Tennessee Judge upholds gay marriage ban, breaks streak of recent pro-gay marriage rulings

a reply to: Aleister

He was young, maybe 7. I helped raise him.

I searched on line for a recommended book. It was a book about animals. One of the stories in the book was about procreation. It was simple, but factual.

He didn't think it was any big deal.

originally posted by: Soloprotocol
a reply to: CRUSTY37

My parents are straight and they taught me nothing about sex and reproduction....what is your point?

they didnt have to. Just by having a male and female present in the family structure is a huge benefit. Its called nature. Most things you learn you arent taught, you pick up on them just by being in the presents of something, especially as a child seeing the male and female roll in the family structure.

a reply to: CRUSTY37
A loving family is a loving family.

The kids don't care if their parents are same gender or not.

I have no use for adults who use children to justify their own ignorance and prejudice.

I should have specified, sorry. I meant, just by being in a family with a male and female roll you learn the natural interactions to the opposite sex. Not the act of having sex and reproduction. But i would think the question of how you were conceived wouldn't be an issue as it would be with 2 moms or dads. a reply to: MrSpad

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: CRUSTY37
A loving family is a loving family.

The kids don't care if their parents are same gender or not.

I have no use for adults who use children to justify their own ignorance and prejudice.

how do you know they dont care? What the heck? To justify theit ignorance and prejudice? Lost me there.

originally posted by: CRUSTY37
I should have specified, sorry. I meant, just by being in a family with a male and female roll you learn the natural interactions to the opposite sex. Not the act of having sex and reproduction. But i would think the question of how you were conceived wouldn't be an issue as it would be with 2 moms or dads. a reply to: MrSpad

The interactions in most homes are familiar and not where you would learn how to interact in a non familiar way with the opposite sex. That is learned outside the home. Just as gay people do no learn how to interact with same sex at home. Of course plenty of studies have been done on this and we know of course that children of straight and same sex couples develop the same. This of course is why that defense is never used in court as the courts wants facts not personal opinions. You are of course welcome to your own opinion, just as people believe the world is flat or that we did not to the moon despite all the facts the are presented with.

a reply to: CRUSTY37


It's also a huge benefit to have parents who have plenty of money for things like nice clothing, a decent home, college, etc. Not all kids have that. Do they get by anyway? Sure, plenty do just fine, especially when there is lots of love in the home. Should we have a law that doesn't allow people to have children unless they make a certain amount of money?

And what about single parents? Parents who are divorced, or one spouse has died, or one parent just couldn't hack the responsibility? Should we automatically take the children out of those homes because they don't have the benefit of both parents?

We can't all grow up in a "Leave it to Beaver" environment. The most important things are attention and love.

a reply to: Annee

The people voting get a choice. They get to choose what laws take place and weather or not the laws of that state are that of laws they would prefer to live under. It make things a lot easier if the Fed would allow states the power they deserve. Again, I love gay people but the choice should be available to anyone to change their states laws to fit their moral compass or leave.

Having read the articles and the postings the following can be stated:

The problem here is that most judges are under the sway of the population and the Tennessee court’s ruling puts the entire legal system at risk of collapse. It shows a fundamental problem in the court, where judges and justices are having to run for election, and thus can be put under political pressure for their action. The very decisions that they make, if they rule, based on a political stance, and not one based on sound judicial precedence, would be suspect. Consider this, if the judges in this case do not record or write down their very reason for the decision that they have made, or fail to justify it with precedent, then the ruling is invalid and the entire trial either has to be retried or it can now be over turned by a higher court on the basis that the lower court was in error and failed in its job.

A judge cannot simply just rule, and say this is the verdict, he has to justify said ruling and write it down, including any and all references to such in his verdict and opinion. He cannot simply state this is how it is and that is that, as then it opens the door to judicial misconduct on the part of the judges. It also means that a judge can be bought and is no better than a politician.

For those that think that this decision by this judge, is a good one, fail to see that with one ruling and his decision, just invalidated the marriage of more than just homosexuals, but all of those people who are sterile, or who are past child bearing years. It invalidates all those marriages where people do not want children or cannot have children. If that ruling stands, based on the decision of that judge, then it could and will be used as a reason for a whole sling of other rulings and court cases, including the government intrusion into medical and private issues. And it will challenge federal law and the constitution itself.
Marriage is a contract, and as with all contracts, they are, under the Constitution allowed and supposed to be valid in all 50 states. Should this decision uphold, in short those in the state of Tennessee, will now, using this decision, be able to justify the refusal to honor any contracts that originate outside of that state, and vice versa. It can also turn around and then justify the State’s ability to control reproductive issues in both men and women.

Think about it, under this Judge’s decision, the point of marriage is to procreate, and now the state can come in and ban if not criminalize all things that prevent such, from condoms to vasectomy’s to abortions and use this as justification for their decision. That is if it withstands the decision of a higher court ruling.

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: Annee

The people voting get a choice. They get to choose what laws take place and weather or not the laws of that state are that of laws they would prefer to live under. It make things a lot easier if the Fed would allow states the power they deserve. Again, I love gay people but the choice should be available to anyone to change their states laws to fit their moral compass or leave.

And the Constitutional judges are saying you can't vote on Equal Civil Rights.

Are you going to give me: "Gays have the choice to marry someone of opposite sex"?

Denying Equal Civil Rights because of "moral compass" is garbage.

a reply to: Antipathy17
You state that the public should be allowed to vote their moral compass, and those who do not like it can leave? What if that moral compass is say for more of a set of laws that follow say Sharia? Would that set well in the USA? Or how about if it was more along the lines of say a socialist or a communist ideology? What if the KKK were able to get people into office to see their agenda;s passed, all on the argument of it is their moral compass. What happens then?

While yes the public needs to have a say in the political system, at the same time the politicians need to speak with one voice to represent all of the people in their districts, even if those people did not vote for them. Far too often, those who win elections speak for the majority and leave those who oppose out in the cold without so much as a a thought about them.

The reality is that the Judges should not be elected but appointed by the different state, separate from all political attachments. That way they can be fair and impartial, without fear of reprisals. There have been tales of judges who would have voted one way, but for fear of losing their jobs, voted the exact opposite, making the entire system suspect.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Hey! There you go --- a "judge pool". Brilliant idea.

Have all (at least high level judges) register at one place, then hire them out where needed.