When it comes to talking about their families, I hope the LGBT community believes they don't have to live up to stereotypes to be successful before the USA Court system. I mean, what kind of abuse is the community receiving across the country?
NORMAL is not a real word. Sanity or insanity effects everyone regardless of their sexual identity. "Sex Addictions" occur everywhere and have nothing to do with the ability of a couple to love each other.
What the heck goes on because I don't recall any evidence of procreating LGBT couples being presented as a grossly inappropriate understanding of Prop 8 of the community. That would defeat Prop 8 from the moment it was written. It does defeat that discriminatory directive of the law.
The procreation issue is based on the idea a country has to have children to 'carry on' and even to staff the military. Well, hell, in talking to Rumsfeld and his Robo Forces that argument can be thrown out. So, it seems to me that when an argument of procreation manifests to victimize the LGBT community someone needs to rise to the occasion.
One of the very strong bias of the folks seeking power over others through Prop 8 and DOMA is that children are not suppose to be born out of wedlock, whether stated or not. Then they need to get out of the way and allow loving couples marry to conceive their families within wedlock. The country has imposed that lack of status of LGBT communities to conceive within wedlock, not the community.
What goes on that there exists such a misunderstanding of the community? How are the Justices suppose to speak to a minority status in the nation if they don't have the truth before them?
I would expect some of the best proof to the adverse outcomes of the LGBT community and their children are found in ugly custody battles. There are plenty of legal battles to refer to in a legal brief. I am sure there are progressive decisions as well as poor decisions that could be presented as proof of procreation of the LGBT community.
I suppose any Justice could do their own research and should, but, at the same instance they may not focus on this and that would be a debilitating gap in arguing the case.
NORMAL is not a real word. Sanity or insanity effects everyone regardless of their sexual identity. "Sex Addictions" occur everywhere and have nothing to do with the ability of a couple to love each other.
What the heck goes on because I don't recall any evidence of procreating LGBT couples being presented as a grossly inappropriate understanding of Prop 8 of the community. That would defeat Prop 8 from the moment it was written. It does defeat that discriminatory directive of the law.
The procreation issue is based on the idea a country has to have children to 'carry on' and even to staff the military. Well, hell, in talking to Rumsfeld and his Robo Forces that argument can be thrown out. So, it seems to me that when an argument of procreation manifests to victimize the LGBT community someone needs to rise to the occasion.
One of the very strong bias of the folks seeking power over others through Prop 8 and DOMA is that children are not suppose to be born out of wedlock, whether stated or not. Then they need to get out of the way and allow loving couples marry to conceive their families within wedlock. The country has imposed that lack of status of LGBT communities to conceive within wedlock, not the community.
What goes on that there exists such a misunderstanding of the community? How are the Justices suppose to speak to a minority status in the nation if they don't have the truth before them?
I would expect some of the best proof to the adverse outcomes of the LGBT community and their children are found in ugly custody battles. There are plenty of legal battles to refer to in a legal brief. I am sure there are progressive decisions as well as poor decisions that could be presented as proof of procreation of the LGBT community.
I suppose any Justice could do their own research and should, but, at the same instance they may not focus on this and that would be a debilitating gap in arguing the case.
