Discussion:
Defying SCOTUS
Add Reply
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-07-01 17:12:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.

In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).

And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!

(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
Ted
2017-07-01 17:29:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge of
what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
That is amazing. I wonder if the US is destined for balkanization. (i.e.,
geographically. It's already the case for our society.)
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-01 18:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ted
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge of
what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
That is amazing. I wonder if the US is destined for balkanization. (i.e.,
geographically. It's already the case for our society.)
Always was the case it's just that Liberals want a centrally mandated
planning that they control rather than States having any jurisdictional
power.
--
That's Karma
Blackburn
2017-07-02 05:35:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Ted
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the
law by holding that same-sex married couples are not
eligible for spousal benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible
that once SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil
marriage to same-sex couples, it left the issue of whether
the couples are entitled to all of the benefits of marriage
unanswered. But on Monday of this very week, SCOTUS
answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas
tried the same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down
without even bothering to ask for briefs or hearing oral
arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the
full knowledge of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent,
while always listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a
child's birth certificate.
That is amazing. I wonder if the US is destined for
balkanization. (i.e., geographically. It's already the case
for our society.)
Always was the case it's just that Liberals want a centrally
mandated planning that they control rather than States having
any jurisdictional power.
You're just another rightwing child rapist who deserves to be
castrated with a dull knife..



Republican anti-abortion activist Neal Horsley admitted to
having sex with a
mule

Republican supporter Pastor Ted Haggard, president of the
30-million member
National Association of Evangelicals,
denounced gays and illegal drugs but
was later exposed as a
gay Crystal Meth user!

Republican Senator Larry Craig was arrested for lewd conduct in
the men's
restroom at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport

Republican Congressman Mark Foley abruptly resigned from
Congress after
"sexually explicit" emails surfaced showing him
flirting with a 16-year old
boy.

Republican aide Alan David Berlin was arrested on charges that
he wanted to
engage in sex acts with a 15-year-old boy while
dressed in a panda costume.

Republican news producer Aaron Bruns was arrested on charges of
possessing
child pornography.

Republican activist and former presidential campaign chairman
Jeffrey Claude
Bartleson was arrested on charges of sexually
molesting a 5-year old boy.

Republican activist and former chairman of the Christian County
Republicans
Royce Fessenden pleaded guilty to two counts of
first-degree child
molestation and one count of second-degree
statutory sodomy.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-01 17:39:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.

SO putting two persons of the same sex on a "birth certificate" as
biological parents is NOT only against the legal definition of birth
parents it's against reality.

It's NOT just ignoring legal definitions it's showing how gay is NOT
connected to reality and is an emotional delusion and a mental illness.

Here will be where the Supreme Court shows their own insanity as they
try to justify gay as a real scientific verifiable sex and as capable of
producing a human life via sexual intercourse rather than a mental
illness of heterosexuals.

It could get interesting if some smart lawyers jump on it.
--
That's Karma
Don Kresch
2017-07-01 22:25:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 13:39:00 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.
Nor can a sterile male/female couple. Your point is.......?
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
It's NOT just ignoring legal definitions it's showing how gay is NOT
connected to reality and is an emotional delusion and a mental illness.
How many times must you be told: there's no such thing as
mental illness.


Don
aa#51, Knight of BAAWA, Jedi Slackmaster
Praise "Bob" or burn in Slacklessness trying not to.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-02 05:24:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 13:39:00 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.
Nor can a sterile male/female couple. Your point is.......?
The birth parents are on a "Birth Certificate", so sterile parents don't
have a baby, and neither do gay parents. The baby is from a
heterosexual act and or it would be bought/sold or stolen. That means
the real parents are someone that's NOT sterile and the mother
(presuming the egg was the mothers and she's NOT just the surrogate for
another woman's egg) is in need of proof that it's hers. The process
needs to be updated to include proof of parents like a DNA test. It
would cut down on possible HUMAN TRAFFICKING where they sell human
embryos or women pay a surrogate to gestate their baby. The Surrogate
could run off with the baby so there needs to be a test.
--
That's Karma
Siri Cruise
2017-07-02 06:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
needs to be updated to include proof of parents like a DNA test. It
would cut down on possible HUMAN TRAFFICKING where they sell human
embryos or women pay a surrogate to gestate their baby. The Surrogate
could run off with the baby so there needs to be a test.
So if a husband and wife gives the husband's name as the father even the wife
knows it was actually Raul the Gardner, did she commit a crime of human
trafficking? Should the obstertician always test the husband, wife, and baby to
verify they are all genetically related before allowing a birth certificate to
be made out? What if the father is actually the husband's father? Should we also
check grandparents before letting them babysit the baby?
--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Free the Amos Yee one. This post / \
Yeah, too bad about your so-called life. Ha-ha. insults Islam. Mohammed
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-02 16:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Siri Cruise
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
needs to be updated to include proof of parents like a DNA test. It
would cut down on possible HUMAN TRAFFICKING where they sell human
embryos or women pay a surrogate to gestate their baby. The Surrogate
could run off with the baby so there needs to be a test.
So if a husband and wife gives the husband's name as the father even the wife
knows it was actually Raul the Gardner, did she commit a crime of human
trafficking?
Since Raul was denied the right to his child it is the same as Parental
kidnapping to keep the kid from the other parent in a divorce. Family
court look down on that sort of behavior. It turns into kidnapping.

