Are "Sanctuary Cities" Limited Where Humans Might Be Hurt?

[MindWars]

maybe they will see how stupid they are once thier kids are being raped, wives being raped, their kids come down with a disease that hasn't been seen here in decades. Yeah that might wake up their stupidity but doubtful.

One Major American City Just Gave An Official Middle Finger To Donald Trump

The resolution, which basically said that San Francisco will continue to be San Francisco, regardless of whatever bigoted actions or laws Trump passes, reaffirmed the City by the Bay’s commitment to remaining a Sanctuary City,

Hmmm OK... So a sanctuary city literally means a city where they refuse to abide by federal laws. Did I get that right? So, if say there was another federal law that say, hurts children by say, disenfranchising them via a contract from either a mother or father for life, a thing studies have shown is harmful to them: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY, then cities, counties or states even could refuse to harm children via contract.

Sounds fair. How many cities would like to be sanctuaries where marriage provides the original vital benefits to children...a remedy to single parenthood & their contact via contract with BOTH a mother and father?

Remember, divorce doesn't dissolve children's benefits of marriage. Only they continue while the rest of the contract is dissolved. This shows in expressed law who marriage is for.

Discuss

 

[MindWars]

Remember, divorce doesn't dissolve children's benefits of marriage. Only they continue while the rest of the contract is dissolved. This shows in expressed law who marriage is for.

Discuss

My discussion- another stupid Silhouette "hate the gays' thread.

The major reason why any children are raised without a parent in their lives is because one or both of their biological parents have 'abandoned' those children- usually by divorce, sometimes by their criminal actions which result in the parents imprisonment- and the children's abandonment.

Remember- preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children those children with gay parents.

We do not have the money in this Country to take on non American children.

If you had a choice to take your kids to lets say Disney, or pay higher taxes to take care of these kids born to NON American parents. Which would you choose.

Is it fair to those who have to wait years to come here and pay big money.
Is it fair to the American people who have to pay taxes in order for these kids to stay here just because they were born here.

The parents shouldn't have had ANCHOR babies to begin with.

I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth | TIME.com

 

[Syriusly]

Remember, divorce doesn't dissolve children's benefits of marriage. Only they continue while the rest of the contract is dissolved. This shows in expressed law who marriage is for.

Discuss

My discussion- another stupid Silhouette "hate the gays' thread.

The major reason why any children are raised without a parent in their lives is because one or both of their biological parents have 'abandoned' those children- usually by divorce, sometimes by their criminal actions which result in the parents imprisonment- and the children's abandonment.

Remember- preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children those children with gay parents.

We do not have the money in this Country to take on non American children.

Remember- preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children those children with gay parents

 

[Syriusly]

You can think whatever you want. Reality is against you.

Children have very few rights.

Children have most of the rights of adults- but none of us have the 'right' to be raised by our biological mother and father.

If that were such a 'right' the law would require parents to marry, and would never allow married parents to divorce.

 

[Syriusly]

Children have a right to support. There is no right of a child to contact with any parent. Those are parental rights.

If a child had a right to parental contact how is that right enforced when the parent does not want contact? Hint. It isn't.

So then children of wolf packs, .

"Children" of wolf packs are wolves- not humans. Otherwise children are just a tasty morsel for wolves.

Why do you keep talking about wolf packs?

 

[Silhouette]

Remember- preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children those children with gay parents

Remember, preventing wolves or polygamists or incest couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children raised by wolves, polygamists or incest parents. Odd anomalous parenting doesn't set the rule where the majority has no say on behalf of the main beneficiaries of marriage: children....and the situations it used to cure on their behalf..

Your logic as usual is a FAIL.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Remember, divorce doesn't dissolve children's benefits of marriage. Only they continue while the rest of the contract is dissolved. This shows in expressed law who marriage is for.

Discuss

My discussion- another stupid Silhouette "hate the gays' thread.

The major reason why any children are raised without a parent in their lives is because one or both of their biological parents have 'abandoned' those children- usually by divorce, sometimes by their criminal actions which result in the parents imprisonment- and the children's abandonment.

Remember- preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children those children with gay parents.

We do not have the money in this Country to take on non American children.

If you had a choice to take your kids to lets say Disney, or pay higher taxes to take care of these kids born to NON American parents. Which would you choose.

Is it fair to those who have to wait years to come here and pay big money.
Is it fair to the American people who have to pay taxes in order for these kids to stay here just because they were born here.

The parents shouldn't have had ANCHOR babies to begin with.

I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth
I Want an American Baby! Chinese Women Flock to the U.S. to Give Birth | TIME.com

That's different. That's birth tourism. These are middle class and wealthy Chinese women who get free medical care and an American citizen child who can return as an adult and claim benefits.

China likes American citizenship for its military.

 

[Silhouette]

The point is, when a city can decide to defy federal law, who gets to say what and when that can happen?

 

[Silhouette]

[Q WAY too much circumstantial evidence to support that marriage was invented for children,

You keep saying that.

Yet you are never able to provide any of that 'evidence'

Its almost like it is just made up by the voices in your head.

You're expecting people to believe it is fantasy that marriage was invented and maintained to provide a mother and father for children? I think it's you who have voices in your head.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q WAY too much circumstantial evidence to support that marriage was invented for children,

You keep saying that.

Yet you are never able to provide any of that 'evidence'

Its almost like it is just made up by the voices in your head.

You're expecting people to believe it is fantasy that marriage was invented and maintained to provide a mother and father for children? .

I don't expect anyone to believe anything you post.

I just enjoy pointing out that you are making up crap again- and of course never can support it with any evidence.

 

[Syriusly]

The point is, when a city can decide to defy federal law, who gets to say what and when that can happen?

