RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

Not just my humble opinion but, the Sixth Circuit's too...

Sixth Circuit Rules in Favor of State Marriage Laws--Updated

"By a 2-1 vote, a Sixth Circuit panel has ruled that the marriage laws of Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee do not violate the federal Constitution. Judge Jeffrey Sutton, joined by Judge Deborah Cook, wrote the majority opinion. Judge Martha Daughtrey dissented..." reports National Review.

"Under Sixth Circuit precedent, rational-basis review applies to sexual-orientation classifications. Windsor says nothing to the contrary."

Here’s a summary:

1. The Supreme Court’s summary ruling in Baker v. Nelson (1972) binds federal courts of appeals to hold that state laws that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman are constitutional. The Court’s ruling last year in Windsor v. United States doesn’t overrule Baker, nor does it clash with it. Neither of the two preconditions for ignoring Supreme Court precedent applies. Nor do the Court’s recent denials of certiorari in other marriage cases have any bearing. (Slip op. at 13-17.)

2. Under the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, state marriage laws are clearly constitutional. (17-18.)

3. State marriage laws easily survive rational-basis review. It is rational to define marriage as a male-female union because (a) governmental recognition of marriage operates to regulate the intended and unintended effects of male-female intercourse (19-21), and (b) it’s reasonable for the people of a state to assess how the benefits and burdens of redefining marriage are playing out in other states before they decide whether to take that step (21-22). “Any other approach would create line-drawing problems of its own.” (See 22-23.)

4. State marriage laws do not reflect animus (A feeling of ill will arousing active hostility). (24-28.)

5. There is no “fundamental right” to SSM. (28-31.)

6. Under Sixth Circuit precedent, rational-basis review applies to sexual-orientation classifications. Windsor says nothing to the contrary. (31-35.)

7. Under an “evolving meaning” approach to the Constitution, the relevant measure is society’s values, not judges’ values. “Freed of federal-court intervention, thirty-one States would continue to define marriage the old-fashioned way.” (35-38.)

This ruling is presumably headed to the Supreme Court, where I’m not at all optimistic about what will happen. But it’s good to see a deeply intelligent and judicious majority opinion from a federal appellate panel.

Wow, Sane at last, Sane at last, Thank God almighty we are sane at last...

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Buh Buy Too Obamammy, Ya Mammy Rammer...

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Gay Rights....are Wrong Rights....period.

The logic (lack of it) behind the driving factors of all this Gay Rights junk is simple to view in it's true fashion and not the way the Media and Gay people wish for us to believe.

They as "people" like anyone else they already have all the "rights" and freedoms given. What they do not have is the right to secure some set of rules that justifies a Marriage between two people of the same sex. Such a rule is as ignorant as a Rapist that gets a large group of other Rapist and DEMANDS they should be allowed to do so because it is what THEY think is normal behavior. Such a rule is as ignorant as a Bank Robber that thinks he ands all other Bank Robbers should be allowed to rob a bank and have a set of rules to allow it to be so.

Being "GAY" is abnormal behavior. They need to find their own fix for their abnormal behavior so they can live life in a normal manner. That means no longer being "Gay". If they cannot do that, too frigging bad for them. They make the choices and it is on them, period.

America Only Loc: From the right hand of God

Gay Rights....are Wrong Rights....period.

The logic (lack of it) behind the driving factors of all this Gay Rights junk is simple to view in it's true fashion and not the way the Media and Gay people wish for us to believe.

They as "people" like anyone else they already have all the "rights" and freedoms given. What they do not have is the right to secure some set of rules that justifies a Marriage between two people of the same sex. Such a rule is as ignorant as a Rapist that gets a large group of other Rapist and DEMANDS they should be allowed to do so because it is what THEY think is normal behavior. Such a rule is as ignorant as a Bank Robber that thinks he ands all other Bank Robbers should be allowed to rob a bank and have a set of rules to allow it to be so.

Being "GAY" is abnormal behavior. They need to find their own fix for their abnormal behavior so they can live life in a normal manner. That means no longer being "Gay". If they cannot do that, too frigging bad for them. They make the choices and it is on them, period.

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

I TOTALLY AGREE AO, immorality rights are not found in the US Constitution. With activists, it has never been a "rights" issue, they have just preyed upon the emotions of people in this country, that for whatever reason and I am trying to nor can I judge those reasons, reject heterosexuality.

Partnerships are formed in the multiple thousands each year in this country. Rights dictated by these agreements are legal, binding and have precedents that have been set that any court can follow. Two people of the same-sex that want to act and operate as a partnership have that right. They do not have the right to pretend that they are MAN AND WIFE. Activists told them that they do and, now the sixth circuit has affirmed THEY CERTAINLY DO NOT!

