Poor Jane. Thinking what the legislature "could" do is actually more important than what they actually do. And what did the legislature actually do? They ignored all of Jane's "coulds".........
SCOTUS "could" rule like Jane wants them to, but they aren't stupid. They are REAL lawyers.
Vermont "could" have kept CUs but they actually granted marriage to gays. Jane still hasn't gotten over that insult. I wonder what will happen to the three clients he told to get a CU? They "could" sue him, but none of it really happened anyway. A fake lawyer also has fake clients. I guess he forgets about when he bragged about having a "ton" of billable hours. As if....
Way to seize on one word and make it into NONSENSE..
anyone is free to read and see what a liar Mona is...
"First, the Legislature could rationally
decide that, for the welfare of children, it
is more important to promote stability, and
to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in
same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to
the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of
science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a
sexual relationship between a man and a
woman, and the Legislature could find that
this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships
are all too often casual or temporary. It
could find that an important function of
marriage is to create more stability and
permanence in the relationships that cause
children to be born. It thus could choose
to offer an inducement—in the form of
marriage and its attendant benefits—to
opposite-sex couples who make a solemn,
long-term commitment to each other.
The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with
comparable force to same-sex couples.
These couples can become parents by
adoption, or by artificial insemination or
other technological marvels, but they do
not become parents as a result of accident
or impulse. The Legislature could find
that unstable relationships between people
of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow
up in unstable homes than is the case with
same-sex couples, and thus that promoting
stability in opposite-sex relationships will
help children more. This is one reason
why the Legislature could rationally offer
the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex
There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children
to grow up with both a mother and a
father. Intuition and experience suggest
that a child benefits from having before his
or her eyes, every day, living models of
what both a man and a woman are like. It
is obvious that there are exceptions to this
general rule—some children who never
know their fathers, or their S360mothers, do
far better than some who grow up with
parents of both sexes—but the Legislature
could find that the general rule will usually
the court was merely saying that the legislature has a rational basis, the rest is stupid word games that Mona uses to pretend he is smart and try to bully people...
and then comes the attempts to bully...
in the end even gay lawyers agree with me...
"E.J. Graff, writing in the gay and lesbian news magazine The Advocate, summed it up this way in September: "If the court does take up Perry, be afraid, be very afraid." She continues:
Almost no one believes the Supreme Court is ready to get out ahead of American opinion on the question at Perry's heart: Do same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the U.S. Constitution? Maybe the Supremes would be ready to say this in 10 years, after LGBT forces have repealed most of the state [bans], replacing them with marriage equality in all but a handful of Southern states. But not yet."
As usual MONA IS A FRAUD.
and boring too...