Hell- that is the most intelligent post you have ever made.

The answer to that is if a city(or state actually) decides to defy federal law, the Federal government has lots of tools to enforce federal law.

Even though marijuana is now legal in Colorado, Federal agents could enforce federal drug laws in Colorado. The government could even go to court to try to overturn the State law- claiming it was in conflict with federal law.

 

[Syriusly]

Remember- preventing gay couples from marrying doesn't benefit a single child.

It only hurts children those children with gay parents

Remember, preventing wolves ..... marrying doesn't benefit a single child.
.

LOL- who is preventing wolves from marrying?

 

[Silhouette]

The point is, when a city can decide to defy federal law, who gets to say what and when that can happen?

Hell- that is the most intelligent post you have ever made.

The answer to that is if a city(or state actually) decides to defy federal law, the Federal government has lots of tools to enforce federal law.

Even though marijuana is now legal in Colorado, Federal agents could enforce federal drug laws in Colorado. The government could even go to court to try to overturn the State law- claiming it was in conflict with federal law.

I've made lots of intelligent posts. You were only capable of recognizing that one....hmmm...

Yes, even Obergefell could be brought to court if it was found to be violating federal child-protection laws...

We don't make contracts that served children open to revision onerous to them without them having representation at the Table. That's not how law works. Anyone caught forcing a child to have no chance of contact with either a mother or father for life, belongs prosecuted for child abuse. Single parents offer a chance. Gay marriage systematically removes that chance. Divorce of heteros preserves the contractual contact of children of both mother and father in their lives.

 

[Syriusly]

The point is, when a city can decide to defy federal law, who gets to say what and when that can happen?

Hell- that is the most intelligent post you have ever made.

The answer to that is if a city(or state actually) decides to defy federal law, the Federal government has lots of tools to enforce federal law.

Even though marijuana is now legal in Colorado, Federal agents could enforce federal drug laws in Colorado. The government could even go to court to try to overturn the State law- claiming it was in conflict with federal law.

I've made lots of intelligent posts. You were only capable of recognizing that one....hmmm...
.

Nope- pretty much this is the only one.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Yes, even Obergefell could be brought to court if it was found to be violating federal child-protection laws....

No- and here you just go back to stupid crap you pull out of your ass.

A Supreme Court decision is never 'brought back into court'.

Since Obergefell was a ruling on the Constitution- it cannot be overturned because it 'violates' a federal law(which of course it doesn't).

The Constitution is legally superior to any law- federal or state.

 

[Syriusly]

We don't make contracts that served children open to revision onerous to them without them having representation at the Table. That's not how law works. Anyone caught forcing a child to have no chance of contact with either a mother or father for life, belongs prosecuted for child abuse. Single parents offer a chance. Gay marriage systematically removes that chance. Divorce of heteros preserves the contractual contact of children of both mother and father in their lives.

Again just stupid crap you are pulling out of the ass.

We deprive children of their parents all the time, when we put those parents in jail- including for life.

While no law or contract ever forces any child of gay parents to not have contact with their biological mother or father- any more than a divorce does.

Divorce preserves nothing- it encourages at least one of the parents to have less- or no contact with his or her child.

Preventing gay parents from marrying does not help a single child.
But preventing them from marrying, does hurt their children.

Why do you want to hurt their children?

 

[Silhouette]

The only people hurting children are those people binding them to a legal contract for life that kills their chances of ever having contact with either a mother or father.

 

[Silhouette]

Since Obergefell was a ruling on the Constitution- it cannot be overturned because it 'violates' a federal law(which of course it doesn't).

The Constitution is legally superior to any law- federal or state.

Please cite in the US Constitution where aberrant sexual behaviors are a protected class? Or even where it insinuates that? Meanwhile, I'll cite case law that affirms that sexual behaviors ARE NOT Constitutionally-protected classes: Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).. Hively found that sexual behaviors aka" gay/homosexuals" are not covered nor even anticipated or implied to be covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The USSC's 5 Justices might as well have said that bulimics and their behaviors are a protected class under the Constitution...for all the potency that would hold. And as such, they can sue restaurants to allow them to have vomit urns on the table as part of their "eating orientation". Restaurants who fail to do so can be sued by bulimic-Americans for bigotry. Basing a class of people on aberrant behaviors really is a door once opened, cannot be closed..since all law really is, is a means for the majority in democracy to regulate human behavior's limitations. (race, gender and country of origin are not behaviors) Religion does involve behavior, but then again, it is specifically given its own Amendment and specified protections. There is not one whit of even a hint of implication about sexual (or eating, or...) behaviors in the US Constitution.

 

[mdk]

Hively v Ivy Tech (2016).. Hively found that sexual behaviors aka" gay/homosexuals" are not covered nor even anticipated or implied to be covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Yes, gays are not protect under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The ruling in no way states that protections for gays can't be enacted at the state or federal level. In fact, the ruling says gays should have some form of workplace protections in place, but their hands were tied unless the Congress or SCOTUS says otherwise.

I am glad to see trot out vomit urns again. Classic.

 

[Syriusly]

Since Obergefell was a ruling on the Constitution- it cannot be overturned because it 'violates' a federal law(which of course it doesn't).

The Constitution is legally superior to any law- federal or state.

Please cite in the US Constitution where aberrant sexual behaviors are a protected class? Or even where it insinuates that? .

Actually that is easy- since the Supreme Court has already said that the private sexual behaviors of Americans is protected by the Constitution.

Lawrence v. Texas.

Meanwhile- as I said

Since Obergefell was a ruling on the Constitution- it cannot be overturned because it 'violates' a federal law(which of course it doesn't).

The Constitution is legally superior to any law- federal or state.