A Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad"

[Silhouette]

This drum beat needs to be heard on behalf of the most meek voices in this debate: children. They cannot vote to affect their fate and they rely solely upon the citizens of their respective states to act as their custodians in this matter. If those voices are silenced, so are theirs.

California, the most permissive state in the Union with the longest opportunity to observe the LGBT culture (San Francisco, CA as ground-zero) and uber-aggressive-litigation-machine, voted to preserve the physical structure of marriage as man/woman TWICE. What this means is, the experimental-lifestyle-as-parents is repugnant to the most permissive state with the most experience with the brand spanking new lab experiment with children.

This is obvious upon it's face, but a child cannot call 2 women or 2 men "Mom and Dad". This thread in the link below goes into excruciating detail as to why states must be allowed to incentivize the best physical structure of marriage on behalf of children/future productive or nonproductive liabilities to that respective state. That state's discreet community MUST have a voice on behalf of its unprotected citizens: children...

Prince s Trust Survey The Voices of the Voteless Children in Gay Marriage Debate US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Silhouette]

Should a child have to solely rely on this Justice to protect his/her interests in this debate:

Or to call these two "Mom and Dad"?

Boy Drugged By Lesbian Parents To Be A Girl US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[J.E.D]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

 

[Silhouette]

Nebraska, California, Alabama, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. do not have to demolish their state's discreet interests on behalf of children/future citizens there at the tyrannical command of Justices publicly performing gay-weddings before the Hearing. Only states that have self-ratified gay marriage to subject their children as lab rats calling a man "mommy" or a woman "daddy" have actual, real, legal gay marriage. All the rest are illegal results of judicial artifice and tyranny.

 

[Syriusly]

This is obvious upon it's face, but a child cannot call 2 women or 2 men "Mom and Dad". This \

And the children who have 2 women or 2 men as parents- what purpose is served in preventing their parents from marrying?

 

[TheOldSchool]

38 down, 12 more to go.

 

[Syriusly]

Nebraska, California, Alabama, Oklahoma etc. etc. etc. do not have to demolish their state's discreet interests on behalf of children/future citizens there at the tyrannical command of Justices publicly performing gay-weddings before the Hearing. Only states that have self-ratified gay marriage to subject their children as lab rats calling a man "mommy" or a woman "daddy" have actual, real, legal gay marriage. All the rest are illegal results of judicial artifice and tyranny.

You are just a delusional homophobe.

 

[Silhouette]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion given that two Justices have performed gay marriages publicly before the Hearing on the merits. Breaking Justice Kagan Must Recuse Herself From Upcoming Gay Marriage Hearing Page 14 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Justices Indicate Shadow-Bias Gay Marriage Question Erodes Last Bastion of Impariality US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

While the Justices Kagan and Ginsburg exhibited their bias (fed presiding over state on the question of law) in states that had come to legal gay marriage by consensus of the governed, it sent a really bad public message and did indeed undermine the public's faith in Justice lack of bias greatly enough to warrant these two Justices to recuse themselves.

Here's the legal argument for that conclusion: 2009 Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.

Here (again) for the legal definition/winning premise on bias of a judicial officer (ANY judicial officer)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-22.pdf

(page 3 attorney Ted Olsen for petitioners) "

Olsen: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a fundamental constitutional right. That means not only the absence of actual bias, but a guarantee against even the probability of an unfair tribunal."

Scalia: "Who says? Have we ever held that?"

Olsen: "You have said that in the Murchison case and in a number of cases, Your Honor....the language of the Murchison case specifically says so. The Court said in that case: "A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. Fairness, of course, requires an absence of actual bias in the trial of cases, but our system of law has always endeavored to prevent even the probability of unfairness." ...(page 4 continues Olsen).."the Court has said that frequently, not only the probability of bias, the appearance of bias, the likelihood of bias, the inherent suspicion of bias. The Court has repeatedly said that in the context -- a series of contexts or cases...It's probable cause, Mr. Chief Justice (speaking to Roberts now). The Court frequently decides questions involving due process, equal protection, probable cause, speedy trial, on the basis not of mathematical certainty, but in this case where an objective observer (page 5 continuing) would come to the conclusion -- knowing all of the facts, would come to the conclusion that a judge or jurist would probably be biased against that individual or in favor of his opponent, that would be sufficient under the Due Process Clause, we submit.

Ginsburg: "Does it mean the same thing as likelihood of bias?"

Olsen: "The Court -- the Court, Justice Ginsburg, has used the changes interchangeably. We think the probably -- the "probable" standard is the one we would advance to this Court. But the -- but the seminal case, the Tumey case, said that even if there was a possibility -- any procedure where there would be a possible temptation for the judge not to hold the balance nice, clear, and true, would be the standard. But -- and the Aetna -- in the Aetna v. Lavoie case not very many years ago, the Court repeated that standard, and that standard has been repeated again and again

 

[1751_Texan]

You should have revolted and kept your sacred religious act of marriage out of the state's hands. By letting the state to control a religious act, that set up marriage to be a part of public life.

Next time keep your sacred acts and rituals sacred and keep them out of the pubic realm.

