Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

We were speaking of "gay marriage" as seen in the title of the thread and the title of the USA article

 

That is really laymens terms for same sex marriage.

 

The single mother and grandmother are of the same sex. That's why they instead call it "gay marriage"

 

Who is they? Laymen? No, they call it that because they are laymen. And the phrase "two people of the same sex getting married" is a mouth full.

What need would your hypothetical grandmother and mother have to get married? Aren't they already next of kin?

 

But you said the state had an interest in stable homes

Stable homes aren't important for a cozy place to have sex. They are important for providing and caring for children.

If your argument is that stable homes are important for providing and caring for children- why do you want to prevent the children of gay parents from having that stable home?

- - - Updated - - -

The court doesn't say that couples must have a justification for being allowed to marry. Instead- as pointed out repeatedly- the courts say that individuals have a right to marry- and the court can only deny that right with compelling justification- i.e. some societal need being accomplished by denying those individuals marriage.

What societal interest is accomplished by preventing gay couples from marrying?

 

Deny them what? Gay parents already requires separating the child from its biological father, mother or both. The idea is to have the mother and father in the home because they are obligated by law to provide and care for the child. Not a homosexual lover with no legal relation to the child.

- - - Updated - - -

The title of the thread. The title of the USA Today article. And the courts creating a right for only gays to marry.

 

They have no hope.

 

Answered REPEATEDLY! Permitting same-sex marriage is bad because speed limits are good!

The idea that BOTH same-sex and opposite-sex marriages are Good Things simply cannot penetrate impermeable bigotry.

 

Again- why do you want to deny a stable home to the children of gay parents.

I have shown you multiple times now that under NY state law, any children born to any married couple are presumed to be the children of that couple- and that includes any homosexual couple. You are arguing that those children should not have married parents, and that therefore they should not have stable home.

Why do you want to deny a stable home to the children of gay parents

Once again- the NY judges decision- reflecting NY law


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.

 

What have you said about keeping gay marriage illegal...and single motherhood, then?

Have you ever quoted a court case that WENT AGAINST YOU?


And you didn't address the first one....that you continually bring up procreation or "potential for procreation" and how that impacts your opposition to gay marriage....

yet can't explain why you don't also oppose marriage rights for a woman who has had a hysterectomy to marry a man?

- - - Updated - - -

dixon....QUOTE the title of this thread.

 

Sure he has. It's because the grandmother down the street can't marry her daughter! Haven't you been following the logic?

 

Now, I ask you "So if we allow same-sex marriage...people will speed more?"

And you say "STRAWMAN. YOU LIE! I NEVER INDICATED THAT!!!!"

 

Yes, that "Grandma - Granddaughter Nuptial" that is just waiting to occur if gays get the right to marry.

Why look at all the MeeMaw & Mindy marriages that have occurred since they made it legal in Massachusetts ten years ago.

 

http://www.thewire.com/politics/201...ng-streak-alive-in-pennsylvania-today/371247/

Federal Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania's Same-Sex Marriage Ban

Really why do you repeatedly mischaracterize what the courts are doing?

The courts have recognized that individuals have a right to marry. The court in Pennsylvania noted that the right to marry is of fundamental importance to all individuals. The court in Pennsylvania struck down the Pennsylvania law which prevented same gender couples from marrying.

Note what the judge actually said:

“By virtue of this ruling, same-sex couples who seek to marry in Pennsylvania may do so, and already married same-sex couples will be recognized as such in the Commonwealth.”

Not one word about a right for gays only.

You just keep making this stuff up.

 

REPEATEDLY

 

Just to point out the obvious- any ban on same gender marriages is a ban on homosexual marriages.

But that doesn't mean a ban on same gender marriages is only a ban on homosexual marriages.

Laws which ban same gender marriages were put in place to prevent homosexuals from marrying, but striking down the ban on same gender marriages is not exclusively for homosexual marriages- that single mom, and her unrelated, and non-sexual room-mate grandma could marry also.

 

I'd say this discussion is basically dead. Dixon has contradicted himself on every argument raised by anyone, and doesn't even understand his own words anymore.

 

Hit the nail on the head. Every. Time.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh thank God, because we were all really worried whether mom and granny could finally have the dream wedding they've always wanted! lmao

 

I didnt, YOU did. The title of th USA today article and the thread, "Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage"
Does your dishonesty have no bounds?

 

REPEATEDLY....it is VERY EASY to detect if a woman with NO UTERUS can procreate.

It's called basic biology.

WE KNOW that a woman with NO UTERUS cannot procreate with a man anymore than two men can procreate or two women can procreate.

You oppose the marriage rights of two men....you oppose the marriage rights of two women......if it's not simply bigotry and grasping for excuses.....you MUST oppose the marriage right of a post-hysterectomy woman and a man.


2. "(The Government) are concerned with unmarried women doing so (procreating)"

First, no, that is NOT the concern of the Government.

Second, you admit what I said, you are trying to claim that if marriage is not limited to a man and a woman ....it will lead women "who did not plan to become pregnant, would become pregnant and many men would not want to marry them".....unproven and downright ridiculous.

Thus...."single motherhood"....which you are saying would RISE if marriage rights are extended to "those who cannot procreate".

EXACTLY what I said you claim.

dixon, your lies and dishonesty merely keep proving the same point.....you grasp around for excuses, both nonsensical and contradictory, because you hate gays.

And you've already given everybody a BIG hint as to why.

- - - Updated - - -

Then you have to call everybody else "dishonest" or a "liar"......while never addressing a direct question based on something you said.

 

Here is what you said:

The title of the thread. The title of the USA Today article. And the courts creating a right for only gays to marry.

I pointed out that the Federal court that struck down Pennsylvania's ban on same gender marriages did no such thing.

As you said- does your dishonesty have no bounds?

 

ONLY for gay couples

To summarize, we find that all four factors weigh in favor of a finding that
gay and lesbian persons compose a class that is subject to heightened scrutiny.

In sum, Defendants have failed to carry their burden, and we conclude that
the classification imposed by the Marriage Laws based on sexual orientation is not
substantially related to an important governmental interest. Accordingly, we hold
that the Marriage Laws violate the principles of equal protection and are therefore
unconstitutional.

ONLY laws that restrict gays and lesbians were held unconstitutional.

 

And of course it would be very "difficult to detect the ability to procreate" in a woman with no uterus. In fact it would be an impossibility.

 

And this infuriates you, why?