can pass any law they please, without regard to any legal context. And such laws stay on the books until and unless due process of law changes them. So if two brothers wished to marry, and the state said no, they would have to go to court and let the legal machinery sort it out.

But not the other way around. Laws against incest are not laws against procreation, anymore than speed limits are laws against transportation.

 

Scalia &Thomas ofcourse

 

Apparently the two old lesbians on the Supreme Court were okay for Dixon...but these two new ones......lol...

 

Nonsense. From the Penn case citing Windsor-
"no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and injure"

Their entire argument rest upon the claim that the limitation to men and women has as its "purpose" to disparage and injure homosexuals.

 

Laws that discriminate against gay couples married in other states... to answer your question about laws that discriminate against gay couples.

 

So what is the "legitimate "purpose of the discriminatory laws? I should have said "The only thing that matters is the effect of discriminatory laws in the absence of a legitimate purpose" My bad..