 

[Syriusly]

Should a child have to solely rely on this Justice to protect his/her interests in this debate:

And what of the interests of children whose parents are gay?

Justice Kennedy
"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children," he said. "There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

 

[Syriusly]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion given that

Given that the Supreme Court has allowed gay marriages to proceed in 38 states so far.

 

[kiwiman127]

Calling some parents as "mom and dad" can really be a stretch, no matter if they are straight or gay. Sexual orientation doesn't dictate who is a good parent or who is a bad parent.
When I watch the news and the subject matter is child abuse, I can't recall it ever being gay parents, it seems that it's been heterosexual parents or single parents.
Food for thought.

 

[Silhouette]

38 down, 12 more to go.

Not legally. Tyranny will be put back in its cage an democracy restored before the end of the year, or you should get used to photo ops of Justices Roberts and Thomas with shovels breaking ground for "the incremental shadowy denial of stays in various states on various sections of the Keystone pipeline" so they can later say "well the pipeline's almost complete in most states so we have to approve it now"..

 

[TheOldSchool]

38 down, 12 more to go.

Not legally. Tyranny will be put back in its cage an democracy restored before the end of the year, or you should get used to photo ops of Justices Roberts and Thomas with shovels breaking ground for "the incremental shadowy denial of stays in various states on various sections of the Keystone pipeline" so they can later say "well the pipeline's almost complete in most states so we have to approve it now"..

That's probably similar to what the bigots that came before you said during the civil rights movement.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

Dear J.E.D People's beliefs, including about gay marriage, should ALREADY be protected under free exercise of religion and not discriminating by creed. This reinforces a BAD precedent, that anytime anyone in any state can't resolve a conflict concerning their belief "they have to sue all the way to the Supreme Court" before their beliefs are recognized.

Are we going to have to run to federal govt for EACH issue of prayer, Crosses, terms of marriage, etc. every time this comes up? Surely the people of each state can work out their own issues, especially with beliefs that are supposed to remain free in private.

If people have issues with personal beliefs that involve govt, this should ESPECIALLY be addressed and resolved by consensus. So a solution coming from Texas that works for those people in that environment, may or may not work for another state. We should remain FREE to adopt and adapt solutions that work for us. NOT rely on federal govt to mandate decisions in conflicts of belief and faith-based interests.

If you were on the losing side, you would see this is unconstitutional to rule against your beliefs at stake.
So this is NOT protecting people's beliefs equally, but only the beliefs of the people who get the majority or the court ruling in their favor. This encourages bullying to overrule the beliefs of others = NOT a good precedent!

We should not abuse govt to reward bullying and exclusion of other people's beliefs.
We don't like when politics is abuse to harm us in this way, and the laws are supposed to guarantee EQUAL protection.

We should reward people for writing laws so articulately that they are neutral enough to represent ALL people equally
and not offend or exclude ANYONE's views. Otherwise, such issues should remain private and not be imposed in public, unless where all parties AGREE their beliefs are accounted for.

This bullying has to stop!

 

[emilynghiem]

38 down, 12 more to go.

Not legally. Tyranny will be put back in its cage an democracy restored before the end of the year, or you should get used to photo ops of Justices Roberts and Thomas with shovels breaking ground for "the incremental shadowy denial of stays in various states on various sections of the Keystone pipeline" so they can later say "well the pipeline's almost complete in most states so we have to approve it now"..

That's probably similar to what the bigots that came before you said during the civil rights movement.

That mentality certainly explains what happened with the Salem witch trials, where the pressure to keep persecuting and killing the accused was to further justify what was done to the others before.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sure they can. But even if choose to call them dad/dad or mom/mom, who cares?

Recognition of gay marriage is coming at a federal level; therefore, legal in all states. Get used to it.

I can see how you would arrive at that conclusion given that

Given that the Supreme Court has allowed gay marriages to proceed in 38 states so far.

And why should people's free exercise of religion and personal practice
RELY on the Supreme Court in Washington "giving permission"???

Do you see the problem here?

Do Atheists need permission? Or Christians?
So whenever an Atheist has a conflict with a Christian,
we need to run to Court -- wah wah wah -- and tell on each other
and get some third party to intervene because we can't resolve issues on our own?

Is THAT what America has come to now?

If there was a Reality Show with all this drama going on,
I don't think I could bear to watch this...

 

[Silhouette]

Do Atheists need permission? Or Christians?
So whenever an Atheist has a conflict with a Christian,
we need to run to Court -- wah wah wah -- and tell on each other
and get some third party to intervene because we can't resolve issues on our own?..

When children are involved yes, the Courts need to say who their custodians are, just 9 people in DC or the 10s of millions in their discreet communities/states..

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad"

And your point is?

 

[Silhouette]

A Child Can't Call 2 Women or 2 Men "Mom & Dad"

And your point is?

That the consideration of children in the gay marriage debate is being shunted at their expense..that they are the most oppressed voices in this debate because they of all the players cannot vote to affect their fate; and instead rely upon their states to determine their fate...not just 9 people in DC, 2 of which have officiated over gay weddings in the past two years while the question is yet to be Heard on its merits. So 2 of those Justices can be relied upon to not consider the opposing voices when the Hearing comes.