I'm not even arguing that same-sex is morally wrong here, it just isn't a RIGHT and, now we have our courts stepping away from legislating from the bench. It is the values of our society, not the values of some purblind judge that matters here.

The people spoke on Tuesday and, we will continue to speak, yell and stay on our elected officials, until the godless liberals go back into the hole from whence they came. I just hope they remember to take their president with them, just hope they can find a hole deep enough. Oh wait, Hell might do the trick!

God Bless!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

M

Good morality is a necessary condition for markets to work efficiently.

Following are economic reasons to favor one man one woman marriage.

First, the family unit is the basic building block of human society. Virtually
all roles are complimentary and everyone naturally plays theirs within the
nuclear & extended families in their clan and tribe structures with very
little training needed.

Second, this socialization is so obviously strongly instinctive and mutually
beneficial that when Native Americans were discovered in here they were
organized that way, as were the Inuit, the Polynesians and the lost tribes of
Africa. These societies although technically deficient and without written law
and are economically without waste and are able to manage property rights,
inheritance, domestic and foreign policy, defense, education and social welfare
without outside support. For a better understanding brush up on the tragedy of
the green.

Third, the economic input required to alter this instinctive societal
organization or replace the traditional family is a luxury so expensive,
without any hope for financial ROI, that it is economically absurd for
society to pursue. For a better understanding of this brush up on the paradox
of savings.

Fourth, by definition, productive society needs steady positive population
growth to survive. The nuclear family is the most efficient, not the only, way
to get that growth.

Fifth, it also has the advantage of producing measurably better outcomes in
terms of lifetime net economic output the government can then tax and
redistribute.

Sixth, society has the obligation to invest it's scarce resources responsibly
and protect the investments that generate the best returns for the benefit of
all. There is a general principal of a risk reward ratio when evaluating
investments. Investing in the traditional family structure is unique in that it
has both the greatest return and least risk of any alternative. Investing
otherwise is negligence.

The mortgage tax deduction is not "fair", it is one of the most regressive taxes ever known, it forces generally poorer renters to subsidize home ownership for middle and upper incomes people that they often cannot themselves afford. Homeownership is so desirable socially; we make an economic decision to favor it over all other situations. See Mandeville's paradox.

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

Thanks for that M! Very informative and really on point. The reasons for traditional marriage, as you have so aptly demonstrated, has benefits that only a socialist/Marxist like Obama would choose to ignore and, work toward the destruction of this great and god-fearing country of ours.

Morality had many benefits to society where, the inverse only brings ruin and destruction!

Thanks again!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

JMHO Loc: Utah

Two roosters don't make a chicken.

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Wrong dude. All people everywhere have the right to PRETEND to be anything they want. Its simply not anyone else's right to say they can't. If they think its real and you think its pretend, who give a $hit? I, for one, are tired of the self righteous, holier than thou attitudes of the anti-gay crowd, as if they are better, which they are not. If you think homosexuality is a sin, then fine, don't practice it. Who gives a $hit about that either. And definitely lets not legislate sin, because as your good book says, all are sinners. I'm all for letting "God" be the judge, not man. And if God ain't going to intervene, then who gives a $hit about that either?

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

Often, it is impossible to change, although some people are successful. The best compromises are to increase the opposite sex attraction to greater than the same sex attraction and and act on only the opposite sex attraction. the second best choice is is to be celibate We have the ability to control our desires, hopefully.

JMHO Loc: Utah

Well frankly, many of us are sick and tired of you faggots, and jamming all this gay crap down our throats. Actually, who gives a rat's ass what you libtards think anyway. The voters sure don't.

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

Your moron is only exceeded by your imbecility nwt.

Take it up with the Sixth Circuit court, I'm sure they are clearing the lines now so that you can get through.

Buh Buy again dolt, you are just one more incredible debater, a real master...

:roll: :roll: :roll: :XD: :XD: :XD:

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

No it doesn't JM just a Bahhhhhhrawkkkkkkkkk Oturkey who doesn't give a cluck about America's survival.

:wink: :XD: :XD: :XD:

RockKnutne Loc: Valhöll

Good point npp, thanks for your learned insight!

God bless!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

In the same light JMHO, many of us are tired of the pseudo-religious and the pseudo-patriotic jamming their BS down everyone's throats, but hey, its America so there are certain freedoms.

Although I'm not a faggot, as you put it, there are many who wold put a little whoop ass on your "tough" ass. LOLOLOL!!!!!

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

you have the right to pretend you are a hippopotamus if you so desire, or pretend you are a taxi, but I am not obligated to feed you hay and give you a daily mud bath,nor am I required to hire you to drive me to work daily. The point however, is not what you pretend, but what you try to force 97.5% of the country to pretend.