Pa. governor won't appeal ruling legalizing gay marriage

Another more complete quote from the judge:

However, she continued, “today no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized, and protected parent-child relationship between the petitioner and her son. Indeed, were this court to entertain the instant petition, 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 between one particular parent and any child born within that marriage, thereby raising equal protection concerns.”

The judge would not let the non-biological parent/spouse to adopt for the same reason that I cannot adopt my child born of my marriage- any child born of the marriage is legally the child of both parents.

 

Stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)ing judge concerning herself what would be implied. Paternity statutes apply to only fathers. Lesbian lovers cant be fathers.
And you still haven't identified any lie. Nothing the judge says contradicts a thing I said. Her decision is an application of what I said. It confirms my statement.

 

Nope, not regarding Constitutional law.

Federal Courts do not rule on State laws within State Constitutions- they rule on whether state laws are Constitutional as per the U.S. Constitution.

Nobody considered the California Supreme Courts approval of the California Gay Marriage constitutional amendment to be a precedent to be followed- instead the Federal Court found State law to be unconstitutional.

 

Once again, you do not understand what a precedent is. The concept of stare decisis is completely beyond you. Now, state court rulings on state laws that do not conflict with federal laws are dispositive within that state. Federal courts will not even accept jurisdiction (which they lack) over matters which are not Federal matters. And conversely, state court decisions on federal matters are moot; irrelevant. Not the appropriate court to decide federal matters.

As to whether state laws or regulations conflict with federal laws or regulations, this is not up to state courts to determine.

But I'll chalk this up to ignorance the first time. You have been educated, so the NEXT time you claim state court decisions are precedents for federal matters, it will be a deliberate lie.

 

LOL....now we are getting somewhere- you just think the judge is wrong- and you are right.

The judge never said anyone was a father- its about parentage. Lesbian spouses can indeed be parents.


However, she continued, “today no such action is warranted or permitted by this court to affirm an existing, recognized, and protected parent-child relationship between the petitioner and her son. Indeed, were this court to entertain the instant petition, 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 between one particular parent and any child born within that marriage, thereby raising equal protection concerns.”

The judge would not let the non-biological parent/spouse to adopt for the same reason that I cannot adopt my child born of my marriage- any child born of the marriage is legally the child of both parents.

After denying what the judge said all day, finally you admit you just think you know more about NY law than the judge does.

 

YES. Regarding the STATE law that would be challenged. Federal courts defer to state courts interpretations of their own statutes.

 

Torres' decision is subtle, way over your head. She's saying that the the married couple is automatically, by default, the parents. It makes no more sense for one parent to adopt her own child, than for either member of a heterosexual marriage to adopt his/her own child. It is their child because they are married. Adoption is irrelevant in this case. There is no need for a parent to adopt his/her own child.

- - - Updated - - -

UNLESS those statutues violate Federal law. Did you forget that part? You seem to conveniently forget even the most obvious things.

 

She is stupid for worrying about what her decisions would "imply". She is WRONG in her claims regarding matters that were irrelevant in this case. She uses the term "born within" which really has no meaning. But no one is arguing that a child born through invitro fertilization where the father surrenders all rights, the future parents have an invitro fertilization agreement, insemination is done by a Dr and the non biological parent acknowledges parentage, is a child born within the marriage. Child born from one of the spouses getting knocked up in a night out with the boys is NOT a child born within the marriage.

Having said that I don't doubt the gays will be next pushing for every paternity statute in 50 states be amended to presume a lesbian spouse is a parent simply because she was married to the mother. And if they get that it wont be long before biological fathers, excluded from the birth certificate and a lesbian spouse in his place, suing in courts to have them removed from the birth certificate and asserting his parental rights. STUPID to presume someone is a parent when it is known beyond any doubt that they are not.

 

Do you really believe this stuff or just feel like arguing?

A federal court would no more have looked to the Washington Supreme Court ruling for precedent when determining whether Washington State law was unconstitutional(Federally) than the Federal court looked to the California Supreme Court decision as precedent in Prop 8.

 

Like I said- finally you are acknowledging that the judge didn't base her ruling on any of the things you invented in your claims, and now just are saying that you know more about NY law than the judge does.

But the next time you claim that parentage is not established by the birth of a child within the marriage, I will cite this again and call you out on the lie- you may disagree with the judge, but you can't claim that the judge ruled otherwise.

 

I suspect that the courts in every state that same gender marriage has been ruled to be legal, will end up ruling the same way- since after all- the issue is parentage- not who the biological sperm donor is- State law already acknowledges that the husband is the legal father regardless of his sperm donation- the judge made the logical and equitable extension.

 

Nope, even when they are unconstitutional. Frequently it is the states interpretation of a statute that is ruled unconstitutional, even when on its face it is not.

Did you yet find a lie of mine to quote?

 

???? Sperm donors legally surrender their parental rights. Men who bone lesbians don't surrender their parental rights by doing so.

 

Doing no such thing. I didn't invent them, they are the facts and I stand by them. But I understand why you now want to pretend otherwise. You do a lot of pretending when it comes to avoiding debates with me.

- - - Updated - - -

Its a fact. As far as I can tell so far, you are pretty much ignorant regarding all matters of the law.

 

I have a law degree, I doubt you've yet graduated HS. And I understand that courts determine matters before them and don't announce law in matters not before them.

Did you yet find a lie of mine to quote?

 

You just produced another, making my job easy. When Federal courts hold a state statute unconstitutional, it IS unconstitutional;. Even when you disagree. We are up to lie #13 since you issued your challenge. You're still on a roll.

 

I suspect that the courts in every state that same gender marriage has been ruled to be legal, will end up ruling the same way- since after all- the issue is parentage- not who the biological sperm donor is-

 

And yet despite your "law degreee" you can't understand Torres' reasoning.

You are up to lie #14 now. You are really consistent at this, you know?

 

Then why on earth do you keep complaining about the Federal cases that rule that laws against same gender marriages are unconstitutional because parties not part of the case are not covered?

You keep on bringing up grannie and mom- and grannie and mom are never part of any of these cases- these cases are brought to the court by homosexual couples(or their families).

 

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.

 

You don't have a clue as to what I am even referring to here. State supreme court Judgments are the ultimate authority as to what state law is.

 

Yet I am the one correctly citing cases- and you are the one pretending what judges are saying.

 

When people who claim law degrees cannot understand such abstruse concepts as precedents, standing, statutes, and the US Constitution, the alleged "law degree" becomes increasingly dubious. I can't picture any actual lawyer saying "some other case, never brought to court, might be interpreted according to the incorrectly applied and irrelevant laws". But I also understand that bigotry is not subject to laws, common sense, or empirical evidence.

 

Unless that law has been overturned by a Federal Judge on Constitutional Grounds.

 

Unless state law is inconsistent with federal law or the US Constitution. This is kindergarten stuff. But your claim to be a lawyer is hilarious.