The marriage papers have zero to do with children and their child
support and the custody. A wealthy person (a billionaire) could bribe
the parents to lie and thereby deny a child their true right to a better
education and the fathers responsibility to the child and that is a form
of human trafficking.

The marriage partners sold the kids rights and freedom to his real life
for cash up front and that sounds like human trafficking.
--
That's Karma
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-07-02 18:03:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 13:39:00 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.
Nor can a sterile male/female couple. Your point is.......?
The birth parents are on a "Birth Certificate"
Not always. Arkansas has a few cases where the mother's husband is not
the father, but is nonetheless listed as the father on the birth
certificate. Arkansas does not permit the mother's wife to be so listed.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-02 18:30:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 13:39:00 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.
Nor can a sterile male/female couple. Your point is.......?
The birth parents are on a "Birth Certificate"
Not always. Arkansas has a few cases where the mother's husband is not
the father, but is nonetheless listed as the father on the birth
certificate. Arkansas does not permit the mother's wife to be so listed.
Neither should be listed, that should be the courts ruling.

The birth parents are people on a birth certificate. Adoptive parents
are the ones that are NOT blood or DNA connected parents. The two
documents are very different with a different meaning.
--
That's Karma
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-07-02 19:04:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 13:39:00 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.
Nor can a sterile male/female couple. Your point is.......?
The birth parents are on a "Birth Certificate"
Not always. Arkansas has a few cases where the mother's husband is not
the father, but is nonetheless listed as the father on the birth
certificate. Arkansas does not permit the mother's wife to be so listed.
Neither should be listed, that should be the courts ruling.
Now that actually would be legislating from the bench. Given they can't
do that, they instead applied Equal Protection and required Arkansas to
treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally.
#BeamMeUpScotty
2017-07-02 19:23:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 13:39:00 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.
Nor can a sterile male/female couple. Your point is.......?
The birth parents are on a "Birth Certificate"
Not always. Arkansas has a few cases where the mother's husband is not
the father, but is nonetheless listed as the father on the birth
certificate. Arkansas does not permit the mother's wife to be so listed.
Neither should be listed, that should be the courts ruling.
Now that actually would be legislating from the bench. Given they can't
do that, they instead applied Equal Protection and required Arkansas to
treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally.
That would be making a legal decision on a legal document.... NOT
legislating. The legislation is saying that they produce a birth
certificate that has the parents names and all the court would be doing
is clarifying what the "BIRTH PARENT" is. And it is the parents that
created the fertilized egg with their egg and their sperm.... the baby
holds a combination of their DNA and they are the "BIRTH PARENTS" all
others that become parents are NOT "BIRTH PARENTS" they are adoptive
parents or "GUARDIANS" that the court also defines and maybe appoints.


The difference is that the court can NOT appoint a BIRTH PARENT because
they are physically denoted as the BIRTH PARENTS by the connected blood
line.


This is yet another Liberal attempt like "Feminism and Subsidized
payments for women" to destroy the family unit.

The destruction of the family is an ongoing Liberal effort to undermine
western civilization and promote Fascism and the power of the GOVERNMENT
by destabilizing anything that stands in the way of the Government
consolidating power and the family and religion are two things that are
an obvious obstruction to government gaining more and more power.
--
That's Karma
Josh Rosenbluth
2017-07-03 02:02:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Don Kresch
On Sat, 1 Jul 2017 13:39:00 -0400, #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Friday, a unanimous (!!) Texas Supreme court flouted the law by
holding that same-sex married couples are not eligible for spousal
benefits supplied by the state.
In some kind of alternate universe, it is perhaps possible that once
SCOTUS held that the state must provide civil marriage to same-sex
couples, it left the issue of whether the couples are entitled to all of
the benefits of marriage unanswered. But on Monday of this very week,
SCOTUS answered that question with crystal clarity. Arkansas tried the
same thing as Texas (*) and SCOTUS shot them down without even bothering
to ask for briefs or hearing oral arguments (the case was that obvious).
And the Texas court went ahead with its ruling with the full knowledge
of what SCOTUS just did. Amazing!
(*) Arkansas refused to list a same-sex adoptive parent, while always
listing an opposite-sex adoptive parent, on a child's birth certificate.
The same sex birth parents argument is a slap in the face to reality...
same sex couples can't make a baby.
Nor can a sterile male/female couple. Your point is.......?
The birth parents are on a "Birth Certificate"
Not always. Arkansas has a few cases where the mother's husband is not
the father, but is nonetheless listed as the father on the birth
certificate. Arkansas does not permit the mother's wife to be so listed.
Neither should be listed, that should be the courts ruling.
Now that actually would be legislating from the bench. Given they can't
do that, they instead applied Equal Protection and required Arkansas to
treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples equally.
That would be making a legal decision on a legal document.... NOT
legislating. The legislation is saying that they produce a birth
certificate that has the parents names
No, the legislation does not do that.

Loading...